Lockdown Restrictions Forecast

PR3BFC

Well-known member
I believe Boris is set to announce on the 22nd timescales on how he plans to come out of this lockdown, what are we all thinking then?

I predict he will go with the rumoured schools return on the 8th March, and that will be about as far as it goes.

Start of April we may see non essential shops re-open and I reckon hospitality may gradually be allowed to re-open some point in May.

I think there will be some form of the tier system in place by regions and whether by Christmas things will be a lot better and no restrictions I’m not overly confident.

I don’t see many international holidays this summer but the saving grace on this may be the vaccine to allow some form of holiday season abroad but i can’t see holidays being back to normal until summer of 2022 sadly.

I’d love to say we will be living a normal life by autumn with minimal restrictions but I just can’t see it.

Interested to know how others thing this will play out?
 

Wizzerboy

Well-known member
Irrespective of the fact that a good percentage will be vaccinated by the end of March, the fact remains that people will still have to socially distance and wear face coverings if shops, restaurants and the like if they are to reopen.
Hopefully after the administration of the 2nd jab we may get back to some sort of "normality" by year end IF everyone plays the game 🤷‍♂️
 

Going Up the Pool

Well-known member
There will be an ENORMOUS amount of pressure to get the economy going asap. The country cannot afford to pay so many people's wages much longer and the debt that is being racked up doesn't bear thinking about.

(Leaving the tragic loss of life to one side for a moment) the mantra behind lockdown has always been to 'save the NHS'. Once the numbers begin to plummet the govt will either need to come up with a new snappy slogan or bow to the immense public will to leave lockdown for some semblance of normality.

As with all viruses the stats will decrease over the summer due to temp and UV ... the vaccine programme will also have a big effect. Summer will be 'relatively normal'. New variants will arise at regular intervals and numbers will begin to rise again next Autumn. The govt has until then to build a strategy that doesn't begin and end with locking society down.

So ...

March - Schools & Unis
April - Hospitality and Outdoor events & sport (limited cap and restrictions)
May - Keep going on above
June - Over 50's vaccinated
 

glasshalffull

Well-known member
I know someone who runs a brewery, and he has heard that pubs have been told not to expect to reopen before the May Bank Holiday.
Don’t know how true this is, or which May Bank Holiday.
 

Going Up the Pool

Well-known member
BTW nothing will be 'normal' until the govt officially delete the need for social distancing (and masks) ... that'll probably be into 2022 I reckon.
 

Scaramanga

Well-known member
I think people will very quickly just return to normal regardless of restrictions. People have just about had enough and and even the slightest loosening of the rules will see people steaming ahead.
 

Bottle

Well-known member
Given that I’ve not had a cold for 12 months and Flu cases are well down, then I don’t think I’ll be in a great rush to ditch wearing a mask when shopping. I’d definitely wear one if i did have a cold or flu to prevent passing it on - it might be the one thing that persists after the pandemic subsides - you never know when the next one (or COVID variant) will break out!
 

Loftyboy

Well-known member
Schools ASAP nothing else till after what would be Easter school Holls. They don't want people going out enjoying themselves and mixing and frecking all the good work up
 

CompleteControl

Well-known member
There will be an ENORMOUS amount of pressure to get the economy going asap. The country cannot afford to pay so many people's wages much longer and the debt that is being racked up doesn't bear thinking about.

(Leaving the tragic loss of life to one side for a moment) the mantra behind lockdown has always been to 'save the NHS'. Once the numbers begin to plummet the govt will either need to come up with a new snappy slogan or bow to the immense public will to leave lockdown for some semblance of normality.

As with all viruses the stats will decrease over the summer due to temp and UV ... the vaccine programme will also have a big effect. Summer will be 'relatively normal'. New variants will arise at regular intervals and numbers will begin to rise again next Autumn. The govt has until then to build a strategy that doesn't begin and end with locking society down.

So ...

