Coronavirus

[Matt N]

Mildly good news; the Omicron variant is apparently less efficient at attacking the lungs and causing severe disease than previous variants, according to a Cambridge-based study: https://apple.news/A9FRXALFwTl-MpGOV2aIsBQ

 

[Burbs]

I don't post in here much, but my opinion on the whole lockdown/catching covid thing can be simplified to this:

I'm not scared of catching it. I already have, was knocked out for about a day, and that's about it. I'm afraid of the consequences of catching it. Sitting in my room for 10 days twiddling my thumbs was not fun. Fortunately, work paid me in full for my isolation which was good of them, although seemingly quite common too. I'm aware they're reconsidering this however, with the amount of unvaccinated individuals having to isolate for 10 days every time they come into contact with someone who has a positive case, and paying them for it too.

I work in a West End theatre; an inherently dangerous workplace for covid. Regardless of how many people wear a mask, there simply isn't the room for social distancing backstage, and with cast members singing at full pelt at each other on stage without a mask on, it's no surprise we had to cancel today's show. Hopefully we'll be back up on Tuesday. If we lock down again (heaven forbid), there's a good chance I'll be laid off without pay until we're allowed to return, or if it's an elongated lockdown, sacked off completely, although this is fairly unlikely.

The company I work for were one of the first to start firing everyone they could in October 2020 in order to save money after furlough changed, and I believe they changed the contracts to suit themselves a bit better and readjust logistics in-house. As I say, I think it's unlikely but I wouldn't put it past them to do it again. Sometimes I really wish I was in a job where I could easily work from home and have no worries other than not being able to go out for a few weeks. Unfortunately that's not the reality for a lot of people, including practically everyone in the hospitality and entertainment industries - something that those who are pro-lockdown seem to forget.

 

[jon81uk]

The public won’t do another lockdown. I wouldn’t do another lockdown. Enough lockdowns

But if it’s not “lockdown” and just closure of hospitality venues then they will in generally close because they don’t want to get fined. But the government really need to offer furlough again if they do make businesses stay closed.

 

[Dave]

No one in their right mind would argue that the government has not been terrible in recent times. That kind of goes without saying now. That doesn't mean we're not allowed to criticize the media also.

You can critique the media all you want and it often deserves it, there are two things that have annoyed me in this pandemic, one is blaming the media for the government mishandling of communication and blaming scientists for doing their jobs(not something I have see you do).

Im actually going to slightly backtrack on one point though, lockdown might still come to pass (though I do think after Xmas day), but based on tonight’s radio silence from government I’m now wondering if Javid’s morning interviews where more of a test balloon of public opinion. So let’s see what comes of that.

 

[Craig]

But if it’s not “lockdown” and just closure of hospitality venues then they will in generally close because they don’t want to get fined. But the government really need to offer furlough again if they do make businesses stay closed.

Realistically, if reports are to be believed it pretty much will be, albeit with potentially far more damaging effects. The general stuff being fed out to the press in recent days has been to switch pubs and restaurants to outdoor only table service and to completely ban household mixing indoors.

Now on the pub/restaurant front, to do that at the back end of December and into January would be, to put it lightly absolutely devastating for the industry. After already taking a hit without any support after government advice was issued to reduce social mixing, and working from home guidance - a huge amount of venues simply would not survive without any sort of financial support.

On the household mixing indoors side of things, as others have already touched on, I don't think anyone should underestimate just how damaging this could be for a huge number of people. January is miserable enough, to completely ban indoor mixing would be devastating for more people than I think many realise. Sure, you could mix outside to an extent, but again with the weather as cold as it can be in December/January it's not really a comfortable prospect.

Finally, let's not forget furlough is intended purely to cover employees wages. It doesn't cover the vast losses of stock being wasted, loans to pay back, rent to be paid and utilities to fork out for. Sure there have been some grants and business support loans, but as much as they were low interest loans, they need to be paid back at some point. Without the future revenue coming in, that becomes just another burden on top of the mess of debt businesses have already incurred. It's simply just not sustainable to potentially have 10-25% of the year where we just come to a stop.

 

[Dave]

Stating a lockdown makes people ‘unhappy’ severely underplays the impact it has on people’s lives.

Bringing in another lockdown, when we have the vaccines and the treatments, isn’t just a ‘ruined Christmas’. It’ll be the end for many people’s businesses. The toll on mental health will be catastrophic. Lockdowns come at a significant price for society, one we’ll be living with for years, if not decades, to come.

