[tomtom]

Focusing on the ball rather than the player - the points about the vaccine efficacy rates being played as a success for 167.2 in the media are very pertinent. That for only one dose it’s c.30% is buried deep down in only some pages on news websites.

Re slow info release - The government has played a similar trick before giving information during/jist after one of Boris’ pressers.

[spidermonkey09]

Focusing on the ball rather than the player - the points about the vaccine efficacy rates being played as a success for 167.2 in the media are very pertinent. That for only one dose it’s c.30% is buried deep down in only some pages on news websites.

Re slow info release - The government has played a similar trick before giving information during/jist after one of Boris’ pressers.

I'm still not sure it's bad news tbh, given the rumblings about it escaping vaccines completely, excellent protection after two doses is a great result. The takeaway from this is that it is critical to get your second dose, which tbf Hancock was banging the drum for this morning.

More generally, I think this is part of a growing disinterest in "bad" or negative covid news in public life. I am a total newshound and I am definitely finding myself being dismissive of articles about the newest variant or some doomsday story of vaccine escape. Some outlets have been worse than others, the Guardian being one I have been particularly unimpressed by. I'm all for informing the public but there comes a point when being fed constant stories about new variants has a boy who cried wolf effect, which I think we are probably at. If/when a variant arrives we need to be seriously worried about it will take root in large part due to the way other, non scary variants have been reported and presented.

[T_B]

Great post. 100%.

[tomtom]

Spidermonkey - cry wolf is important - though the same arguments were said in November when we’d just discovered the Kent variant.

We are in a different (vaccinated) position now, but the Govt response now is remarkably similar to the (relative) non response then…

I suspect the media are pushing certain lines sensing there is a fatigue for COVID news in the population - though mistrust (to a high degree) how our government is treating us. I wish we could be told things straight - instead of having to rely on leaks…

Its great your optimistic - I am less so.
 

[spidermonkey09]

We are in a different (vaccinated) position now, but the Govt response now is remarkably similar to the (relative) non response then…

I suspect the media are pushing certain lines sensing there is a fatigue for COVID news in the population - though mistrust (to a high degree) how our government is treating us. I wish we could be told things straight - instead of having to rely on leaks…

This is the crux of the matter for me. I absolutely agree the govt have made multiple fuck ups and have acted disgracefully throughout the pandemic. But people aren't looking at things in the round. The response in Nov was inexcusable given the non vaccinated context. Its reasonable given our current levels of vaccination. Its what I would do. Interested to know what you would do? (it's very interesting that the zero covid lot never actually say what their way out of the situation is beyond nebulous terms like "fix test and trace").

Too many people are understandably using previous govt errors as a stick to beat them with and whilst tempting, it's a self defeating approach.

[Offwidth]

I'm still not sure it's bad news tbh, given the rumblings about it escaping vaccines completely, excellent protection after two doses is a great result. The takeaway from this is that it is critical to get your second dose, which tbf Hancock was banging the drum for this morning.

More generally, I think this is part of a growing disinterest in "bad" or negative covid news in public life. I am a total newshound and I am definitely finding myself being dismissive of articles about the newest variant or some doomsday story of vaccine escape. Some outlets have been worse than others, the Guardian being one I have been particularly unimpressed by. I'm all for informing the public but there comes a point when being fed constant stories about new variants has a boy who cried wolf effect, which I think we are probably at. If/when a variant arrives we need to be seriously worried about it will take root in large part due to the way other, non scary variants have been reported and presented.

I agree the news about a lack of evidence of vaccine escape is great news. The 30% figure is to be expected it you talk to the experts. It's a number that represents risk of infection. The percentage protection against serious illness is much higher. The risk is a population risk ( more than half of single jab vaccinated individuals can spread new variant covid).

On your second paragraph I disagree. The Guardian does have a habit of going off on one with some editorials and some opinions but do people really focus on such things these days? It's scientific pandemic journalism output on covid has been very good and it's important that it's available without a paywall (the FT deserve praise for this as well). Those 'crying wolf' are experts on SAGE and Indie SAGE. Half the press were in full on covid denial for much of 2020 and you single out the Guardian reporting expert opinion?