March - Schools & Unis
April - Hospitality and Outdoor events & sport (limited cap and restrictions)
May - Keep going on above
June - Over 50's vaccinated
On the last point about over 50 s vaccinated I think will probably be achieved by mid March.
 

gjr69

Well-known member
Can we just have back to normal by the end of June. If the jabs dont have the desired effect at some point we just have to get on with it.
A significant number of people will say enough is enough before the end of summer if restrictions similar to now are still in place.
Fund the NHS properly, make sure we have enough capacity to cover for the increase in respiratory illness that they struggle to cope with every year.
Stop giving billionaires and global mega companies ways to avoid tax and dont waste our money on things that aren't needed, and use the 350 million a week from leaving the EU to fund the NHS properly.
I'm tired of the whole thing now, we are living half lives, in fact worse than that for me. I have to go to work every day out there in the big bad dangerous world but when I finish I cant fucking go anywhere!
Ranting but I'm sick of it.
 

PR3BFC

Well-known member
5 days to go until the big roadmap is revealed, the words cautious and careful are being branded about a bit lately which seems to me Boris is gearing us up for bad news on Monday that things won’t be happening as quick as we would like.

To be honest with over 10000 cases most days too and 700 odd deaths today can they really relax things yet? At what point are x amount of cases and deaths acceptable, seem some where some source claiming 1000 cases a day is acceptable, miles off that yet. Especially when they are wanting to add new symptoms like fatigue, head ache, sore throat for a reason to get a test, if this happens and more are tested surely the positive cases is never going to come down?

I was feeling positive about life being more normal by the end of this year now I’m not sure, hope I am wrong.

Obviously the vaccine roll out is a positive which may be a lifeline for a normal summer but we shall see, I await the speech on Monday with anticipation as many others do.
 

Lost Seasider

Well-known member
5 days to go until the big roadmap is revealed, the words cautious and careful are being branded about a bit lately which seems to me Boris is gearing us up for bad news on Monday that things won’t be happening as quick as we would like.

I think the main point is that they'll need 3 - 4 weeks after any change is made to see the impact on case numbers before they can consider a further relaxation, if the data allows my guess would be:
  • 8 March - schools back;
  • 29 March - some mixing of households outdoors, maybe some extra relaxation for Easter;
  • 6 April - non-essential shops to open (notice having been given 29th);
  • 26 April - further mixing of households, possibly indoors;
  • 3 May - close contact services (barbers etc) and possibly gyms (notice given 26th);
  • 31 May - hospitality opens (notice given 24th);
and that's then probably about it until next year.
 

Lost Seasider

Well-known member
o be honest with over 10000 cases most days too and 700 odd deaths today can they really relax things yet?

Probably more like 450 deaths today, the 700 is catch up in reporting from the weekend.

In terms of acceptable deaths, a bad flu season is 20,000, maybe 50 or so a day or 350 a week, so we're probably close to what's acceptable, even if case numbers remain elevated there might be some scope for relaxation.

The effect of the return of schools will be key.
 

Wizaard

Well-known member
Probably more like 450 deaths today, the 700 is catch up in reporting from the weekend.

In terms of acceptable deaths, a bad flu season is 20,000, maybe 50 or so a day or 350 a week, so we're probably close to what's acceptable, even if case numbers remain elevated there might be some scope for relaxation.

The effect of the return of schools will be key.
Dont disagree with that, but the catchment for people who might have died of flu have already died of covid, so the current deaths are of a group who wouldn't have died of flu.
 

BigHandsOliverKahn

Well-known member
5 days to go until the big roadmap is revealed, the words cautious and careful are being branded about a bit lately which seems to me Boris is gearing us up for bad news on Monday that things won’t be happening as quick as we would like.

To be honest with over 10000 cases most days too and 700 odd deaths today can they really relax things yet? At what point are x amount of cases and deaths acceptable, seem some where some source claiming 1000 cases a day is acceptable, miles off that yet. Especially when they are wanting to add new symptoms like fatigue, head ache, sore throat for a reason to get a test, if this happens and more are tested surely the positive cases is never going to come down?

I was feeling positive about life being more normal by the end of this year now I’m not sure, hope I am wrong.

Obviously the vaccine roll out is a positive which may be a lifeline for a normal summer but we shall see, I await the speech on Monday with anticipation as many others do.
10,000 new cases a day sounds OK but it's more the overall figure of current cases they want to bring down - that figure is:

227,818 people are currently predicted to have symptomatic COVID in the UK​

Source
 

20togo

Well-known member
It is what it is. It happens when it happens. In the meantime we just have to carry on making the best out of a bad situation. And more importantly, hope that the figures with regards to numbers of deaths and infections start to drop. We don't want to come out of lockdown to be hit by another spike. Let's hope the vaccines are fully effective.
 

poolseasider

Well-known member
All depends what they want to do with the Furlough scheme as it finishes end of April if you want to keep a business to stay shut the staff are going to want to be paid or open everything up and takeaway the burden.
 