But what’s worse is that it will signal that we’ll never live with Covid. The precedent will be set in stone. New variant + alarmist modelling from SAGE (and it’s important to point out that SAGE only models worst-case scenarios by their own admission, as best-case scenarios wouldn’t require any action from ministers) means the default is to shut down society yet again. I imagine most people tolerated the lockdowns in 2020 under the pretence that this would end once we had the treatment and vaccines needed to deal with Covid. Now they’re available, it’s much harder to justify the damage caused by lockdowns.

Appreciate this is a double post. And I will state I don’t believe we need another lockdown….

SAGE has never said it only models worse case scenarios. It models a range, and to be fair the reality has always fallen within the range SAGE has presented.

Everyone thinks science is binary, either yes or no answers. But the truth is the universe is complicated and a bunch of proteins don’t always do things as you expect so they have to have an error range.

As a wise man once said, unlike social media, science knows it doesn’t know everything, otherwise it would stop. It doesn’t care about opinion, it gives data and advice, it doesn’t make moral decisions. If it did make moral decisions we wouldn’t have nuclear bombs!

 

[Rose Of Dawn]

SAGE has never said it only models worse case scenarios. It models a range, and to be fair the reality has always fallen within the range SAGE has presented.

Graham Medley, from SAGE, confirmed this is how they work last night:

 

[Islander]

Graham Medley, from SAGE, confirmed this is how they work last night:

I assume there’s more to that tweet/discussion than you’ve quoted? As that really would take a stretch to interpret as “we only present the worst case scenario”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rose Of Dawn]

I assume there’s more to that tweet/discussion than you’ve quoted? As that really would take a stretch to interpret as “we only present the worst case scenario”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You can read the whole thread yourself for the full context of the conversation; just click on it.

 

[Matt N]

For those that don’t want to read; the thread @Rose Of Dawn linked to says something along the lines of:

But how will they know if there’s a chance that “nothing” will happen, if you don’t tell them it’s a possibility? If they don’t know that, then we are guaranteed restrictions, no?

The paper says it’s a possibility. Government have to make difficult decisions and there is no value listing all the scenarios when they don’t have to decide anything. We can’t model all scenarios - so only focus on the ones that matter. We are not predicting what will happen.

I think this might be what Rose of Dawn was referring to. (Correct me if I’m wrong there, Rose)

 

[Rose Of Dawn]

For those that don’t want to read; the thread @Rose Of Dawn linked to says something along the lines of:


I think this might be what Rose of Dawn was referring to. (Correct me if I’m wrong there, Rose)

Essentially, they create models based on what would need restrictions; this is because were a scenario to arise where restrictions aren’t needed, such a model would be useless.

The problem is there are a lot of people who think Sage model a wider range than they do. This isn’t down to any dishonesty or maliciousness from Sage - but rather people not understanding the purpose. This includes the press, but - concerningly - some ministers who genuinely think that Sage’s “best case” scenarios are indeed best case scenarios when they aren’t. Sage’s own “best case” scenario for restrictions lifting in July was more pessimistic than the reality, as an example.

 

[Matt N]

Essentially, they create models based on what would need restrictions; this is because were a scenario to arise where restrictions aren’t needed, such a model would be useless.

The problem is there are a lot of people who think Sage model a wider range than they do. This isn’t down to any dishonesty or maliciousness from Sage - but rather people not understanding the purpose. This includes the press, but - concerningly - some ministers who genuinely think that Sage’s “best case” scenarios are indeed best case scenarios when they aren’t. Sage’s own “best case” scenario for restrictions lifting in July was more pessimistic than the reality, as an example.

So you’re essentially saying that SAGE’s models only cover scenarios where the government would need to act in some way?

Seems like a fair way of doing it to me, and does reassure me about some of the Omicron stats.

 

[Dave]

You can read the whole thread yourself for the full context of the conversation; just click on it.

I have read the thread.

I read that as “we don’t give advice on the no action needed part of the model”. Which is fair as that’s basically “do nothing”. The actual models are published and they have an upper and lower range.

The SAGE models have always been in the range of error when you compare then with reality, early on they tended to be over optimistic, I would agree they now model the midline towards the pessimistic but they know the politicians will try and blame them for any failures so bias will leak in sadly.

 

[Islander]

I have read the thread.

