Generic Virus Thread

[blandy]

19 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

What we know is that local lockdowns failed, in numerous parts of the country, and are hugely harmful as a policy (they are complete barrier to 'a return to normal').

I don't think I'd put it like that, myself.

There's quite a bit to unpick, but the first thing is that it doesn't make sense to apply a nationwide measure to address a probelm in a local area "why does Cornwall have to lock down just because there's an outbreak in Newcastle" ?

So the measures undertaken need to address the particular problem and risk at that time and place.

Now Lockdowns in areas I'd agree were not as effective as they could have been, largely due to finance and lamentable test, track, trace and isolate  - people not isolating because they couldn't afford to, and the other problems we've covered at length.

In terms of local lockdowns being hugely harmful, well, yes to an extent, but then again, not locking down (in the absence of other measures) is even more harmful and risks the harm spreading rapidly, as we know and saw.

Now there's vaccines, this is a big leap forward, but unvaccinated people take a couple of weeks from being jagged to become protected and having reduced spreading characteristics, so vaccination is not the complete cure. Some other measures are necessary.

Given it's people that spread the virus, it's measures to stop people spreading it that are essential. Unfortunately, lockdown is therefore something that will need to be done if/when there is an outbreak in a place.

[blandy]

8 minutes ago, bickster said:

Yes it was but it still delayed the lockdown by a week

Agreed. My point was that it's not him to blame, when the gov't were treating Manchester differently to that London and so on.

[HanoiVillan]

3 minutes ago, bickster said:

Yes it was but it still delayed the lockdown by a week

. . . and can you prove to the level of certainty of 'He himself was a major factor in the Manchester lockdown not working' that this was the crucial factor, as opposed to any of the following off-the-top-of-my-head possibilities:

-greater travel from areas with higher infection rates into the Greater Manchester region?

-more families in multiple-occupancy housing, or fewer families in multiple-occupancy housing, but the bad luck that a higher proportion of occupants in that housing were positive for the virus?

-that testing may have been more widespread in Liverpool, and that potentially the rate in GM was actually higher than on Merseyside?

-slightly worse weather in GM forcing people to spend slightly more time indoors?

-a different profile of essential workers, either that more of the population of GM are essential workers, or that they are proportionately older or unhealthier or more racially diverse and that this has an impact somehow?

-dumb bad luck that a higher proportion of interactions turned into transmission events in GM than they did on Merseyside?

etc etc.

I can come up with dozens of these; the point is there is no way to disaggregate them easily, and there are plenty of examples of similar jurisdictions in different places where stricter responses have not led to lower rates, so the relationship between severity of restrictions and infection rates is neither clear nor linear.

[HanoiVillan]

6 minutes ago, blandy said:

Now Lockdowns in areas I'd agree were not as effective as they could have been, largely due to finance and lamentable test, track, trace and isolate  - people not isolating because they couldn't afford to, and the other problems we've covered at length.

Agreed.

6 minutes ago, blandy said:

In terms of local lockdowns being hugely harmful, well, yes to an extent, but then again, not locking down (in the absence of other measures) is even more harmful and risks the harm spreading rapidly, as we know and saw.

Now there's vaccines, this is a big leap forward, but unvaccinated people take a couple of weeks from being jagged to become protected and having reduced spreading characteristics, so vaccination is not the complete cure. Some other measures are necessary.

Given it's people that spread the virus, it's measures to stop people spreading it that are essential. Unfortunately, lockdown is therefore something that will need to be done if/when there is an outbreak in a place.

Public health measures need to be in proportion to the risk. As the vast majority of the most at-risk population have now received two vaccine doses, we need to move away from last-resort measures that themselves inflict huge harm on both public health and the public purse.

Lockdowns/enforced social distancing were not considered good policy prior to 2020. Indeed, the WHo specifically said they should they not be used in their guidance. We managed for 'the entirety of previous history' to manage viral outbreaks without them, and we should now return to doing so.

Even the theoretical possibility of 'local lockdowns' is inimical to planning or investment. Maybe I'd like to put on a concert, but I can't, because nobody will insure it because it might get cancelled in a local lockdown. Maybe I'm engaged to be married, but I can't plan a wedding, because it might be cancelled at short notice in a local lockdown. Etc etc.

[Stevo985]

First jab booked in for Tuesday!  

[blandy]

41 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Public health measures need to be in proportion to the risk. As the vast majority of the most at-risk population have now received two vaccine doses, we need to move away from last-resort measures that themselves inflict huge harm on both public health and the public purse.

Agreed, largely.

Quote

Lockdowns/enforced social distancing were not considered good policy prior to 2020. Indeed, the WHo specifically said they should they not be used in their guidance. We managed for 'the entirety of previous history' to manage viral outbreaks without them, and we should now return to doing so.

