[Ged]

Totally get your reluctance, which suggests the govt need to improve their messaging (now there's a shock!)

Out of interest, what would your preferred route back be? Seems like at the moment now the most vulnerable have been jabbed the government is content to allow a certain level of virus prevalence in exchange for schools going back. Other societal unlocking will be v slow to allow this to happen. I have to say I don't have a huge problem with this approach as I am profoundly unconvinced by the "zero covid" strategy (which is actually nothing of the sort) preferred by Devi Sridhar et al. I was a big fan of this last summer but now we have a vaccine I don't think it will fly.

My preferred route would be to at least put some money where some mouths are and vaccinate teachers pretty soon. There is a lot of rhetoric about how important it is to get schools open, so vaccinating teachers and I guess older students seems like something that should be done if the nation is so adament that opening needs to happen soon.

I'm all for schools opening soon, but we are not 3 weeks away from doing it safely. Secondary schools with sixth forms are not in any way safe places to be if rates are high.

What also concerns me is the way that match 8th has come about. When lockdown first started in early Jan, Boris said that the first review would be on 22nd Feb, and fairly separately to that announced that schools would have 2 weeks notice. From this, March 8th seems to have turned from earliest theoretically possible date to the actual date that schools definitely need to open. I worry that they will go ahead with this date to save face / make themselves loved, rather than listen to the general advice from scientists, which seems to still be saying 8th March is too soon

[dunnyg]

The whole "most vulnerable have been jabbed" is slightly grating, as being one of those people according to the rules I can't get a jab. I doubt I am the only one. Stats 101 for the government should include non putting out absolutes.

[spidermonkey09]

Yeah that's bollocks, sorry dunny, I didn't intend to be glib. Do you have any timeline on when you might be offered one?

Ged; was chatting about this earlier and came the conclusion vaccinating teachers would probably solve a lot of the safety issues, if not the transmission ones. I'll have a think about the rest and respond in a bit more detail.

[dunnyg]

No worries, it isn't you, but the headlines cause a solid rant this morning. I'm sure most have had the jab though! Not sure when I will get one, going to chase again next week, I'm not overly fussed I just don't like lies.

It also seems wrong to me to not vaccinate teachers, again I am not particularly impartial as I have a teacher in the family, but I wonder if they will be bumped up the list, and if not, why not. Emotions aside, the abstract the question of who to vaccinate when is a fascinating problem, which in reality likely has not got one 'correct' answer.

[Oldmanmatt]

Yeah that's bollocks, sorry dunny, I didn't intend to be glib. Do you have any timeline on when you might be offered one?

Ged; was chatting about this earlier and came the conclusion vaccinating teachers would probably solve a lot of the safety issues, if not the transmission ones. I'll have a think about the rest and respond in a bit more detail.

We had to isolate, as a family, three times during the autumn term, due to year bubbles being sent home and our little darlings developing symptoms (usually a fever) at the same time (actually, that happened four times, only 3 with symptoms at home). This made working an absolute nightmare and one of Mrs OMM’s coworkers refused to be in the same office as her if the kids kept going to school. None of the kids managed more than 8 weeks schooling in the term. No. 3, spent the last two weeks at home, before Xmas, returning for a single day to a canceled Xmas lunch and an early finish...

Too early and we’re going to be back into start stop, open close, bollocks.
“Sorry Boss, gotta go home again at 2, coz another kid in year 7/tested positive” ...

[ali k]

the headlines cause a solid rant this morning...I'm not overly fussed I just don't like lies.

For the last 5 or 6 years I’ve been woken up by R4 every single morning, listened to the 08:10 slot, and also flicked around various news websites throughout the day. Until about a month ago when I just couldn’t hack it any more because of the lies and more especially them not being called out.

Actively avoiding the rolling news now and replaced all my insta feed with various cute animals. Feel much better for it!