Our government dithering in the face of data (whilst claiming to follow the data) is responsible for about half the covid deaths in the UK and about half of long covid (estimated at a million) and much economic damage through lockdowns being longer than they needed to be. Even last week they buried data on school infections (Guardian reported) and for the day of the elections they delayed release of India variant bad news. Last week "Inews" showed front page large mixed colour zone queues at Heathrow due to home office underfunding and inaction..... the incompetence never stopped.

On long covid my married couple triathlon friends are still unable to undertake aerobic exercise, a year in, without an exhaustion crash for days. Interestingly that's actually a big improvement following getting jabbed. They can now do some some basic stuff and just feel a bit tired, if careful.

[Wellsy]

Focusing on the ball rather than the player - the points about the vaccine efficacy rates being played as a success for 167.2 in the media are very pertinent. That for only one dose it’s c.30% is buried deep down in only some pages on news websites.

Re slow info release - The government has played a similar trick before giving information during/jist after one of Boris’ pressers.

I'm still not sure it's bad news tbh, given the rumblings about it escaping vaccines completely, excellent protection after two doses is a great result. The takeaway from this is that it is critical to get your second dose, which tbf Hancock was banging the drum for this morning.

More generally, I think this is part of a growing disinterest in "bad" or negative covid news in public life. I am a total newshound and I am definitely finding myself being dismissive of articles about the newest variant or some doomsday story of vaccine escape. Some outlets have been worse than others, the Guardian being one I have been particularly unimpressed by. I'm all for informing the public but there comes a point when being fed constant stories about new variants has a boy who cried wolf effect, which I think we are probably at. If/when a variant arrives we need to be seriously worried about it will take root in large part due to the way other, non scary variants have beetargn reported and presented.

I'm 100% the GuardIan target audience (young, graduate, city dwelling, lefty, conservation-y, a proudly "woke SJW" type, work at a social enterprise, vote green and labour etc) and I find myself rolling my eyes at the Guardian's coverage of most things these days, especially the op-eds, and especially especially anything to do with anything that might be vaguely positive.

Their covid 19 stories are often "oh so you want to feel HOPE do you well this is why you're wrong and basically a stupid tory for not wringing your hands over X, Y and Z" like yes I know it's been shit and we're not out of the woods yet and I also know you desperately need to fill these column inches so you can get some more £30 bottles of red for the cellar/olives from the local deli/whatever but like, chill out a bit?

[James Malloch]

I'm still not sure it's bad news tbh, given the rumblings about it escaping vaccines completely, excellent protection after two doses is a great result. The takeaway from this is that it is critical to get your second dose, which tbf Hancock was banging the drum for this morning.

More generally, I think this is part of a growing disinterest in "bad" or negative covid news in public life. I am a total newshound and I am definitely finding myself being dismissive of articles about the newest variant or some doomsday story of vaccine escape. Some outlets have been worse than others, the Guardian being one I have been particularly unimpressed by. I'm all for informing the public but there comes a point when being fed constant stories about new variants has a boy who cried wolf effect, which I think we are probably at. If/when a variant arrives we need to be seriously worried about it will take root in large part due to the way other, non scary variants have been reported and presented.

I agree the news about a lack of evidence of vaccine escape is great news. The 30% figure is to be expected it you talk to the experts. It's a number that represents risk of infection. The percentage protection against serious illness is much higher. The risk is a population risk ( more than half of single jab vaccinated individuals can spread new variant covid).

On your second paragraph I disagree. The Guardian does have a habit of going off on one with some editorials and some opinions but do people really focus on such things these days? It's scientific pandemic journalism output on covid has been very good and it's important that it's available without a paywall (the FT deserve praise for this as well). Those 'crying wolf' are experts on SAGE and Indie SAGE. Half the press were in full on covid denial for much of 2020 and you single out the Guardian reporting expert opinion?

