Omicron variant and the measures implemented in response to it

[birchesgreen]

Just had a text come through on my phone…shocking really how the government can just click their fingers and make the mobile network operators bend over backwards for them

NHSbooster
GET BOOSTED NOW
Every adult needs a COVID-19 booster vaccine to protect against Omicron.
Get your COVID-19 vaccine or booster. See NHS website for details

Not really shocking, just an incredibly useful facility in the event of a genuine national emergency. Though i'm not including this booster text in that.

 

[asw22]

If we have to keep getting "boosted" every 6 months or so, we have to question whether the NHS has the capacity to do this, as well as providing all the other routine treatments it is supposed to provide.

The answer is no, so NHS capacity will either have to be increased (eg. by pharmacies doing vaccinations - as happens with flu) or there will have to be permanent reductions in the range of treatments provided by the NHS, as well as increases in waiting times.

This is happening already, of course, but it is one thing if these changes are temporary and quite another thing if they are permanent.

They are saying that immunity apparently begins to wane after 10 weeks which could mean as many as 5 per year.
I don't think the NHS would be able to cope with this though but may be pressured into it.

 

[3rd rail land]

Not really shocking, just an incredibly useful facility in the event of a genuine national emergency. Though i'm not including this booster text in that.

What would be a good use of this facility is to send out a message to everyone in the respective nations advising residents what the ever changing restrictions in force are. It changes so frequently nowadays I can't keep up. For example I didn't realise it was a legal requirement to wear a face covering in churches in England and thought the church in question was simply requesting people wear one at all times. I did put one on when this was pointed out to me.

They are saying that immunity apparently begins to wane after 10 weeks which could mean as many as 5 per year.
I don't think the NHS would be able to cope with this though but may be pressured into it.

The NHS can do what they like, providing it doesn't impact people with other illnesses, but I won't be getting any more vaccines than is absolutely necessary. At the moment I consider 2 to be as many as is needed. I am double vaccinated and have no plans to get any more jabs anytime soon.

 

[westv]

Not really shocking, just an incredibly useful facility in the event of a genuine national emergency. Though i'm not including this booster text in that.

Let's hope they never make the same mistake with warnings as they did in Hawaii a few years ago!!

 

[brad465]

If we have to keep getting "boosted" every 6 months or so, we have to question whether the NHS has the capacity to do this, as well as providing all the other routine treatments it is supposed to provide.

The answer is no, so NHS capacity will either have to be increased (eg. by pharmacies doing vaccinations - as happens with flu) or there will have to be permanent reductions in the range of treatments provided by the NHS, as well as increases in waiting times.

This is happening already, of course, but it is one thing if these changes are temporary and quite another thing if they are permanent.

Yes when trying to argue with those favouring mandatory vaccines/segregating unvaccinated in society, while the liberty arguments are true, it's matters like NHS capacity issues for regular boosters that are more logical and more likely to get somewhere. I do also think that as covid gets milder, there will be cohorts who experience side effects to boosters more/as serious as actual covid, so we really have to question the benefits to them for anyone who isn't vulnerable to covid.

 

[dave87016]

If we require 5-6 boosters a year and there is no way the NHS can cope with that demand and fulfil it then I can see the goverment just coming out with the same spiel “ the NHS is at breaking point and cannot cope “ so we need to take steps and impose restrictions to prevent them getting overwhelmed , if people need 5-6 boosters a year I cannot see many routine appointments or surgical appointments being done and fulfilled

 

[bramling]

If we have to keep getting "boosted" every 6 months or so, we have to question whether the NHS has the capacity to do this, as well as providing all the other routine treatments it is supposed to provide.

The answer is no, so NHS capacity will either have to be increased (eg. by pharmacies doing vaccinations - as happens with flu) or there will have to be permanent reductions in the range of treatments provided by the NHS, as well as increases in waiting times.

This is happening already, of course, but it is one thing if these changes are temporary and quite another thing if they are permanent.