[BrutusTheBear]

To back up OMM and Ged, speaking from perspective of a teacher, I have just broken up for half term. We are only 2 weeks off from having to send 3 year groups out of 5 and a load of staff home for isolation due to cases in the school. 3 in the admin office, 2 in the caretaking/cleaning team, a couple of TAs, 3 teachers and pupils in each of the 3 year groups.  This is not a city, this is rural North Devon and happening whilst schools are still 'closed'. Yet.... the government says schools are safe and Sir Keir seems to want schools open ASAP unless the government announces different (he might change his mind at that point).
My wife is clinically vulnerable and since returning after Christmas I have effectively been in quarantine in my own home.  During the first lockdown teachers with vulnerable partners could work from home.  Now when things are worse that rule is no more. Since September teachers in this predicament could indeed choose to stay at home, on UNPAID leave! She had a vaccination last Sunday which is a positive for us looking forwards.
It is clear from first hand experience that the schools are ideal environments for transmission.  Whatever 'safe' means you can imagine the atmosphere amongst staff still working in schools and appreciate why teachers might consider wider opening as a bad idea until the prevalence of the virus really is low.

[Offwidth]

The whole "most vulnerable have been jabbed" is slightly grating, as being one of those people according to the rules I can't get a jab. I doubt I am the only one. Stats 101 for the government should include non putting out absolutes.

My father in law is highly vulnerable, immobile and home cared and over 85. We have been asking for his appointment for nearly a month. On Friday he was at last scheduled for 15:00 today for his jab. In Nottingham on Friday one of the big NHS teams still had plenty of front line staff yet to be scheduled. There is no way some people of lower priority within the top groups haven't been contacted yet. It's infuriating they are claiming they have met their target of everyone most at risk being offered a jab yesterday. There is simply no need to lie... it's acceptable that this is difficult.

The overall numbers are great but they need to do better in this next phase to prioritise those most at risk without slowing down the main population vaccination efforts.... the remaining younger vulnerable, BAME groups and front line workers who because of their job nature struggle to self isolate (including the likes of taxi drivers, teachers and front line police).

Also on an equality front the TUC and some leading charities are calling today for the EHRC to investigate the government's refusal to review their covid policies for equality impact (as required in law), given the evidence showing women are suffering disproportionately.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/feb/15/ehrc-urged-to-investigate-ministers-for-equality-failures-in-covid-response

[slab_happy]

The whole "most vulnerable have been jabbed" is slightly grating, as being one of those people according to the rules I can't get a jab. I doubt I am the only one. Stats 101 for the government should include non putting out absolutes.

Yeah, and I was also going to point out that "the most vulnerable" here is a slice off the top of vulnerable groups. You've still got all the folks with stuff on the "clinical conditions" list, who have a seriously increased risk of dying if they get Covid. Plus, everyone 60-70.

Plus, of course, all the people who've got medical conditions that significantly increase their risk of dying if they get Covid but which didn't make it onto the group 6 list, who are stuck down in "rest of the population".

For example: people with learning difficulties are many, many times more likely to die from Covid but (unless their learning disability counts as "severe or profound") they've been left out of the priority groups completely.

There's a weird vibe coming from the government of "Now we've protected all the vulnerable people, job pretty much done!"

[tomtom]

The top four tiers were easy to justify to the masses - old and most at risk.

Now it’s more nuanced. Nearly 7 million in the 16-65 ‘vulnerable’ group - and there will be a lot of tension amongst choices as to who is in or out of that list. I think many of the decisions are in the hands of GP’s here - which is probably a far better option than some SERCO selection algorithm?

[spidermonkey09]

Emotions aside, the abstract the question of who to vaccinate when is a fascinating problem, which in reality likely has not got one 'correct' answer.

This is the main point I think. You can come up with justifications to prioritise the vaccination of pretty much any population group you choose. Eg Malaysia is starting with those in their 20s as they are likely to drive transmission more than the older population. Who knows what the best strategy is right now.

That said, I think the government strategy of starting with the oldest and working down is probably correct as it stops deaths as a priority. As TT says we now have a big cohort who are not 'old' and are still very at risk, constituting probably the majority of the ITU beds but not the majority of deaths. We won't be done vaccinating this group until the end of May probably. I am not in that group so its easy for me to say, but I can't say I am on board with things staying as they are until then.

appreciate why teachers might consider wider opening as a bad idea until the prevalence of the virus really is low.

I have massive sympathy for your position and am very aware I am in a privileged position working from home (although I do have a partner working in ITU on covid wards and probably bringing it home on a daily basis!). I am interested though in what 'really low' prevalence means in practice and whether you'd be happy with things staying as they are until end of May to allow the numbers to drop to that level? I just don't think that would be politically possible, even if scientifically that would be the ideal scenario.