Even the theoretical possibility of 'local lockdowns' is inimical to planning or investment. Maybe I'd like to put on a concert, but I can't, because nobody will insure it because it might get cancelled in a local lockdown. Maybe I'm engaged to be married, but I can't plan a wedding, because it might be cancelled at short notice in a local lockdown. Etc etc.

This, less so. There's a Gap, a big one. Including in what the WHO apparently said - Specifically, whether it's AIDS, Ebola or Covid, local measures (including lockdowns) have (past tense) been necessary, because the alternative is either no measures or nationwwide measures - both of which have an awful lot of bad impacts - either wastage or obviously inadequacy. So for me the question doesn't start from the point of view of "Local lockdowns are bad" but from "what is necessary" and "well if you're not going to do [this] measure, what's the better alternative".

I've yet to see a better alternative means of addressing (say) a local outbreak of a (say) vaccine dodging variant, and so I don't think ruling out local lockdowns is a wise step. Whatever the WHO say. Unfortunately humans spread the disease, so if you want to stop the disease spreading, you need to restrict humans movement and contact, or stop the means of transmission - and while vaccines reduce the transmission and reduce the lethality for the current variants, we don't yet know that is a given for all scenarios and variants. This isn't me advocating local lockdowns as a "must do", but I don't think "never again" is right, given where we are.

[HanoiVillan]

16 minutes ago, blandy said:

Agreed, largely.

This, less so. There's a Gap, a big one. Including in what the WHO apparently said - Specifically, whether it's AIDS, Ebola or Covid, local measures (including lockdowns) have (past tense) been necessary, because the alternative is either no measures or nationwwide measures - both of which have an awful lot of bad impacts - either wastage or obviously inadequacy. So for me the question doesn't start from the point of view of "Local lockdowns are bad" but from "what is necessary" and "well if you're not going to do [this] measure, what's the better alternative".

I've yet to see a better alternative means of addressing (say) a local outbreak of a (say) vaccine dodging variant, and so I don't think ruling out local lockdowns is a wise step. Whatever the WHO say. Unfortunately humans spread the disease, so if you want to stop the disease spreading, you need to restrict humans movement and contact, or stop the means of transmission - and while vaccines reduce the transmission and reduce the lethality for the current variants, we don't yet know that is a given for all scenarios and variants. This isn't me advocating local lockdowns as a "must do", but I don't think "never again" is right, given where we are.

I don't think people would believe 'never again' even if politicians said it, so I don't think that's on the table. But there are ways of indicating that such a policy would be strongly disfavoured, such as Johnson saying the steps to open up are 'irreversible'; again, it's not that it's literally true, but that he's placing a very high political premium on reversing course. That approach is right.

On the effectiveness, we need to be clear-sighted about what happens in these cases, and who is making what decisions. Let's take Leicester as an example. It spent the entirety of the second half of 2020 in the strictest measures that were in place at any given time. This did not have the effect of ending the crisis in Leicester. At the time the Leicester crisis began, the blame was placed variously on either the city's large number of largely-unregulated garment factories, or on a food processing plant making supermarket sandwiches. But it doesn't really matter which of these was site zero for the outbreak; the point is that these employers remained open throughout the entire period, with their workers considered 'essential workers'. Sarah O'Connor at the FT, who has done more research into the working conditions of workers in garment factories than any other journalist that I'm aware of, has pointed out that they essentially never receive health and safety inspections, and that these inspections were a victim of austerity that have never returned.

The fantasy of 'local lockdowns' is the idea that 'this time it will be different' or 'this time we will do it right'. We won't. The Tories are not going to change the law around statutory sick pay now that the crisis is nearly over, and they are not going to start funding inspections of workplaces to ensure they are covid-safe. You and I might wish we lived in a country where Boris Johnson wasn't PM and the Tories didn't have an 80-seat majority and no care for the worst-off, but we do. So even if it were a good idea to embrace the possibility of local lockdowns - and IMO it isn't, because as I say the possibility is inimical to planning, investment, or a sense of normality - then there is very little reason to think they would be a useful part of the toolkit in any case.

We also need to abandon basing policy around ' . . . but what if a vaccine-resistant variant'. If this eventuality comes to pass, then we may have to address it. But we cannot keep basing public policy around hypothetical worst-case scenarios. It is too costly to businesses, and to people's personal finances and mental health.

Edited May 14, 2021 by HanoiVillan

[mjmooney]

I'm convinced that, once we have the majority vaccinated (and an ongoing programme of vaccine development for new strains), the policy is going to be 100% Let It Rip herd immunity. 

And I think it's probably the most pragmatic strategy. 

[Genie]

46 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

I'm convinced that, once we have the majority vaccinated (and an ongoing programme of vaccine development for new strains), the policy is going to be 100% Let It Rip herd immunity. 

And I think it's probably the most pragmatic strategy. 

Me too, it’ll be treated/managed like Flu is currently. 

[bickster]

So do we think that Johnson is going to have to put a brake on the easing of restrictions this evening?

