How much longer will social distancing go on for in the UK?

[Richard Scott]

As it is based on SAGE modelling, it has about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

I'm afraid the chocolate teapot is vastly more useful, at least I can east that.
So goalposts moving again and more paranoia from the Government. What is it with this virus that's got them so paranoid? Good job Smallpox didn't come around later they really wouldn't have coped with that. I really do think the politicians of this country can't have a brain cell between them.

 

[yorksrob]

Well, the vaccine is the last chance saloon. There wasn't even an expectation that there would be a vaccine at all. What was the endgame then ?

What will be their endgame at the end of the year when the vaccines are still the same level of efficacy ?

 

[Class 33]

Social distancing till the end of the year??!! They can bog off. Absolutely no reason to keep it going till anywhere near the end of the year now, after all these millions of vaccines are continuing. If social distancing is still going by the end of the year, they'll then say "We've got January and February coming up, which is allways a lot of pressure for the NHS. So therefore we must still continue with social distancing."!!! Absolutely no way. The sooner social distancing is finally scrapped the better. Furlough scheme is due(well currently anyway, unless it's extended yet again) to end at the end of April. So let social distancing end on that day too. We really will not need it past that date.

 

[DB]

Well, the vaccine is the last chance saloon. There wasn't even an expectation that there would be a vaccine at all. What was the endgame then ?

What will be their endgame at the end of the year when the vaccines are still the same level of efficacy ?

We aren't supposed to ask questions like that...

 

[brad465]

I would love to know the meaning of "huge surge in deaths".



The ruling class and their preferred voter demographic would not suffer significant reductions in their standard of living in this was maintained indefinitely.

The people who would suffer don't tend to feature heavily in public policy making at the best of times.

While there will be people in their voter demographic not suffering from that, there are people in the Conservative base livid with all the restrictions, and of course the CRG in their own party as well oppose them, so at the very least attempting to follow this SAGE report's recommendations will involve very vocal resistance in the public eye.

 

[Yew]

We seem to be forgetting that a vaccine for a respiratory virus with 80-90% efficacy is the exception, not the norm. The flu vaccine only usually has around 40-60% efficacy.


0.85*0.9 = 0.765
1-0.7525 = 0.235

Thus 23.5% of people could still die from it. That's where the numbers come from, but the theory is far from correct.

Coupling that with the IFR, and suddenly you have a minuscule number, well within the range of normal flu.

 

[XAM2175]

Do I detect another government leak i.e. lets put the proposal out there and see what the reaction is?

At the very least it's a newspaper coming across a less-than-best-case study and saying "ooh yes we can get a lot of lips flapping with this!"

Sensationally-pessimistic headlines like this sells papers and win clicks that lead to website views that let the media mobs sell advertising space.

 

[Freightmaster]

I'd say that's a very optimistic view of things. It wouldn't surprise me if the Rule of Six remains permanently, although personally I think a permanent ban on socialising is also quite likely.

Did anyone else read that in the voice of this eternally 'glass half empty' guy...?

(picture is Marvin the Paranoid Android)

 

[L401CJF]

My Auntie works in an 800 bed hospital, she said in the last week or so there have been 100 of them filled with covid patients. She also says since day 1 there has been no panic there, no rush, no shortage of beds, and there still isn't. She said of those 100 of so a couple have died, all either very old, have serious health issues, or are very obese - mostly the kind of people where a lot of other illnesses or infections could have killed them.

My mum had a minor blackout and fall a few weeks back, went to A and E at the same hospital, was seen very swiftly and even offered a bed-also swiftly- on a ward for her very minor accident. She was offered a night stay to have an eye kept on her but declined and went home.

Also for the record my auntie - an NHS worker- has said she doesn't understand why everybody is clapping for the NHS and hailing them as heros, as "its their bloody job!"

 

[Bertie the bus]

It is basically this article: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/01/30/exclusive-social-distancing-may-have-remain-place-year/

All based on SAGE modelling, so make of it what you will.

Even by their usual standard those graphs are utter garbage. Last year after a 7 week lockdown which ended mid-May the daily deaths in July were in double digits but this year after a 5 month lockdown ending at the end of May and with the vast majority of the vulnerable vaccinated they will reach 1,000 per day in July?

The people who create those charts make some of the rail enthusiast crayonistas look like they live in the real world.

