How long and how hard should a lockdown be?

[malumbu]

Thinking of two stories today. The right wing press looking a bit Churchillian in that we fought Coronavirus on the beaches and won. OK not quite that extreme but too optimistic from my take.

And Auckland closing down for three days after a small cluster.

Many laud Australia, NZ and the like for their success in reducing cases to near zero. It's saved 1000s of lives and they have managed to retain some level of normality.

But with lockdowns you need an exit plan. They cannot keep their borders closed for ever and eventually, no doubt when most have been vaccinated, need to open up, with the likelihood that there will be deaths, at hopefully a pretty low rate.

It's clearly a mix of science and politics, harm to the economy and to the nation/health capabilities. Good to hear others' views - not looking for an excuse to throw rocks at the PM (well not this time anyway)

[RichH]

You can't really have a viable "exit plan" without the other side, in this case a biological virus, being agreeable and cooperative, which of course it isn't.

An "exit plan" in this case would be about as useful as the experts of the time declaring that WW1 would all be over by Christmas.

[Jules-and-Boo]

not everyone wants to be vaccinated so I can see this going on for a long time

[TheCat]

I've said it before on this forum...the comparisons to Australia and New Zealand, are woefully misleading unfort.

As an Australian, I have obvioulsy been following this pretty closely, as one might do if they are cooped-up inside for the best part of a year, while close friends and family in Australia go about their normal business. I particularly loved all the social media posts before Xmas, showing big groups of friends out at restaurants, beaches and bars all lamenting what a 'tough year' it had been......anyway, I digress....

In anycase, Australia is a country that already operates largely as an isolated nation...of course there is import and export, but (by necessity) the lionshare of its day to day needs are sourced domestically. Similarly, the mindset of the place is much more domestically focused (some might say inwards looking), so culturally just closing borders wasn't really as big of a deal as it would be (and will be) here.

Additionally, you can throw in...

- Population density

- Percentage of population who travel interstate

- International travellers (both inbound and outbound) as a percent of population

- totally different cultural norms around quarantine (of both goods and people)

- complete differing climates

- a significant greater outdoor/open-air lifestyle

And you have the proverbial chalk and cheese comparison....

Thats not to say that the over-zealous approach to 1 or 2 cases popping up in Australia (plus the strict quarantine) hasn't had a decent result, but I dont think we could ever get down to the base level of effectively 0 cases most of the time, so I wouldn't look to Australia (or NZ) as good guides for how to tackle this problem personally.

That being said, I think the UK border closures and quarantine is a good thing. I think the key focus with regards to 'unlocking' should be on when vaccine programme vaccinates (both doses) enough people who are at risk of death (to make it negligible),and enough people at risk of hospitalization (to make it far below Hospital capacity). I read somewhere that after the first 9 priority groups are vaccinated, that would cover 99% of people at risk of death, and 80% at risk of hospitalization. Assumeing those stats are true, at that point, I would think its seems very hard to justify the ongoing economic/mental/societla damages that lockdown is creating....

[jazzer]

Unfortunately I doubt we will ever return to the life we lived pre-Feb 2020. Life has changed and precautions as designated by this or future Governments will in some manner remain going forward.

Hopefully a slow approach to the easing of the lockdown, monitoring and reacting to the effects, rather than a fast and furious return to everyday life may be the way forward.

[malumbu]

Was using NZ/Aus as an example, not an model case study (although many seem to think that we should have gone this way). Agree with your points Cat, shame others aren't as well informed. But as said when NZ/Aus do open their borders they will have to live with an element of endemic Covid-19. Worry that we will relax too soon, as we did last summer.

[TheCat]

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Was using NZ/Aus as an example, not an model case

> study (although many seem to think that we should

> have gone this way). Agree with your points Cat,

> shame others aren't as well informed. But as said

> when NZ/Aus do open their borders they will have

> to live with an element of endemic Covid-19.

> Worry that we will relax too soon, as we did last

> summer.

Yep. Sorry! Conscious you were just mentioning aus/NZ as an example. My verbose response was more a reaction to general/broader frustration to hearing many people often do exactly as you say and hold australia up as a model that we should follow here, while not appreciating the significant differences!