Sooty59

Well-known member
I'm bloody hoping we can go away (caravan) by the Mayday bank holiday & it would be good if something was actually open, I think our Easter booking will just be too early (rolled over from last year) I realise we are all suffering in many ways, but this is really driving me mad.
 

Loco

Well-known member
They're about to start dosing young ones with covid. That's how unsafe it is for the vast majority.
 

Matesrates

Well-known member
It’s a dilemma, virus, versus vaccine, versus vacation, and then there’s those little issues of the economy, jobs and mental health.

They have to be pretty certain there won’t be another wave before they relax too much, or at least know they have the tools to keep it under control.

As some have said, we’re going to have to live with it for a long time and accept that there will be a level of deaths as there is with flu.

Given virtually all those most likely to be seriously ill or die have now been vaccinated, or will have been soon, I can’t see any reason to keep business locked down beyond the end of March.
 

BFC_BFC_BFC

Well-known member
In the shops, when I need to look at the stuff on the shelves closely, I put my hand over my mask where my mouth is. It helps to stop the misting up.
So you transfer the virus from the outside of your mask onto your hands? Presumably you then go on to touch and contaminate various surfaces / items?

This was one of the main reasons why scientists had initially raised concerns about mask wearing.
 

rockontommy

Well-known member
Screenshot-2021-02-09-18-16-47-58.jpg
[/url]
 

Lost Seasider

Well-known member
10,000 new cases a day sounds OK but it's more the overall figure of current cases they want to bring down - that figure is:

227,818 people are currently predicted to have symptomatic COVID in the UK​

Source

One figure is daily new infections, and the other figure is the number of people with the infection at any one time, since it's not a one day illness it stands to reason that the latter is going to be many times the former and the two are inextricably linked, if you bring down one you also bring down the other.
 

northstand

Well-known member
The whole underlying reason that the government had justified the lockdown is to limit excess deaths caused by people getting covid and needing hospital treatment, thereby overwhelming the nhs and potentially having a knock on effect with stopping other users accessing care when it’s needed.

The path out of the lockdown last year was somewhat measured and initially we did not see a rise in cases, this only occurred in the autumn with the variants and more indoor mixing.

Last year we did not have the vaccine however.

As more are vaccinated the number of people requiring hospital treatment should dramatically reduce. This negates the government’s argument for lockdown as the nhs should always have sufficient capacity to cope.

We might need social distancing and yearly booster vaccinations but we are coming out of lockdown over the course of the next few months and there will be no justification whatsoever to return to it.
 

straightatthewall

Well-known member
The end of May for hospitality. That’s approximately 6 months of consecutive down time for what will be - in a lot of cases - small, family run businesses. It would also cover another Easter weekend (2 years on the bounce) to add to missing out on Christmas/New Year business.

To put it more acutely into context, there will be large businesses that took government support and then won’t be giving any sort of pay rise on the basis that they haven’t made enough PROFIT for the year.

I can understand why the industry bodies are pissed off at the lack of interest shown by the government to their plight.
 

Lost Seasider

Well-known member
As more are vaccinated the number of people requiring hospital treatment should dramatically reduce. This negates the government’s argument for lockdown as the nhs should always have sufficient capacity to cope.

We might need social distancing and yearly booster vaccinations but we are coming out of lockdown over the course of the next few months and there will be no justification whatsoever to return to it.

I believe that is already the government's policy, however if the virus has taught us anything with the emergence of new variants and other events, it is to expect the unexpected.
 

straightatthewall

Well-known member
I believe that is already the government's policy, however if the virus has taught us anything with the emergence of new variants and other events, it is to expect the unexpected.

Let's be straight about this. There's going to come a time when it's impossible to maintain lockdowns and pay people not to work. That time is probably already upon in reality, but we all know why we can't change the current situation.

The only way out of this longer term is to start reinvesting properly in the NHS to give it a fighting chance of being able to deal with this sort of thing properly. We've pumped billions into the economy over the last 12 months, you have to wonder what we could have saved with a better thought out longer term approach to the NHS that would have left it under less pressure. Don't forget, when things get back to 'normal' there's going to be a LOT of pent up demand for non-critical procedures that have been postponed or that people have lived with to support the greater good.