 

[317 forever]

Also at the press conference yesterday, Whitty said there will be a lot more deaths over next few weeks. And Sky News put "Professor warns there will be a lot more deaths over the next few weeks" as Breaking News on their website. With 1,631 deaths yesterday it's plainly obvious there will be a lot more deaths over the next few weeks! Deaths aren't going to suddenly vanish! So why they bothered mentioning that as news I don't know. But the growth in daily deaths has slowed down over the past couple of weeks. Yesterday the 7 day rolling average was only 5.1% higher than this time last week. It's looking likely that within the next 7 days the daily deaths will finally start heading south. And when it does, it will continue in that direction. It won't be heading up north again!

The 7-day rolling average number of deaths has recently started to fall, as has the numbers of people in hospital with Covid. Even better news is that the 7-day rolling average number of positive cases has more than halved, from a peak around 60,00 to under 26,000.

 

[6862]

I think the restrictions are ridiculous, but this sort of hysterical comment doesn't really do anyone any good - they simply can't do this. There is no magic money tree, and it's simply not affordable to carry on with this much longer. It will also be impossible to justify once numbers really start to fall (as they are, and will do a lot more).

Did anyone else read that in the voice of this eternally 'glass half full' guy...?


(picture is Marvin the Paranoid Android)

Responses like this ignore the fact that all the government needs to do to make these restrictions permanent is to maintain the status quo. They wouldn't need to introduce any new legislation, simply extend their emergency powers repeatedly, allowing them an easy passage for all their restrictions through parliament. At the current rate of progress (about 16 MPs voted against the latest lockdown I think), sufficient support for ending restrictions will take several years to build up.

 

[Bantamzen]

I'd say that's a very optimistic view of things. It wouldn't surprise me if the Rule of Six remains permanently, although personally I think a permanent ban on socialising is also quite likely.

Do you really believe that people would accept that? In fact do you believe that humanity would be viable with no socialising? You did get the birds & bees conversation when you were growing up yes? Because no socialising means no partners meeting each other, which means no babies, which means humanity's end within 100 years....

 

[6862]

Do you really believe that people would accept that? In fact do you believe that humanity would be viable with no socialising? You did get the birds & bees conversation when you were growing up yes? Because no socialising means no partners meeting each other, which means no babies, which means humanity's end within 100 years....

I don't think people would accept it. But for the majority of people who are by habit law abiding citizens (myself included), it will be difficult to have the guts to break the law to do the things we should be allowed to do as basic human rights.

To be clear, I hate the rules and want them to end ASAP! I just don't think they're going to!

EDIT: I also suspect the government are quite aware that people are increasingly ignoring the rules, and they will just seek to offset this by increasing fines (see the new £800 party fines).

 

[DustyBin]

Responses like this ignore the fact that all the government needs to do to make these restrictions permanent is to maintain the status quo. They wouldn't need to introduce any new legislation, simply extend their emergency powers repeatedly, allowing them an easy passage for all their restrictions through parliament. At the current rate of progress (about 16 MPs voted against the latest lockdown I think), sufficient support for ending restrictions will take several years to build up.

But you’re ignoring things like the economic implications.

For the record, whilst I see your scenario as beyond the feasible worst case, I am getting a little jittery myself. It’s difficult to know whether the media are reporting leaked information or are simply scare mongering at times, I’m hoping all of this talk about restrictions lasting all year are the latter. I’m watching the industry in which I work being destroyed in front of me, it’s worrying to say the least....

 

[Bantamzen]

I don't think people would accept it. But for the majority of people who are by habit law abiding citizens (myself included), it will be difficult to have the guts to break the law to do the things we should be allowed to do as basic human rights.

To be clear, I hate the rules and want them to end ASAP! I just don't think they're going to!

I ask again, do you really believe that the anti-socialising rules will last forever or will people eventually say 'no' to them? Ultimately silly laws like "rule of six" and no socialising are not only impracticable in society, they are actually damaging. If socialising were to be permanently banned, I would put ever last pound I have on there serious civil unrest within days of such a decree.

 

[Class 33]

We were promised by a number of government ministers that "These vaccines are our way out of all these restrictions.". Over 8 milion people have now been vaccinated. By July probably over 50 million people would have been vaccinated. If we get to July and both social distancing and face mask wearing is still dragging on with no end in sight, it will be absolutely beyond insanity. No more codswallop as to why they need to continue. They both need to be finally gone for good by then, for the sake of the economy and people of this country.