[ender4]

4 minutes ago, bickster said:

So do we think that Johnson is going to have to put a brake on the easing of restrictions this evening?

No. Why?

Overall hospitalisations aren't increasing, and even rates aren't really going up except for some minor fluctuations in a couple of hotspots like Bolton.

Edited May 14, 2021 by ender4

[sidcow]

5 minutes ago, bickster said:

So do we think that Johnson is going to have to put a brake on the easing of restrictions this evening?

He and other ministers have made it absolutely clear that they are proceeding with the easing of restrictions next week and nothing is going to change that.  So no, I do not think he will put a break on the easing of restrictions this evening.

I am expecting that to happen around midnight on Sunday. 

Edited May 14, 2021 by sidcow

[Genie]

Boris will do 2-3 days worth of ruling out any u-turns, before doing a u-turn

[bickster]

6 minutes ago, ender4 said:

and even rates aren't really going up except for some minor fluctuations in a couple of hotspots like Bolton.

It's just been announced that the R rate has just risen to be in the range 0.8 to 1.1 from 0.8 to 1.0

[mjmooney]

2 minutes ago, Genie said:

Boris will do 2-3 days worth of ruling out any u-turns, before doing a u-turn

Alas. 

[ender4]

Just now, bickster said:

It's just been announced that the R rate has just risen to be in the range 0.8 to 1.1 from 0.8 to 1.0

isn't that basically the same?  It was probably around 0.9 and now it's probably marginally above 0.9?

Anyway, its the hospitalisations that matter.  Because a majority have been vaccinated, even if the R number goes slightly above 1.0, its not a big issue as long as hospital admissions don't increase.

[blandy]

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

We also need to abandon basing policy around ' . . . but what if a vaccine-resistant variant'. If this eventuality comes to pass, then we may have to address it. But we cannot keep basing public policy around hypothetical worst-case scenarios. It is too costly to businesses, and to people's personal finances and mental health.

This is completely awry with my perceptions.

Firstly, I don't think (to date) this has remotely been the case. If anything the opposite has been the case - that policy has been laissez faire to put it kindly, rather than "ooh, but there's this bad aspect we need to think of and act strictly" - I mean closing the borders? no. Lockdown on time? No. Ease lockdown too soon - Yes, not do the September circuit break...Opening schools for a day then having to close them...and so on. The politicians have got it wrong, by favouring the throbbing right wingers every time.

So it's really not about Keep basing policy on worse case - we've never done that.

What we've done is based policy around ignoring the science to an extent, prioritising economics and so on for purely political reasons. And you can extend that to starting off with no PPE, having neglected the clear advice that the number one threat to the country would be a pandemic.

Now, the next bit - "It is too costly to businesses, and to people's personal finances and mental health". How much is "too costly" exactly. It's clearly undeniable costly. But too much, and compared to what alternative? That's essentially the argument made by the anti-lockdown lot all the way through - the herd immunity starting point back last March (2020) - don't do anything, it'll cost too much. How did that go? - well the cost in lives is something around 150,000 dead - so...? How much mental health and trauma is impacted on the relatives of the dead? On the NHS workers who were just swamped?

Now happily, because of the vaccine we're not likely to see a real of that kind of howling gross misconduct error.

The lesson, to me is that you let the experts, the scientists and medics lay out what the current health situation is, what the vaccine situation is, what the Track and trace situation and capability is. Then you plug any gaps in those capabilities. And then you have a starting point and foundation to lay any actions that then need to be taken if/when the circumstances change. You don't "base policy" around worst case situations, but you damned well make sure you are prepared for them occurring, that you have a plan for how to deal with them. Sure, you don't immediately invoke those actions at the first sign of...etc. but you have them ready. You have the mechanisms ready. The alternative is bungling around shouting "Oh ****" and giving contracts out to anyone* and everyone* in a desperate attempt to catch up and put a lid on it.

The handling of this pandemic has been sloppy, half-arsed, crooked, ignored the evidence and science, over-costly and damaging precisely because the Government was ill prepared, ill equipped and inadequate, and because "cost" was at the forefront of their thinking, rather than lives and health.

All measures have costs and impacts, of course, but so does not taking those measures, and that's where the assessment needs to lie.

 

 

 

 

*(tory donors only, obviously)

[Genie]

Previously we knew rising r-rate/infections -> hospitalisations -> deaths going up and up unless a brake lever was pulled.

Now we must be close to rising r-rate -> few hospitalisations -> very, very few deaths.

I hope Whitty and co have updated their models to show how much of an issue rising infection numbers are in May 2021.

[bickster]

19 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

Alas. 

Hasn't alas been replaced by Common sense?

[villakram]

4 hours ago, bickster said:

Yes it was but it still delayed the lockdown by a week

It's always the same story with lockdowns. If "they" had just decided to implement it X weeks earlier then there would be clear evidence in the data showing how lockdowns decisively damp and prevent a new outbreak.