Our government dithering in the face of data (whilst claiming to follow the data) is responsible for about half the covid deaths in the UK and about half of long covid (estimated at a million) and much economic damage through lockdowns being longer than they needed to be. Even last week they buried data on school infections (Guardian reported) and for the day of the elections they delayed release of India variant bad news. Last week "Inews" showed front page large mixed colour zone queues at Heathrow due to home office underfunding and inaction..... the incompetence never stopped.

On long covid my married couple triathlon friends are still unable to undertake aerobic exercise, a year in, without an exhaustion crash for days. Interestingly that's actually a big improvement following getting jabbed. They can now do some some basic stuff and just feel a bit tired, if careful.

I completely agree with this. Now things are unlocking, people just want good news to justify them doing things which are still risky (I include myself in that).

I read the guardian daily and hate that there's so much negative news, but I'm hugely glad that it's being put out there. The number of people I know who think the current Government are amazing and highly competent because of the vaccine roll-out, but ignore or don't read the horrendous incompetence and misconduct that's coming out daily is staggering.

The Guardian may be a lot more doom and gloom than others, but that's because whilst we're in a good position, we're also in position that's easy to fuck things up still. As offwidth said, it's only the ministers, not SAGE, who are saying it's all rosy.

[spidermonkey09]

I agree the news about a lack of evidence of vaccine escape is great news. The 30% figure is to be expected it you talk to the experts. It's a number that represents risk of infection. The percentage protection against serious illness is much higher. The risk is a population risk ( more than half of single jab vaccinated individuals can spread new variant covid).

On your second paragraph I disagree. The Guardian does have a habit of going off on one with some editorials and some opinions but do people really focus on such things these days? It's scientific pandemic journalism output on covid has been very good and it's important that it's available without a paywall (the FT deserve praise for this as well). Those 'crying wolf' are experts on SAGE and Indie SAGE. Half the press were in full on covid denial for much of 2020 and you single out the Guardian reporting expert opinion?

Our government dithering in the face of data (whilst claiming to follow the data) is responsible for about half the covid deaths in the UK and about half of long covid (estimated at a million) and much economic damage through lockdowns being longer than they needed to be. Even last week they buried data on school infections (Guardian reported) and for the day of the elections they delayed release of India variant bad news. Last week "Inews" showed front page large mixed colour zone queues at Heathrow due to home office underfunding and inaction..... the incompetence never stopped.

On long covid my married couple triathlon friends are still unable to undertake aerobic exercise, a year in, without an exhaustion crash for days. Interestingly that's actually a big improvement following getting jabbed. They can now do some some basic stuff and just feel a bit tired, if careful.

I think the problem is in the presentation of SAGE as a single unified body, whereas in reality it represents a spectrum of opinion with different attitudes to risk. That, after all, is its job, to provide a spectrum of the scientific opinion. The Guardian only ever quotes the more risk averse members, the rest of the press only ever quotes the more bullish ones. This isn't an anti Guardian thing, I think its a great paper, but I think its reporting on Covid recently has been poor. Thats not to say other papers/media aren't poor as well, but The Guardian isn't sacred. I'm not 'singling it out,' I'm saying its not a paragon of virtue. That said I am obviously glad it exists; the rest of the media is as bad if not considerably worse.

Independent SAGE was necessary this time last year but I think has well outlived its usefulness and seems to be a meal ticket to media appearances for many of its contributors. It has also been consistently wrong on almost every aspect of the unlocking since March. They oppose for the sake of opposition without ever providing concrete alternatives and a way out of the situation. I also think some of their recent scaremongering over vaccine effectiveness on the Indian variant has sailed dangerously close to encouraging vaccine hesitancy which is unforgivable.

I don't think anyone mentioned long covid. What you describe sounds really bad; I hope they continue to improve. I know several people suffering from similar symptoms. However, I don't think the small risk of long covid is a reason to maintain restrictions.

[tomtom]

10% of those who had symptomatic Covid have long covid symptoms (symptoms persisting more than 12 weeks).

[spidermonkey09]

10% of those who had symptomatic Covid have long covid symptoms (symptoms persisting more than 12 weeks).