I read that as “we don’t give advice on the no action needed part of the model”. Which is fair as that’s basically “do nothing”. The actual models are published and they have an upper and lower range.

The SAGE models have always been in the range of error when you compare then with reality, early on they tended to be over optimistic, I would agree they now model the midline towards the pessimistic but they know the politicians will try and blame them for any failures so bias will leak in sadly.

Yeh I read the thread too, and came to the same conclusion as Dave which is why I got confused.

It doesn’t appear to be a case of “we give the bad outcomes, but not the good” at all, but rather “we give advice on the bad outcomes, but none on the good, as it’s not needed” - which is definitely not the same as hiding the good outcomes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Matt.GC]

Well I 100% trust the man who doesn't even seem to know how many kids he has. Or even that a Christmas party is happening in his own house whilst he's upstairs. I'm sure he'll make the right decisions for me and has my best interests at heart. He is my superior after all. I should not question him because he always makes the right decisions and treats parliament and the democratic processes of this country with such great respect. So superior, he may as well cancel the next general election, we have no right to question him and his mates. All hail emperor Borris.

 

[Alsty]

The government is so damaged and weak by recent allegations, defeats and resignations that I think even if Boris Johnson wants to introduce restrictions then he won't. There's even talk of a leadership challenge if he attempts it.

I think we're in a position now where the government will no longer act and the public won't take it seriously. What a sorry state of affairs.

 

[Matt N]

Out of interest, if there was a lockdown, how high do we think compliance would be?

Personally, I reckon it could be slightly lower than previous ones due to the recent business surrounding Christmas parties angering some people too much for them to even think about complying with the government, but I still think it would be higher than many expect if it were to be imposed. As much as support for a lockdown may not be high, and as much as many would not be willing to stick to the restrictions for Boris, I think people would follow lockdown for different reasons, such as through a sense of duty to the country, or to protect vulnerable relatives & friends. Mask compliance on trains and in university still seems pretty high, from what I can tell, even post-party.

Having said that, my Nan has already said that she’s not following any new restrictions that are implemented because Boris’ parties annoyed her too much. And she followed the previous restrictions.

Personally, I would follow new restrictions if there were to be ones imposed. In the case of something like a lockdown, I trust that Boris would be imposing it for the greater good of the country (no one, him included, wants to impose lockdown; they cause real damage, and he’s very anti-lockdown, from what I can tell), and while I’m not saying that what Boris did last year was right, it’s in the past, he apologised, which I’m willing to forgive him because of, and there’s not much we can do about it until the next General Election; if you feel strongly about Boris’ parties now, vote him out when the time comes. Based on the Conservatives’ plummeting popularity ratings, I’d suggest you may not be alone; in fact, I think the North Shropshire by-election (safe Tory stronghold being taken by the Lib Dems) doesn’t bode well for the Conservatives at the next general election. I genuinely think they could lose their government and be relegated to the opposition if a general election were to be held.

 

[AT86]

Out of interest, if there was a lockdown, how high do we think compliance would be?

Pretty high I would say. There will always be those that don’t but in general people have a good moan, and then follow the rules anyway. We’re British, it’s what we do.

 

[Tim]

@Matt N I don't think we'll get another General Election for at least 3 years for that very reason. They know their position is weaker now than it was 2 years ago and unlike the last 2 elections there's no gain to holding another one early.

At this stage it also seems pointless to call a lockdown. I wouldn't be surprised if less than 50% of the population actually followed it. The Christmas lockdown last year was a mess as everyone scrambled to change plans at the last minute. This year we were told a decision would be made by the 18th (correct me if I'm wrong). That date has passed with plenty of reasons to justify a lockdown being available. Yet we heard nothing. To call one now would do nothing but outrage most the population. The reason for the lockdown would be completely lost and people will break rules purely in defiance. Not a good outcome for anyone.

 

[Vik]

The thing that concerns me is that Boris may be a little bit 'unstable' and given that he knows he is pretty much dead and buried now or getting very close to it, he may decide to impose a lockdown out of spite. Take as many people down with him as he can. Given the latest photographs to be released from May last year being leaked yesterday, I'm expecting a press conference this evening with more restrictions in an effort to divert attention away from him again.

In terms of compliance, if you have to sit outside in pubs etc who is going to want to go out? Most people will mix indoors at peoples homes instead regardless of if they are allowed to or not. Why should we follow the rules if those who we trust and elect to govern our country can't?