[fishbiscuits]

Yeah NZ and Aus have done a good job. As others have said, it's not quite a fair comparison as they're much more isolated, but nevertheless, if we'd had harder border control and quarantine rules, we'd be in much better shape. I have absolutely no doubt of that.

What is the exit strategy for their hard border control? Probably a combination of global vaccinations and travel corridors. Gradually opening up to other countries, as and when they manage to contain infections.

[Spartacus]

fishbiscuits Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yeah NZ and Aus have done a good job. As others

> have said, it's not quite a fair comparison as

> they're much more isolated, but nevertheless, if

> we'd had harder border control and quarantine

> rules, we'd be in much better shape. I have

> absolutely no doubt of that.

>

> What is the exit strategy for their hard border

> control? Probably a combination of global

> vaccinations and travel corridors. Gradually

> opening up to other countries, as and when they

> manage to contain infections.

As the UK relies on over 50% of its food to be imported, the concept of hard borders wouldn't have been practical as you can just imagine the headlines

"Starving the many to save the few"

A pandemic is a no win scenario and no matter what decisions a government makes, there will always be those who lose out.

[malumbu]

Food and other important supply chains will be protected come what may. But we are reliant on overseas workers in some many sectors - not just low skilled/manual work. Cat may know better but it is/was a right of passage for young people from Aus/NZ to travel to and work in Europe. Encouraged to do vocational training. Not sure what it has been like in recent years as gone are the days that most bar staff in London were Kiwis. But it must be frustrating in Aus/NZ not to be able to roam the world, but maybe the same for young Europeans too. I expect that travel will get worse before it gets better - I rearranged a number of trips from last year, and wonder if I will be even able to do next year.....

[Alan Medic]

Rather than starting a new thread to ask a question, I'm intruding in this one.

Given the rules, would I be breaking them by driving to Kew Gardens for exercise occasionally? We have some lovely open spaces in ED but I find them uncomfortable to be in due to the constant vigilance required to maintain social distancing and the numerous joggers who don't give a hoot where they run or how close to you they get.

Kew Gardens is so big, it's an excellent place to avoid people.

What do you think?

[fishbiscuits]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Given the rules, would I be breaking them by

> driving to Kew Gardens for exercise occasionally?

Yes you would be breaking them, as you are travelling outside your local area.

Ethically - I don't personally have much issue with it if you are careful about social distancing, but nevertheless it is not within the rules.

[TheCat]

Sober article about how the previous desire for swift reopening, has now seemingly been replaced by ever shifting goalposts, and drip-feeding of restriction removal....

I appreciate that it's a bit of goldilocks scenario in trying to get the speed of things right, but the rhetoric now does seem to be erring significantly on the side of too slow....

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/vaccines-are-working-so-why-isnt-society-reopening

[Spartacus]

I'm sure that every person who's life is saved by a slow unlocking, wouldn't agree with your last statement Cat

It's a matter of perspective, too slow for businesses and economy, but too fast to stop additional infections and deaths

Not a roadmap I would want to draw up or be held accountable for.

[TheCat]

Spartacus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm sure that every person who's life is saved by

> a slow unlocking, wouldn't agree with your last

> statement Cat

>

> It's a matter of perspective, too slow for

> businesses and economy, but too fast to stop

> additional infections and deaths

>

> Not a roadmap I would want to draw up or be held

> accountable for.

This raises a more philosophical questions then. Do we stay locked down until cases are totally eradicated? Is any risk of death, no matter how small, deemed unacceptable? How do these risks balance off against other health risks associated with lockdown? (I.e. should we ban the motor-car because some people die in traffic accidents?)

Of course as you say, not an easy thing to plot out. But I am of the opinion that now there seems to be a massivly over-cautious tone in government that does not seem commensurate with previous statements about risk.

The lack of transparency and ever-shifting goal posts is a significant frustration. I appreciate a need to remain flexible, but it seems to me that there is everr-changing criteria applied in the interpretation of risk the the data shows. Previously it was about protecting NHS capacity and minimising risk of death...now it's about minimising rates of infection (irrespective of mortality and hospitalization rates?) as the main focus? Of course they go hand in hand, but the subtle difference in focus I think is important

All remains to be seen, but I can't understand how there is a risk that we may be in a situation where we have similar restrictions this summer to last summer...when nearly all adults should be vaccinated by the summer....