Yes there needs to be some serious questions asked as to whether the value of boosters outweighs the diversion of NHS resources away from other activities. And likewise whether - two years in - it would have been feasible to create vaccination capacity without affecting other activities. Given vaccines have been consistently touted as the exit strategy from all this, I’d say this situation was entirely foreseeable without needing Mystic Meg levels of foresight.

Exactly the sort of questions one would expect the media to be asking, but instead they’re too busy whipping up fear.

 

[takno]

Not really shocking, just an incredibly useful facility in the event of a genuine national emergency. Though i'm not including this booster text in that.

They aren't using the emergency broadcast system (quite sensibly, since the unstoppable notification sounds on that system would be incredibly inappropriate for anything that wasn't time critical).

The problem is that they've invented a new thing unrelated to the emergency broadcast system where the mobile networks have to give them a massive irritating advert for free which serves no clear national purpose at all. They've also insisted on sending it out in the middle of a holiday. I suspect there's a few dozen very irritated operators been dragged back into work to get this number of SMSes out through a system that fundamentally isn't designed for it.

 

[bramling]

They aren't using the emergency broadcast system (quite sensibly, since the unstoppable notification sounds on that system would be incredibly inappropriate for anything that wasn't time critical).

The problem is that they've invented a new thing unrelated to the emergency broadcast system where the mobile networks have to give them a massive irritating advert for free which serves no clear national purpose at all. They've also insisted on sending it out in the middle of a holiday. I suspect there's a few dozen very irritated operators been dragged back into work to get this number of SMSes out through a system that fundamentally isn't designed for it.

I see the traffic information signs round here are now displaying something along the lines of “GET YOUR BOOSTER - AVOID RESTRICTIONS”.

One wonders if the purpose of such signs was always simply to act as a meant of propagating propaganda, since they’ve been around for a few years now and I’ve *never* seen them display any useful traffic information, the most we ever get is “Gritting from 7pm”. The self-same signs have had various Covid messages - last December it was something like “OBEY THE RULES OR MOVE TO HIGHER TIER”, and of course last Spring it was “STAY AT HOME - PROTECT NHS”.

It seems we must be constantly reminded, even now on our own personal mobile phones.

 

[Berliner]

I see the traffic information signs round here are now displaying something along the lines of “GET YOUR BOOSTER - AVOID RESTRICTIONS”.

One wonders if the purpose of such signs was always simply to act as a meant of propagating propaganda, since they’ve been around for a few years now and I’ve *never* seen them display any useful traffic information, the most we ever get is “Gritting from 7pm”. The self-same signs have had various Covid messages - last December it was something like “OBEY THE RULES OR MOVE TO HIGHER TIER”, and of course last Spring it was “STAY AT HOME - PROTECT NHS”.

It seems we must be constantly reminded, even now on our own personal mobile phones.

These have been a his way in Scotland for a while and were used to indicate the levels you were in last summer.

Every region in Scotland I've driven through has them, only today, when I went a good bit up th A9 for a wee drive did I finally see them showing something actually useful, about snow warnings and a closed road. All the way back south it was just Covid booster crap.

I'm triple vaxxed, but anyone who wants it by now will have booked.

 

[yorkie]

Just had a text come through on my phone…shocking really how the government can just click their fingers and make the mobile network operators bend over backwards for them

I got that too; completely pointless as I got my booster over a week ago.

Also inaccurate, you don't "need" a booster to protect against Omicron, it just (allegedly) helps give a bit extra ....

I agree it is far more nuanced than that; to say everyone "needs" a booster is a bit misleading and pushy, and I've linked to podcasts on that subject.

Will be ridiculous if Wales have no crowds at the Six Nations in Cardiff but play before a capacity one at Twickenham.

Drakeford likes things to be ridiculous.

This, to me - a fully vaccinated person - is a leap too far. ...

It depends how it is done; providing it is done in a manner that is sensitive and not intimidating or pushy then I don't object in principle. Increasing rates of vaccination helps us to build up population immunity but if anyone really does not want the vaccine then it should be left at that.