Another reason I want this social distancing to hurry up and end, is because I want to get working again. It is currently near impossible to get a job, because social distancing guidelines means offices can accommodate only a fraction of their normal capacity, and hence there are hardly any job vacancies being listed! I've been unemployed a year now, and I certainly don't want to end up being unemployed another year. I want to get working again ASAP. Many others in my situation will be feeling just the same. Social distancing MUST end fairly soon now.

 

[westv]

Another reason I want this social distancing to hurry up and end, is because I want to get working again. It is currently near impossible to get a job, because social distancing guidelines means offices can accommodate only a fraction of their normal capacity, and hence there are hardly any job vacancies being listed! I've been unemployed a year now, and I certainly don't want to end up being unemployed another year. I want to get working again ASAP. Many others in my situation will be feeling just the same. Social distancing MUST end fairly soon now.

I got a new job last year and I was interviewed remotely.

 

[XAM2175]

I don't think people would accept it. But for the majority of people who are by habit law abiding citizens (myself included), it will be difficult to have the guts to break the law to do the things we should be allowed to do as basic human rights.

To be clear, I hate the rules and want them to end ASAP! I just don't think they're going to!

I'm going to be more direct: what purpose is served by the Government following the path you suggest?

 

[duncanp]

I ask again, do you really believe that the anti-socialising rules will last forever or will people eventually say 'no' to them? Ultimately silly laws like "rule of six" and no socialising are not only impracticable in society, they are actually damaging. If socialising were to be permanently banned, I would put ever last pound I have on there serious civil unrest within days of such a decree.

One comparison we have in history is the prohibition era in the United States.

There were more illegal drinking dens in Chicago in the 1920s than there were legal bars beforehand.

One factor which led to the repeal of prohibition in the United States was the great depression of 1929, when local and national governments badly needed the revenue that alcohol sales generated.

If the government attempted to "ban" socialising, it would just go underground and people would just meet anyway, as I am sure many people are doing today.

There is almost certainly gonig to be a recession in the UK as a consequence of all these measures, and like in the US during the prohibition era, the government is going to need the revenue that is generated by people socialising to help promote economic recovery.

And that it without considering the Human Rights Act, which confers a "right to family life".

How long is it going to be before someone challenges the restrictions on household mixing in the courts? (I hope this happens sooner rather than later)

So I think a permanent ban on socialising is just unworkable, and would certainly lead to civil disobedience if not civil unrest.

 

[6862]

I ask again, do you really believe that the anti-socialising rules will last forever or will people eventually say 'no' to them? Ultimately silly laws like "rule of six" and no socialising are not only impracticable in society, they are actually damaging. If socialising were to be permanently banned, I would put ever last pound I have on there serious civil unrest within days of such a decree.

I don't think the government will ever come out and say 'no more socialising for ever'. I think that would, as you say, lead to a massive backlash. However, I think instead we will see a repeated extension of the powers, which will have the same effect as a permanent ban. Over time, I think some proportion of the population will ignore the rules. But the majority have been so terrified into submission for the past year or so, that the number breaking the rules will likely not be a majority for a very long time, if ever.

Sadly, I think that to expect that society will go back to pre-March 2020 normal (i.e. seeing friends and family, making new friendships/relationships, doing the leisure activities we used to do, going on holiday, not living in a constant state of fear), is unrealistic. I say this because we are in the midst of the most extensive period of social engineering in human history, with the end goal being something which we cannot ever do, to avoid death by a viral disease at all costs. We massively underestimate the damage that the past year has done if we think that we will ever go back to living how we did before March 2020.

I'm going to be more direct: what purpose is served by the Government following the path you suggest?

I don't think there is any gain for them. But they have made a permanent, damaging, change to society which I don't think they will be able to undo. To repeal all these laws would be to admit that they were either a failure, or unnecessary, next time there is an outbreak of a respiratory virus (or if Covid makes a comeback).

 

[nlogax]

Sadly, I think that to expect that society will go back to pre-March 2020 normal (i.e. seeing friends and family, making new friendships/relationships, doing the leisure activities we used to do, going on holiday, not living in a constant state of fear), is unrealistic. I say this because we are in the midst of the most extensive period of social engineering in human history, with the end goal being something which we cannot ever do, to avoid death by a viral disease at all costs. We massively underestimate the damage that the past year has done if we think that we will ever go back to living how we did before March 2020.