[tomtom]

The obvious pinch point will come in about a month, when the second doses start having to be given out at the rate we’ve been doing first doses... (2-300k per day).

Hopefully increased supply will come by then (though those figures are totally opaque) but that’s also going to mean a big uptick in the load on the vaccination centres (a doubling in effect if the vaccine supply is available).

[Offwidth]

On the BBC 24 news just now they are saying one third of care workers offered were not yet vaccinated. From anecdote about careers looking after relatives and friends I really struggle to believe that is a fair indication of levels of vaccine reluctance. A few are reluctantl but a third is huge. I suspect many were very recently issued invites that were  impractical  to accept this weekend.

[mrjonathanr]

...
allow the numbers to drop to that level? I just don't think that would be politically possible, even if scientifically that would be the ideal scenario.

Not commenting on the merit of this specific proposition, or accusing you of thinking this way, but..

The idea that we can make decisions that ignore natural processes has a lot to do with why, at 1,729 deaths per million, we are right at the top tier of Covid deaths worldwide
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-deaths-daily-vs-total-per-million?tab=table&stackMode=absolute&time=2020-01-22..latest&country=&region=World

[IanP]

One of the strange things about some of these discussions is how little we really know about how coronavirus is transmitted despite all the progress in other areas.

When the effects of the new varient were starting to become clear in December some people were saying that even a total lockdown might not be enough to control it because of its increased transmittability.  But, despite the government delays almost certainly increasing the spike, the lockdown from early January appears to have been very successful in terms of bring cases and (lagging as would be expected) hospitilisation and deaths down quickly .   If anything numbers appear to coming down more quickly than in the original lockdown despite rules being less strict and population movement/interactions being noticeable higher.  Does anybody have any view as to why this is?

On the opening front do we have any understanding of what changes will really impact transmission? The major areas of reduced interactions at the moment seem to be households, hospitality and education, lots of people are still travelling/working, shops that are open still seem pretty busy.

Seems like there's lots of questions but very little in the way of answers other than to go slowly and make keep observing the data to understand the impact of changes.

[nik at work]

  If anything numbers appear to coming down more quickly than in the original lockdown despite rules being less strict and population movement/interactions being noticeable higher.

Are lockdown rules less strict this time round?
What is your basis for saying population movement/interactions are noticeably higher?

[petejh]

Good visualisation.....

I linked this Independent SAGE report a couple of weeks ago showing over 80s are only a small proportion of those in ICU (as they largely don't benefit from the invasive procedures). The statistic of 80% of hospitalisations being over 80 is just plain wrong. The relevant bit of this weekly report starts at 10 and a half minutes in and lasts about 3 minutes and it shows clearly why we have a while yet before hospital pressures will drop.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKTHqyFfzFs&feature=youtu.be

Yep just checked this on the NHS England stats page.

Age group 75-85+ (no group for 'over 80') accounted for 40% of hospital admissions on the most recent day's data.
Age group 65 - 85+ accounted for 60%of hospital admissions.
https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-hospital-activity/


Over 80s accounted for 48% of deaths on the most recent day's data.
Ages 60 to 80+ accounted for 91% of deaths on the same date.
https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/02/COVID-19-total-announced-deaths-14-February-2021.xlsx

All those over 70 have now been offered (and over 9 out of 10 accepted) a vaccine. Plus the 'clinically most vulnerable' in lower age groups. And the over-65s are now being offered vaccines as of today.

Based on those stats, plus the evidence for vaccine efficacy in preventing the most serious illness, why shouldn't hospitalisations (thus pressure, relative to peak) and deaths drop dramatically within the next 2-3 weeks?

[Oldmanmatt]

Good visualisation.....

I linked this Independent SAGE report a couple of weeks ago showing over 80s are only a small proportion of those in ICU (as they largely don't benefit from the invasive procedures). The statistic of 80% of hospitalisations being over 80 is just plain wrong. The relevant bit of this weekly report starts at 10 and a half minutes in and lasts about 3 minutes and it shows clearly why we have a while yet before hospital pressures will drop.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKTHqyFfzFs&feature=youtu.be

Yep just checked this on the NHS England stats page.