It seems that the pro lockdown brigade are trying to pretend that the lag between infection and hospitalisation is longer than it really is, in order to try and justify new restrictions, because the "tsunami" of hospitalisations isn't quite as big as they predicted. In other words, they are worried that the data will start to improve before any new restrictions are imposed, which will mean that restrictions are more difficult to justify.

Indeed the pro-restriction brigade will use any tactics they can to impose as many restrictions as they can get away with as soon as possible for as long as possible.

One observation. Many people are reducing contacts, going out less and doing less. A Christingle service that normally fills the church (~800) was half full; midnight service similarly quiet. Whatever one’s views on Covid restrictions, the impact of those behavioural changes needs to be allowed for.

My two thoughts on that are as follows:
1) It demonstrates voluntary measures can work and we do not need lockdowns
2) Actually on this occasion many people chose to reduce contactless purely to avoid a positive test at Christmas which would have meant missing special family events etc.

If we require 5-6 boosters a year ....

We don't; see the podcast I linked to a few days ago.

The NHS can do what they like, providing it doesn't impact people with other illnesses, but I won't be getting any more vaccines than is absolutely necessary. At the moment I consider 2 to be as many as is needed. I am double vaccinated and have no plans to get any more jabs anytime soon.

If you had a lengthy gap between the two doses, there is little benefit to getting a booster (though getting a booster could reduce the likelihood of you having to isolate as it could delay an infection beyond the point at which isolation is necessary) but if you had a short gap between doses, then it would be a good idea to get boosted.

But to respond to your remarks above - you are jumping to so many conclusions about what I am arguing and why. It's not something that makes pursuing a conversation feel worthwhile.

That isn't true, but if you can make it clearer what you are arguing for, we can be clearer in our responses.

Anyway. I'm about as far from an advocate for car use as you can get. I don't own a car. I am constantly arguing for reductions in car use and dependancy. I am reliant on public transport. I stopped using it, as per the rules, during the lockdowns, which meant that for several months the only places I went were places I could get to by foot or bicycle from my front door. When I said I have been avoiding public transport for the past week or so, that means I have not been going anywhere other than on foot. That's quite restrictive but I live in London so this is quite feasible in the short term. I can walk to the shops and so on. I've nowhere said anything about people shifting their mode of transport towards cars being beneficial for society.


I mentioned a voluntary short term change in my own habits, done with the aim of reducing the possibility of me picking up an infection that I then pass on to my parents, who are in a group (unlike me) with one of the highest vulnerabilities to severe disease resulting from Covid. But this comment about my own individual small decision has prompted you to question me on why I think society avoiding public transport is going to benefit the NHS, as if this is some kind of long term proposal. I'm even invited to "explain my position" in a new thread! A position that I don't hold - rather, one that you seem to have imagined I must hold, because I'm on "the other side", possibly even an extremist!

Good for you but you didn't directly answer my question regarding whether this was a benefit on an individual level or a society level; are you saying others should avoid public transport as an altruistic thing to do? Also, do you recognise that a shift away from public transport generally would increase the use of cars? If you are championing a reduction in the use of public transport that is a very dangerous thing to say. You can't simultaneously on one hand promote the abandonment of public transport and on the other hand admit that cars are not beneficial to society. I think you are being disingenuous and this is a clear contradiction of values.

When I see someone demonising public transport, I am going to challenge that view. If you are going to use the excuse 'but I walk and cycle instead' that is absolutely ducking the issue because the reality is that if everyone reduced their use of public transport, this would be disastrous on so many levels. You don't want to explain your position because you can't.

Omicron has made Sars-CoV-2 a mild illness for the vast majority of people and, while we do not yet have everyone vaccinated, almost everyone who wants to be vaccinated has been. Any suggestion people should avoid public transport due to Omicron circulating is going to be challenged by myself and I hope many others.