As the article says, what's the point of such a large scale vaccination programme, if we aren't going to meaningfully leverage it's benefits?

[fishbiscuits]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> This raises a more philosophical questions then.

> Do we stay locked down until cases are totally

> eradicated?

Well of course it is far too late now, but near-eradication might have been possible if we'd acted sooner, imposed a harder lockdown, and closed the borders.

I think the strategy now will be mainly guided by hospital capacity and vaccinations. The numbers in hospital now are still almost as high as the Spring peak last year. They need to come down a LOT for the NHS to recover and start getting through the backlog of other patients and procedures. We are surely still months away from that. Hopefully vaccinations should start bringing that down further over the next few weeks/months.

And we still have at least 10K positive tests every day... that is far too many to be able to operate any sort of effective test and trace system. Maybe if the cases were down to the 100s per day, keeping a R rate of around 1, we'd stand a chance.

In summary - I think it's far too early.

[Spartacus]

Not according to the King of Leon

BBC News - Leon boss warns longer lockdown 'will cost lives'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56137815

[KidKruger]

Boris said on 27/1/21 that there may be as many as '50,000 more deaths before we're through the pandemic'.

That's 22 days ago and we're 17,000 more deaths later. By that reckoning in 2 months we'll be all done.

Be confident that the first priority of the Government is their donors, themselves and their friends.

Whatever is left, we get a look-in. So it may be prudent to not rely wholly on Govt for your welfare, health and prospects.

[BrandNewGuy]

"... every person whose life is saved by a slow unlocking..." doesn't really reflect the pros and cons of lockdowns. People *will* die as a result of lockdowns ? through neglecting other and bigger life-threatening conditions such as cancer, heart disease and so on, lack of exercise, poverty caused by economic hardship and loss of work, mental health problems and more. It's almost impossible to quantify exactly the casualties, which is why, alas, these aspects of lockdown are less vivid than COVID deaths.

I say this not as a COVID-denier or anti-lockdowner or whatever, but as someone who trying to grasp the real complexities and dilemmas involved in our situation.

[TheCat]

For those who are interested in a few modelling numbers from the team at Bristol, who have proven one of the more accurate during the pandemic...

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-soon-will-vaccines-let-us-re-open-society-

[Sephiroth]

Vaccines are working but the body of scientific opinion is that a) they are no silver bullet and b) opening before everyone is vaccinated not only allows but encourages further mutations

this doesn't mean stay locked down forever - but it does mean being more cautious than this govt (and others) were last year. We have cranks like Hartley-B claiming we are in permanent lockdown in the week before we are about to start reopening. We are just reopening more cautiously than last year and that's a good thing

(strong correlation between defenders of Johnson saying "no-one could know about the UK variant arriving and causing so much damage" last year and now saying "just open up - we now know enough to not worry about such things")

[Pugwash]

Open schools first - primary then gradual reopening of secondary. Non essential shops - especially the small independent shops, to open department stores (if we have any left) would be difficult to control numbers.

Cafes and small restaurants but have a time limit as to how long people can stay in them i.e. if just coffee and sandwich/cake 1 hour max, more substantial meals - max of 2.5. hours. stop people using cafes as their office or also giving a 1 hour max stay.When order taken the time could be written on it. I remember many times booking a restaurant in the past and you were given a time slot i.e 7 - 9.30 as place did set sittings.

[Spartacus]

21st June for everything, if all goes well

Then we can really party like its 1999

[TheCat]

Woot woot.

I'll keep quiet on my views on the speed of the unlocking, as it is what it is, and it not a particularly useful or interesting debate....for some it will be too fast, and for some too slow....

....but one thing is for sure....those people moaning last year as we exited the first lockdown (that the rules weren't prescriptive/clear enough on what they could and could not do) should be overjoyed that we now have a 50-page handbook to cover nearly every eventuality one may encounter over the next 6 months or so. No chance of a politician being mocked this time for asking the public to exercise common-sense it seems.

Anyway, must dash, as I need to consult the handbook - I am going to visit my elderly relative after march 8, and am not sure which is the correct hand that I am permitting to offer her to hold....

[DulwichFox]

Spartacus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 21st June for everything, if all goes well

>

> Then we can really party like its 1999

My Hair will be down to my arse by then..

Foxy