I know. But nobody has yet told me how we can realistically unlock without people getting covid and therefore being at some risk of long covid. What would you like to see happen that would open things up but also mitigate that risk to a satisfactory level?

[moose]

What's never been clear to me is if long Covid is significantly more probable, more severe, or longer lasting than the post-viral problems that sometimes follow other infections (colds, flu, Epstein Barr etc).

[spidermonkey09]

Alternatively perhaps you think things shouldn't open up at all, and should maybe even roll back to a more locked down state. If so I'd be interested to hear the hoped for 'endgame' of such a strategy.

Meant to edit previous post; sorry!

[Offwidth]

I think the problem is in the presentation of SAGE as a single unified body, whereas in reality it represents a spectrum of opinion with different attitudes to risk. That, after all, is its job, to provide a spectrum of the scientific opinion. The Guardian only ever quotes the more risk averse members, the rest of the press only ever quotes the more bullish ones. This isn't an anti Guardian thing, I think its a great paper, but I think its reporting on Covid recently has been poor. That's not to say other papers/media aren't poor as well, but The Guardian isn't sacred. I'm not 'singling it out,' I'm saying its not a paragon of virtue. That said I am obviously glad it exists; the rest of the media is as bad if not considerably worse.

I'm not aware of a single member of SAGE who has, publicly speaking as an individual, supported the full opening on June 21st. Everyone I've seen (most on the BBC) has said the opposite.
How about some examples of problems from the Guardian? If they are so bad it must be easy to find some? Also some examples of bullish SAGE members (easy for me to miss those as most papers they would post in are paywalled or so bad I can't being myself look at them online).

Independent SAGE was necessary this time last year but I think has well outlived its usefulness and seems to be a meal ticket to media appearances for many of its contributors. It has also been consistently wrong on almost every aspect of the unlocking since March. They oppose for the sake of opposition without ever providing concrete alternatives and a way out of the situation. I also think some of their recent scaremongering over vaccine effectiveness on the Indian variant has sailed dangerously close to encouraging vaccine hesitancy which is unforgivable.

Weekly breifings are here: https://www.independentsage.org/category/weeklynumbers/

I disagree entirely with you having watched nearly every weekly youtube post since March. They do crazy amounts of voluntary work for no pay. They present data well and talk about probabilistic risk in a way usually much more detailed and better presented than elsewhere. Again it must be easy to give us some examples of all these majorly false predictions if they made them so often.

I don't think anyone mentioned long covid. What you describe sounds really bad; I hope they continue to improve. I know several people suffering from similar symptoms. However, I don't think the small risk of long covid is a reason to maintain restrictions.

That's sort of my point. Probably hundreds of thousands are suffering still. All that human pain and waste is ongoing even when cases get back to near zero (plus the pain in the families who faced needless death). Maybe 10% of the covid infected in the UK a small risk... hmmm!?

I'm far from a doom-based restrictions type person. I think the ongoing paranoia some climbers still have about outdoor covid risks is very strange. We knew surface risks outdoors were very low from the summer and proximity risks outdoors very low since last spring. Covid spreads in poorly ventilated enclosed spaces, often where clear necessary precautions are ignored. It's why its a disease that afflicts the most deprived... risk is highest in crowded multi-generational homes, when facing poor conditions due to exploitative employers and forced by affordability to use buses. Indoors, if gyms are safe to open so are climbing walls.

[petejh]

Not much to add on tone - I read the Guardian, Telegraph and sometimes the FT and plot a course between them, generally ignoring Guardian opinion pieces as a wailing wall of first-world woe and Telegraph opinion pieces as entitled outrage at snowflake culture.

That's sort of my point. Probably hundreds of thousands are suffering still. All that human pain and waste is ongoing even when cases get back to near zero (plus the pain in the families who faced needless death). Maybe 10% of the covid infected in the UK a small risk... hmmm!?

If you're not a 'zero covid' proponent why would you discuss covid cases returning to 'near zero'? Do you believe that cases could actually ever reach near zero and remain there? If so how?