On the general subject of Ferguson always being wrong, or over-estimating the impact, here are some of the predictions from his team from March 2020. Page 13 of the report here - https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/im...-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf

Ferguson is often wrong and I don't think we should pay any more attention to him.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/im...-College-COVID19-NPI-modelling-16-03-2020.pdf

The actual number of deaths in the UK in the intervening nearly two years has been in the region of 150,000 - 170,000. You can insist on using excess deaths if you want, and maybe it's closer to 100,000. That's with various restrictions being enacted at various points. The very highest estimate, with restrictions having been used, in this table is 120,000. So is the complaint about Ferguson's predictions that he was over-optimistic? And if he was over-optimistic about his predictions for what might happen with restrictions being used, what do we think about his predictions about what would have happened with no restrictions?

I refer you to previous discussions where Ferguson's model was applied to Sweden, which relied on more voluntary measures which Ferguson and co claimed would lead to many more deaths. It's all been debated before on this forum.

 

[brad465]

I see the traffic information signs round here are now displaying something along the lines of “GET YOUR BOOSTER - AVOID RESTRICTIONS”.

One wonders if the purpose of such signs was always simply to act as a meant of propagating propaganda, since they’ve been around for a few years now and I’ve *never* seen them display any useful traffic information, the most we ever get is “Gritting from 7pm”. The self-same signs have had various Covid messages - last December it was something like “OBEY THE RULES OR MOVE TO HIGHER TIER”, and of course last Spring it was “STAY AT HOME - PROTECT NHS”.

It seems we must be constantly reminded, even now on our own personal mobile phones.

If there is such a thing as "institutional cyber domestic violence", this is it.

 

[Eyersey468]

@yorkie whilst I agree we don't need boosters 5 or 6 times a year given the number of times the government have shifted the goalposts I simply don't trust them not to start on about a 4th jab, then a 5th, then a 6th etc.

 

[duncanp]

If there is such a thing as "institutional cyber domestic violence", this is it.

So Boris, I've had my booster, does that mean I can avoid any new restrictions then?

 

[bramling]

So Boris, I've had my booster, does that mean I can avoid any new restrictions then?

What this all does, of course, is to open up a receptacle for blame. Just like everything is all the fault of those people not wearing masks in the supermarket. Unfortunately plenty of people fall for this.

 

[yorkie]

@yorkie whilst I agree we don't need boosters 5 or 6 times a year given the number of times the government have shifted the goalposts I simply don't trust them not to start on about a 4th jab, then a 5th, then a 6th etc.

They are already talking about a 4th jab, which I expect would take place next winter and be for older/vulnerable people, and more intended to reduce pressure on the NHS than anything else.

As mentioned before, it is the view of some experts (and I agree with them) that the main tangible benefit of a 3rd dose for most people would be to make up for the 1st & 2nd doses often being closer together than they should have been (but there is also a strong argument to say that the gap we did was optimal for the situation at the time)

The reason publicly given is because 2 doses is "not enough" but that's really not the full story; when you look closely at the claims they are saying 2 doses is not enough to "avoid catching" the virus (in other words to develop an infection, if exposed to it) but that should never have been deemed to be the aim of the vaccines.

Given our position right now, it does make some sense but in the longer term it's completely unsustainable.

Once we have got through the next few weeks, we need to move to a stage where we accept that everyone is going to be exposed to Sars-CoV-2, we cease asymptomatic testing, cease isolating people (at least those who do not have symptoms) and allow the infection to spread in the Spring and Summer months, so that by next winter we are even closer to reaching a similar level of population immunity against Sars-CoV-2 to that we already have for the pre-existing Human Coronaviruses.

Some people do not seem to want us to ever reach endemic equilibrium and think the end game should be to indefinitely avoid infections of Sars-CoV-2; this is completely irrational, unrealistic and unaffordable.

 

[Eyersey468]

They are already talking about a 4th jab, which I expect would take place next winter and be for older/vulnerable people, and more intended to reduce pressure on the NHS than anything else.