Age group 75-85+ (no group for 'over 80') accounted for 40% of hospital admissions on the most recent day's data.
Age group 65 - 85+ accounted for 60%of hospital admissions.
https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-hospital-activity/


Over 80s accounted for 48% of deaths on the most recent day's data.
Ages 60 to 80+ accounted for 91% of deaths on the same date.
https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/02/COVID-19-total-announced-deaths-14-February-2021.xlsx

All those over 70 have now been offered (and over 9 out of 10 accepted) a vaccine. Plus the 'clinically most vulnerable' in lower age groups. And the over-65s are now being offered vaccines as of today.

Based on those stats, plus the evidence for vaccine efficacy in preventing the most serious illness, why shouldn't hospitalisations (thus pressure, relative to peak) and deaths drop dramatically within the next 2-3 weeks?

You’re not wrong, but...

You are a little optimistic in your time scales. The vaccines given will need two to three weeks to become effective, in most cases. I would guess we’re still two to four weeks from seeing real vaccine impact on the numbers.

In other words, the continuing drop will be lockdown instigated and (at a guess) will plateau at the max mitigation level that such measures might achieve, before a further drop is seen as vaccine kicks in. Patience of a couple extra weeks, might have significant dividends in being able to open fully. Politically difficult, but if they move too quickly, they will (or we, really) will pay for it.

The difference between this lockdown and the first? Masks.
I can’t think of any other significant change, unless we’re all just better at keeping our distance and I don’t feel that’s true around myself. 

[teestub]

Are lockdown rules less strict this time round?
What is your basis for saying population movement/interactions are noticeably higher?

Conspicuously more traffic, more workplaces staying open with ‘control measures’, more children in schools due to more understanding of the ‘key worker’ status. People travelling and meeting other households for exercise.

[nik at work]

Cheers Stubbs.

From my perspective less shops/cafes are open, there are less people around, people are in smaller groups and maintaining distance far more and waaaaaaay more mask wearing going on.

I’m not sure the rules are less strict in any significant way, maybe just a bit more refined/defined.
Could you not exercise outside with one other person during previous lockdown as well? Genuine question, I can’t remember, but I definitely saw lots of people exercising with at least one a n other person not from their household during previous lockdown. I’d say, purely anecdotally, more so than this time round. Hence my questions, my local evidence/feeling is that lockdown is being better observed now. As ever YMMV, just wondered if there was a stat/study basis for the lack of compliance claim.

[dr_botnik]

If anything numbers appear to coming down more quickly than in the original lockdown despite rules being less strict and population movement/interactions being noticeable higher.  Does anybody have any view as to why this is?

I think this is placing the cart before the horse; it isn't that this lockdown is going well, just that rules were so lax over Christmas and caused such a high number of cases that the "lockdown lite" we have gone into has looked effective in comparison to the massive amount of household mixing that occured over the festive period, and in the rammed shops that led up to this.

[tomtom]

Cheers Stubbs.

From my perspective less shops/cafes are open, there are less people around, people are in smaller groups and maintaining distance far more and waaaaaaay more mask wearing going on.

I’m not sure the rules are less strict in any significant way, maybe just a bit more refined/defined.
Could you not exercise outside with one other person during previous lockdown as well? Genuine question, I can’t remember, but I definitely saw lots of people exercising with at least one a n other person not from their household during previous lockdown. I’d say, purely anecdotally, more so than this time round. Hence my questions, my local evidence/feeling is that lockdown is being better observed now. As ever YMMV, just wondered if there was a stat/study basis for the lack of compliance claim.

Eh? Lockdown 1 was like a ghost town here.... next to no traffic any time of day - curtains twitching if you went out etc....

[Wil]

Same here. It was very quiet where I was. Cafes didn't open, even for takeaway, until the end of April. I'm not in the same place now so my evidence isn't consistent, but it's far busier on the street and all of the cafes are open. Many more people are going to work from what I can see.

[IanP]

As ever YMMV, just wondered if there was a stat/study basis for the lack of compliance claim.

Eh? Lockdown 1 was like a ghost town here.... next to no traffic any time of day - curtains twitching if you went out etc....

I would agree with that re lockdown 1 Vs 3.  For example supermarkets are definitely busier and applying less control to numbers, though obvs we do have masks/screens in place.

Btw I'm not particularly claiming lack of compliance this time round  just more places open and possibly less strict / clear rules e.g.  more shops open, don't think we have an exercise outdoors once only once a day rule

[Paul B]

...we never did.