I'm assuming covid variants are now with us for the rest of our lifetimes. Isn't discussing 'near zero' as unrealistic as discussing cases of flu 'returning to near zero'?

[tomtom]

I don't think you are trolling Spidermonkey - but you're coming across to me (n=1) as that...

FWIW, I think open air hospitality is fine as it is presently organised. I think indoor - is much less so and I would argue against that at this stage - especially as those most likely to go out are those most likely to be unvaccinated. Gyms / Walls with a limit on entry numbers seems to be working well. The Green/Amber/Red travel thing is a farce - whilst green and red are clear (I have issues with how well its enforced but its clear) Amber is a joke (for many reasons - from mixed messaging to how many amber list countries are on the FO do not travel list anyway..). I would keep facemasks in all places where they are presently required (including secondary schools - until we are sure 167.2 isnt an issue there) and put the kybosh on any sort of 'freedom day' stuff rhetoric being used...

[T_B]

The FCDO Travel advice and the Traffic Light system are entirely separate with no alignment planned. Traffic light system being public health, FCDO being about the destination. It’s farcical though. Is international travel open or not?!

On indoor hospitality I think you’ll find there are a lot of fully vaccinated people 60+ who’ve had enough of restrictions. It’s not all the young and ‘reckless’.

[spidermonkey09]

I don't think you are trolling Spidermonkey - but you're coming across to me (n=1) as that...

First things first, I'm not trolling in the slightest.

FWIW, I think open air hospitality is fine as it is presently organised. I think indoor - is much less so and I would argue against that at this stage - especially as those most likely to go out are those most likely to be unvaccinated. Gyms / Walls with a limit on entry numbers seems to be working well. The Green/Amber/Red travel thing is a farce - whilst green and red are clear (I have issues with how well its enforced but its clear) Amber is a joke (for many reasons - from mixed messaging to how many amber list countries are on the FO do not travel list anyway..). I would keep facemasks in all places where they are presently required (including secondary schools - until we are sure 167.2 isnt an issue there) and put the kybosh on any sort of 'freedom day' stuff rhetoric being used...

Right, I understand all the above and don't disagree with parts of it, particularly the amber travel category which is utterly pointless. But what is your criteria for going back to indoor hospitality/meeting family and friends inside/removing restrictions? Because its all very well saying the above but if there is no 'roadmap' to removing them then we are speaking at crossed purposes. Zero, or even near-zero, covid is fantasyland as far as I'm concerned. It is impossible to get cases low and keep them there long term. To pre-empt NZ and Australia being brought up, they are already internally discussing how to move to a mitigation strategy from their current near-zero approach, because they know that its not a long term strategy just like the rest of the world does.

Offwidth, depending on how bored I get at work this afternoon I'll provide some examples

[Duma]

I'm with Spidermonkey, To accuse him of trolling reflects pretty badly on you TT IMO

[tomtom]

I'm with Spidermonkey, To accuse him of trolling reflects pretty badly on you TT IMO

Shrugs. No accusing - just saying that it came accross to me a bit. A lot can get lost in forum conversation and I think it’s better to (nicely? Could I have been any gentler?) point it out rather than get cross about it..? I thought I was pretty clear that I didn’t think that was what he was doing but that’s how it came across a bit to me..

@spidermonkey - I think it’s that you keep mentioning zero COVId in such negative ways - when it’s not something anyone is really suggesting here any more. Feels a bit like I’m being prodded for a response….

I’m probably wrong - but thought it better to say than not.

[spidermonkey09]

Shrugs. No accusing - just saying that it came accross to me a bit. A lot can get lost in forum conversation and I think it’s better to (nicely? Could I have been any gentler?) point it out rather than get cross about it..? I thought I was pretty clear that I didn’t think that was what he was doing but that’s how it came across a bit to me..

@spidermonkey - I think it’s that you keep mentioning zero COVId in such negative ways - when it’s not something anyone is really suggesting here any more. Feels a bit like I’m being prodded for a response….

I’m probably wrong - but thought it better to say than not.

No offence taken, its all good. 