Some people do not want us to ever reach endemic equilibrium and think the end game should be to indefinitely avoid infections of Sars-CoV-2; this is completely irrational, unrealistic and unaffordable.

I agree it is unrealistic and unaffordable to indefinitely avoid infections of Covid. As I have said before I can understand boosters for the most vulnerable, however I dont trust the government to not start trying to get everyone to have a booster every few months forever more, even though I don't consider it necessary for everyone to keep having them.

 

[3rd rail land]

Whilst I agree we don't need boosters 5 or 6 times a year given the number of times the government have shifted the goalposts I simply don't trust them not to start on about a 4th jab, then a 5th, then a 6th etc.

Exactly. We were promised that being double vaccinated was the way out of restrictions but we still have some restrictions. There is no way to tell what will end the restrictions once and for all as we can't believe anything Boris and his cronies say.

So Boris, I've had my booster, does that mean I can avoid any new restrictions then?

Nope, Boris just won't have a go at you personally for the restrictions remaining but you'll still have follow any and all restrictions just like everyone else.

What this all does, of course, is to open up a receptacle for blame. Just like everything is all the fault of those people not wearing masks in the supermarket. Unfortunately plenty of people fall for this.

Well said. If less than 100% of people comply with restrictions put in place Boris, and leaders in the devolved nations, just use that as an excuse to introduce even more restrictions.

 

[greyman42]

Exactly. We were promised that being double vaccinated was the way out of restrictions but we still have some restrictions. There is no way to tell what will end the restrictions once and for all as we can't believe anything Boris and his cronies say.


Nope, Boris just won't have a go at you personally for the restrictions remaining but you'll still have follow any and all restrictions just like everyone else.


Well said. If less than 100% of people comply with restrictions put in place Boris, and leaders in the devolved nations, just use that as an excuse to introduce even more restrictions.

Or you could argue that if 100% of people comply with restrictions then the government can introduce more as they they will see it as being able to get away with it.

 

[bramling]

They are already talking about a 4th jab, which I expect would take place next winter and be for older/vulnerable people, and more intended to reduce pressure on the NHS than anything else.

As mentioned before, it is the view of some experts (and I agree with them) that the main tangible benefit of a 3rd dose for most people would be to make up for the 1st & 2nd doses often being closer together than they should have been (but there is also a strong argument to say that the gap we did was optimal for the situation at the time)

The reason publicly given is because 2 doses is "not enough" but that's really not the full story; when you look closely at the claims they are saying 2 doses is not enough to "avoid catching" the virus (in other words to develop an infection, if exposed to it) but that should never have been deemed to be the aim of the vaccines.

Given our position right now, it does make some sense but in the longer term it's completely unsustainable.

Once we have got through the next few weeks, we need to move to a stage where we accept that everyone is going to be exposed to Sars-CoV-2, we cease asymptomatic testing, cease isolating people (at least those who do not have symptoms) and allow the infection to spread in the Spring and Summer months, so that by next winter we are even closer to reaching a similar level of population immunity against Sars-CoV-2 to that we already have for the pre-existing Human Coronaviruses.

Some people do not seem to want us to ever reach endemic equilibrium and think the end game should be to indefinitely avoid infections of Sars-CoV-2; this is completely irrational, unrealistic and unaffordable.

It bugs me that the bar for the vaccines seems to have quietly shifted. We seem to have moved from “prevents serious illness and death”, to “prevents hospitalisation”, to “prevents symptomatic infection”, to “prevents you catching it”.

There may well have been a case for some level of restriction whilst we waited to achieve the first of those. Perhaps the second. However I’m not sure why some people are now fixated on the last two, unless of course they have an ulterior motive for wanting to do so.

 

[3rd rail land]

Or you could argue that if 100% of people comply with restrictions then the government can introduce more as they they will see it as being able to get away with it.

Either way there is no end to restrictions in sight. A very depressing state of affairs.