Try as I might, I can't ever bring myself to be this pessimistic. We are very obviously on the way to a high degree of normality in coming months.

 

[Bantamzen]

I don't think the government will ever come out and say 'no more socialising for ever'. I think that would, as you say, lead to a massive backlash. However, I think instead we will see a repeated extension of the powers, which will have the same effect as a permanent ban. Over time, I think some proportion of the population will ignore the rules. But the majority have been so terrified into submission for the past year or so, that the number breaking the rules will likely not be a majority for a very long time, if ever.

Sadly, I think that to expect that society will go back to pre-March 2020 normal (i.e. seeing friends and family, making new friendships/relationships, doing the leisure activities we used to do, going on holiday, not living in a constant state of fear), is unrealistic. I say this because we are in the midst of the most extensive period of social engineering in human history, with the end goal being something which we cannot ever do, to avoid death by a viral disease at all costs. We massively underestimate the damage that the past year has done if we think that we will ever go back to living how we did before March 2020.

So you actually believe we will never be allowed to socialise, or even see family? I don't agree because, and I say this frankly, I will be one of millions who will ultimately take to the streets to wrestle back our freedoms. And heaven help the politician or expert that stands in my way.

 

[HSTEd]

So you actually believe we will never be allowed to socialise, or even see family? I don't agree because, and I say this frankly, I will be one of millions who will ultimately take to the streets to wrestle back our freedoms. And heaven help the politician or expert that stands in my way.

They will never announce "no more socialising ever".

The timeframe "to normality" will just keep getting longer and longer and longer until our society rebuilds itself into one where in-person socialisation simply doesn't happen commonly.
Whitty and Valance have already let slip they want "restrictions" (code for lockdowns) next winter to, and probably for every winter from now on.

 

[Luke McDonnell]

I don't think the government will ever come out and say 'no more socialising for ever'. I think that would, as you say, lead to a massive backlash. However, I think instead we will see a repeated extension of the powers, which will have the same effect as a permanent ban. Over time, I think some proportion of the population will ignore the rules. But the majority have been so terrified into submission for the past year or so, that the number breaking the rules will likely not be a majority for a very long time, if ever.

Sadly, I think that to expect that society will go back to pre-March 2020 normal (i.e. seeing friends and family, making new friendships/relationships, doing the leisure activities we used to do, going on holiday, not living in a constant state of fear), is unrealistic. I say this because we are in the midst of the most extensive period of social engineering in human history, with the end goal being something which we cannot ever do, to avoid death by a viral disease at all costs. We massively underestimate the damage that the past year has done if we think that we will ever go back to living how we did before March 2020.



I don't think there is any gain for them. But they have made a permanent, damaging, change to society which I don't think they will be able to undo. To repeal all these laws would be to admit that they were either a failure, or unnecessary, next time there is an outbreak of a respiratory virus (or if Covid makes a comeback).

Can't see permeant restrictions as being in any way viable or acceptable. Remember the activities that have been restricted are natural to us as a species humans are naturally a social species and by definition the restrictions we have been under are unnatural. You seem to be suggesting that we are heading towards a dystopian future. I have been sensible and I have accepted the reason for the restrictions for temporary period to control a virus which is both more contagious and lethal than flu. But as far as I am concerned once I am vaccinated and by friends and family are vaccinated that is a red line for me as far as any restrictions on our ability to meet in any setting (indoors/outdoors) especially considering it is likely be then that a majority of the UK population has been vaccinated. This is because currently the restrictions are in place largely to prevent us from infecting and passing the virus on to other persons (not because I may get sick) which I understand. And up until now the persons that could be infected have no choice because we had no vaccines. But IMO once me and my friends and family have been immunised (which I fully expect to happen) - and the majority of the dynamic and the rationale for restrictions changes. If we have restrictions in place because I may be theoretically at risk of transmitting the virus to an unvaccinated person (especially someone who has voluntarily refused it) that is a red line to me. And I cannot see other vaccinated people accepting it too. I accept that there may be a small proportion of the population that cannot have the vaccine through contraindications (e.g. allergies) but as a lot of the population would have been vaccinated the chance of them being exposed to a significant viral load should be substantially reduced. That is why it was concerning to here reports that SAGE have set a particularly high bar for the efficacy of vaccination for restrictions to be removed even though that we now have vaccines that by the standards of most vaccines are very very good. The latest thing I heard on the radio new that Government cannot rule out that SAGE scenario of some restrictions lasting into 2022 which is concerning.