I mention zero covid only because that is the position of a lot of people who sit on Independent Sage who are quoted quite often on the thread. It was also the position of the Guardian, unbelievably, back when the roadmap was first announced.

I also mention it because when people (entirely fairly) criticise elements of the unlocking process, in the absence of saying what they would prefer the criteria for unlocking to be, the default seems to be 'when we attain zero or near zero covid cases', which I see as profoundly unrealistic and leads me to conclude they aren't actually that bothered about a state of perpetual lockdown. If you aren't suggesting that then great, but I'm still none the wiser as to what your position actually is.

To clarify, I think its entirely fair to be worried about the unlocking, or about long covid; I am as well. But I don't see an alternative that allows society to reopen to essentially normal levels which I consider to be absolutely paramount given our current vaccination status. I am very much all ears if there is a way to reopen society in a way which wont result in increased cases and increased numbers of people getting long covid, but I'm yet to hear it. I think tolerating increased cases and LC will be part of adjusting to increased levels of health risk in exchange for a normal existence. 

[AJM]

@spidermonkey - I think it’s that you keep mentioning zero COVId in such negative ways - when it’s not something anyone is really suggesting here any more. Feels a bit like I’m being prodded for a response….

I can see what you mean. The quote below has similar echos for me - it feels a bit like there’s a black and white framing which says that either “we keep unlocking as we are now” or “endless lockdown/zero Covid/what’s your endgame”. Given there are a million permutations of how fast you unlock versus how fast you roll out vaccine (if you want to just mitigate system overload, you unlock once enough of the vulnerable are jabbed, if you worry about high caseloads either for mutants, long Covid prevalence etc then you wait until more vaccines have gone into arms since they protect against some of that as well), all of which give you a view on the current state (too fast, could go faster, etc etc) and a viable endgame - it seems very lacking in nuance.

Alternatively perhaps you think things shouldn't open up at all, and should maybe even roll back to a more locked down state. If so I'd be interested to hear the hoped for 'endgame' of such a strategy.

[Paul B]

That's a good post AJM. Wasn't that the idea of "data not dates" which seems to have been somewhat sidelined?

[AJM]

That's a good post AJM. Wasn't that the idea of "data not dates" which seems to have been somewhat sidelined?

Our dates have remained constant haven’t they, despite picking up the pace on vaccination (I don’t think the government ever formally said it, but I thought some point in mid March the papers were leaking the idea that we might all be done by end of June), then the April shortages pushing that back, us having a wealth of new information about vaccination effectiveness and us also having far more information on the level of concern or otherwise we should have about probably at least half a dozen different variants of interest, concern etc. It’s been criticised for being too fast and too slow by various people but despite everything it’s remained entirely unchanged. I’d love to know what the data source is, or exactly how much data would be required to shift anything at all!

[spidermonkey09]

It’s been criticised for being too fast and too slow by various people but despite everything it’s remained entirely unchanged.

Which tbf probably means its about right according to UKB's 'Law of BBC Bias' ! 

 it feels a bit like there’s a black and white framing which says that either “we keep unlocking as we are now” or “endless lockdown/zero Covid/what’s your endgame”. Given there are a million permutations of how fast you unlock versus how fast you roll out vaccine (if you want to just mitigate system overload, you unlock once enough of the vulnerable are jabbed, if you worry about high caseloads either for mutants, long Covid prevalence etc then you wait until more vaccines have gone into arms since they protect against some of that as well), all of which give you a view on the current state (too fast, could go faster, etc etc) and a viable endgame - it seems very lacking in nuance.

Thats a fair cop. I am probably hypersensitive to suggestions that things change/slow down because I'm fed up of the whole thing and haven't even been jabbed yet! Nuance isn't dead though; if the government decided tomorrow that the 21st June date was being knocked back a bit to allow more jabs to go into arms (probably the most likely scenario I think) I would be fine with it because the fundamental strategy of 'living with the virus' remains unchanged, just slightly delayed. I don't think that strategy is endorsed at all by some of the pieces shared/people quoted on the thread, which gets my back up because I essentially don't think people who don't agree with mitigation should be listened to anymore.