 

[LAX54]

They are already talking about a 4th jab, which I expect would take place next winter and be for older/vulnerable people, and more intended to reduce pressure on the NHS than anything else.

As mentioned before, it is the view of some experts (and I agree with them) that the main tangible benefit of a 3rd dose for most people would be to make up for the 1st & 2nd doses often being closer together than they should have been (but there is also a strong argument to say that the gap we did was optimal for the situation at the time)

The reason publicly given is because 2 doses is "not enough" but that's really not the full story; when you look closely at the claims they are saying 2 doses is not enough to "avoid catching" the virus (in other words to develop an infection, if exposed to it) but that should never have been deemed to be the aim of the vaccines.

Given our position right now, it does make some sense but in the longer term it's completely unsustainable.

Once we have got through the next few weeks, we need to move to a stage where we accept that everyone is going to be exposed to Sars-CoV-2, we cease asymptomatic testing, cease isolating people (at least those who do not have symptoms) and allow the infection to spread in the Spring and Summer months, so that by next winter we are even closer to reaching a similar level of population immunity against Sars-CoV-2 to that we already have for the pre-existing Human Coronaviruses.

Some people do not seem to want us to ever reach endemic equilibrium and think the end game should be to indefinitely avoid infections of Sars-CoV-2; this is completely irrational, unrealistic and unaffordable.

Do we now need ALL Governments to get together, and agree that is is here for the duration, and that continuing the way we are, is hurting more people from cancelled appointments. untold job losses etc, and agree that from xxxx date we all go back to normal, no masks, unless you really want to, no social distancing, no pointless tests if you wish to go to another Country etc.

 

[Berliner]

Do we now need ALL Governments to get together, and agree that is is here for the duration, and that continuing the way we are, is hurting more people from cancelled appointments. untold job losses etc, and agree that from xxxx date we all go back to normal, no masks, unless you really want to, no social distancing, no pointless tests if you wish to go to another Country etc.

I've often wondered what it will take for governments to stop all this. They were all so quick to act when the WHO declared a pandemic. There are obviously criteria which need to be met for them to declare that. What are the criteria needed for them to declare it over?

Maybe once that happens we might see governments getting back to. Normal.

 

[yorkie]

Do we now need ALL Governments to get together, and agree that is is here for the duration, and that continuing the way we are, is hurting more people from cancelled appointments. untold job losses etc, and agree that from xxxx date we all go back to normal, no masks, unless you really want to, no social distancing, no pointless tests if you wish to go to another Country etc.

Each Government will do its own thing, but most will look to others to see what is being done elsewhere before reaching a decision.

Once the general population in most countries realises Omicron is less pathogenic, we will see much less tolerance for restrictions and Governments will be forced to open up.

I've often wondered what it will take for governments to stop all this.

Loss of public support.

They were all so quick to act when the WHO declared a pandemic. There are obviously criteria which need to be met for them to declare that. What are the criteria needed for them to declare it over?

Maybe once that happens we might see governments getting back to. Normal.

We will get back to normal long before the WHO declares the pandemic over and we will reach endemic equilibrium in the UK before most other places.

Either way there is no end to restrictions in sight. A very depressing state of affairs.

On the contrary; while the current winter situation is a concern, this is just a blip; Omicron is accelerating our race towards endemic equilibrium and the end is very much in sight.

 

[bramling]

Do we now need ALL Governments to get together, and agree that is is here for the duration, and that continuing the way we are, is hurting more people from cancelled appointments. untold job losses etc, and agree that from xxxx date we all go back to normal, no masks, unless you really want to, no social distancing, no pointless tests if you wish to go to another Country etc.

I’d say we’re as far away from that point as ever. Even within the U.K. it’s obvious there’s politics being played by the devolved administrations.

Much as I’m aware it’s the nuclear option, I’ve said here before that I think we’ve already passed the point where pandemic response should be being stripped away from the devolved powers. It’s caused massive problems, for no discernible gain.