Also just asking what you think of an encounter I had with a guy on another form. Basically, he seemed to be firmly in the pro-restriction camp and I am in the sensible camp myself I accept the need for and I am generally good at following them while necessary (subject to the above) but he seemed to criticize me for even daring to compare Covid deaths to road traffic accident fatalities. I was basically trying to explain to him that for people under 40 you have more chance of dying in a road traffic accident than from or with Covid. But he basically said their was NO COMPARISON as RTA fatalities/injuries where NOT CONTAGIOUS - he was basically refusing to converse with me if I made any comparison with traffic fatalities or even flu after we vaccinate the vulnerable and get deaths down to flue like levels - making out that I was like some sort of Covid denier - he said we will need some restrictions in place for some time possibly throughout the entire summer as even when the most vulnerable are vaccinated this virus is a risk to the younger working age population and the number of younger people in ICU is increasing - what do you thing of that attitude?

 

[bramling]

I ask again, do you really believe that the anti-socialising rules will last forever or will people eventually say 'no' to them? Ultimately silly laws like "rule of six" and no socialising are not only impracticable in society, they are actually damaging. If socialising were to be permanently banned, I would put ever last pound I have on there serious civil unrest within days of such a decree.

I don’t think they will last forever, however I think there is going to be a core of people who push for that sort of thing, and who are going to need to be forced back in their box. They’re not going to retreat there voluntarily.

 

[yorksrob]

They will never announce "no more socialising ever".

The timeframe "to normality" will just keep getting longer and longer and longer until our society rebuilds itself into one where in-person socialisation simply doesn't happen commonly.
Whitty and Valance have already let slip they want "restrictions" (code for lockdowns) next winter to, and probably for every winter from now on.

Question is, will anyone be listening to them by then ?

 

[Class 33]

Certainly by the end of April now, the stats for the hospital numbers should be incredibly low. By then there will be no further valid reasons as to why this dreaded social distancing still has to continue on. If Downing Street News Conferences are still going then, the likes of Whitty and Vallance won't be able to stand there with their charts and graphs showing an upward trend in infections/hospital numbers/deaths and saying "Things are very much going in the wrong direction." and "Things are at a critical point right now. So we need to make sure we keep to these restrictions for a long time yet.".

Certainly by the time we go into the summer, It'll be ridiculous beyond belief if by then we've still got social distancing, all these silly black and yellow(or whatever colour) hazzard tapes in shops, on buses/trains/coaches, etc, limits on numbers in shops, silly one way systems, etc. By then all this nonsense really should be scrapped for good, so we can start repairing all the huge damage this has done to the economy and many people's mental health. There really is a hell of a lot more implications to social distancing than just making sure we're 2 metres away from passing people in the street or in queues or whatever. Some people seem to think that's all there is to it! It is HUGELY damaging to many many businesses and millions of people in this country. It needs to finally go sooner rather than later now.

 

[102 fan]

Also just asking what you think of an encounter I had with a guy on another form. Basically, he seemed to be firmly in the pro-restriction camp and I am in the sensible camp myself I accept the need for and I am generally good at following them while necessary (subject to the above) but he seemed to criticize me for even daring to compare Covid deaths to road traffic accident fatalities. I was basically trying to explain to him that for people under 40 you have more chance of dying in a road traffic accident than from or with Covid. But he basically said their was NO COMPARISON as RTA fatalities/injuries where NOT CONTAGIOUS - he was basically refusing to converse with me if I made any comparison with traffic fatalities or even flu after we vaccinate the vulnerable and get deaths down to flue like levels - making out that I was like some sort of Covid denier - he said we will need some restrictions in place for some time possibly throughout the entire summer as even when the most vulnerable are vaccinated this virus is a risk to the younger working age population and the number of younger people in ICU is increasing - what do you thing of that attitude?

I find that attitude mostly from teachers, public sector employees and those on Furlough who haven't realised they're unemployed in all but name.

 

[Yew]

The timeframe "to normality" will just keep getting longer and longer and longer until our society rebuilds itself into one where in-person socialisation simply doesn't happen commonly.

That sounds familiar; significant normality by November, anyone?