I do agree with the view that this whole thing is starting to run its course now though. People have had enough, and if it transpires the reaction to Omicron was excessive then this only going to further this process, especially if there’s the feeling that the credibility of data has been stretched in order to suit a particular agenda, which does seem increasingly to be the case.

 

[21C101]

Some people do not seem to want us to ever reach endemic equilibrium and think the end game should be to indefinitely avoid infections of Sars-CoV-2; this is completely irrational, unrealistic and unaffordable.

For them it is profitable, in terms of enhanced kudos and status or money, or both.

And for some it is profitable in enabling them to advance a big state political agenda where everything is regulated (and of course they are the enlightened ones regulating the ignorant masses).

 

[bramling]

For them it is profitable, in terms of enhanced kudos and status or money, or both.

Unfortunately there’s still plenty of people who buy in to the “I want to avoid catching Covid” narrative. Nothing wrong with the idea in principle, just unfortunately completely unrealistic. For their part the government is happy to go along with this misconception.

 

[island]

Just had a text come through on my phone…shocking really how the government can just click their fingers and make the mobile network operators bend over backwards for them

NHSbooster
GET BOOSTED NOW
Every adult needs a COVID-19 booster vaccine to protect against Omicron.
Get your COVID-19 vaccine or booster. See NHS website for details

The government has no special entitlement, the mobile networks will send texts on behalf of anyone who pays for them.

 

[21C101]

We will get back to normal long before the WHO declares the pandemic over and we will reach endemic equilibrium in the UK before most other places.

That unelected international technocratic bodies like the WHO (which are mostly highly corrupt) have any influence on when the UK gets back to normal is part of the problem. We have dealt with one with Brexit but there is still much work to be done

 

[brad465]

Ministers are expected to meet tomorrow about whether New Year restrictions will happen or not, and the Guardian/Observer are reporting that Tory MPs are warning cabinet ministers that if they support restrictions, their chances of getting support in a leadership election are greatly reduced:

Tory MPs warn Boris Johnson’s rivals to oppose tougher Covid new year rules

Leadership hopefuls told to block new limits in England as scientists model curbs on bars and cafes

www.theguardian.com

Cabinet ministers vying to succeed Boris Johnson have been warned by Tory colleagues that they will damage their chances unless they stridently oppose further Covid measures in England, as MPs called for New Year’s Eve restrictions to be ruled out.

With ministers expected to meet as soon as Monday to discuss whether additional measures are needed to protect hospital capacity, several Conservatives said that they would be watching those emerging as leading contenders to replace Johnson should he step aside before the next election.



The news comes after it emerged government scientific advisers had modelled the impact of implementing so-called “step 2” restrictions from Tuesday. Such measures would see an end to indoor gatherings, limited outdoor gatherings, and bars and restaurants only able to serve outdoors. The modelling suggested that restrictions could reduce deaths by 18% if kept in place until mid-January or 39% if retained until the end of March.

Delaying the measures until New Year’s Day would reduce their impact, though the scientists said their models did not have “sufficient precision” to detect differences in a small delay. “When an epidemic is rapidly growing, the earlier interventions take place, the larger their effect,” they said.

New coronavirus restrictions are being introduced by the devolved governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, including new physical distancing rules, the closure of nightc lubs and limits on indoor gatherings.

The UK recorded 122,186 new Covid cases on Friday, the highest yet, while the Office for National Statistics estimated that 1.7 million Britons had the virus in the week ending 19 December, also a record.

However, Tory MPs are hardening their attitudes against further restrictions and now want cabinet ministers to be vocal in their opposition. “If No 10 proposes tighter restrictions straight after Christmas, those cabinet ministers with freedom-loving instincts – who gave us all so much hope last week – must speak out,” said one member of the Covid Recovery Group of Tory MPs. “In any future leadership contest, we will all remember how they acted this week. We need real, gutsy, freedom-loving Conservatives to rescue us from this madness.”

Other Tory MPs also said they would consider a candidate’s position on restrictions in any leadership race.