Some of that £350m a week would be helpful I'm sure. 👍
 

southshorepool

Well-known member
If we solely concentrate on the date we have vaccinated the over 50's/ vulnerable etc and then open up too soon, cases will inevitably rise and the scientists fear that that will increase the chance of mutations that the vaccines are ineffective against and then we're back to square 1. The numbers of cases needs to be way lower than it currently is.
I predict March 8th will see the return of some Primary school kids and possibly Year 11 or preferably Year 10.
Easter is only 3 weeks after that. I think he'll come under pressure to open up non essential shops for then but will resist and open them up towards the end of April.
Restaurants before pubs towards the end of May. Pubs with outside beer gardens may also open then.
 

Lost Seasider

Well-known member
The only way out of this longer term is to start reinvesting properly in the NHS to give it a fighting chance of being able to deal with this sort of thing properly. We've pumped billions into the economy over the last 12 months, you have to wonder what we could have saved with a better thought out longer term approach to the NHS that would have left it under less pressure.

I don't think it's possible, or indeed desirable, for any healthcare system to be set up to cope with a once in a century pandemic.

Let's not forget that lots of countries with many different healthcare systems have been hit as hard if not harder than the UK and have had to resort to similar lockdown measures, so the idea that this could've been avoided by "investing in the NHS" is questionable at best.
 

Ormergod

Well-known member
so now we are getting the "cases" down lower? I thought this was about protecting the NHS? If 99% of the deaths are in the group that will be fully "vaccinated" by March 8th then any "cases" in the rest of the population will not lead to increased hospital admissions.

Get everything opened up.No consideration being given to the damage these lockdowns are causing in all areas outside SarsCov2.The longer the restrictions carry on then the overwhelming damage that will be happening will be non-covidn related.

We still dont have any evidence that these lockdowns or restrictions have made any impact whatsoever.Is it the lockdown?Is it the "vaccine"? Is it the climate?Is it the the switch to lateral flow testing a few weeks ago for all pillar 2 (tests undertaken outside hospital) that isnt picking up the same level of false positive "cases" that the PCR was doing and that is showing in the "case" numbers.The timing certainly seems to point towards it.
 

straightatthewall

Well-known member
I don't think it's possible, or indeed desirable, for any healthcare system to be set up to cope with a once in a century pandemic.

Let's not forget that lots of countries with many different healthcare systems have been hit as hard if not harder than the UK and have had to resort to similar lockdown measures, so the idea that this could've been avoided by "investing in the NHS" is questionable at best.

It's not about setting it up for a once in a century pandemic, it's about improving critical mass, general infrastructure and capabilities and with improved investment long term, to provide more capability to deal with regular 'business' and spikes in usage through the seasons.

The country has literally wasted billions in the last year on daft, sticking plaster projects like Nightingale hospitals, useless PPE, track and trace and furlough payments to support companies that were concerned they wouldn't hit profit targets (rather than actually make a loss).

The country wouldn't have avoided a lockdown, but how do we know it wouldn't have been lessened with more potential ICU capacity, better investment in staff - i.e. paying them properly - and building stock levels of various critical equipment - where possible - to something a little more robust than paper thin inventories that result in panic buying and wasted money.

We're constantly told that there's never any money for anything, but the second it was needed, money was found. I find it very hard to believe that increased, but measured spending over a longer period of time would not have been more useful than chucking huge wads of borrowed cash at an emergency issue like headless chickens.

It's funny that money is not the right answer until it's needed to support commercial interests rather than public interests.
 

Lost Seasider

Well-known member
so now we are getting the "cases" down lower? I thought this was about protecting the NHS? If 99% of the deaths are in the group that will be fully "vaccinated" by March 8th then any "cases" in the rest of the population will not lead to increased hospital admissions.

March 8th is 3 weeks after Feb 15th, which was the target for the over 70's (and other priorities), they account for 80% of deaths, the 99% figure won't be reached until after the over 50's have been vaccinated, likely towards the end of May.

Even then we don't yet know exactly how effective the vaccines are in the real world, and there's a risk of new variants evolving that is obviously higher if the virus is allowed to spread uncontrolled in the unprotected population.


Get everything opened up.No consideration being given to the damage these lockdowns are causing in all areas outside SarsCov2.

And others are complaining that too much consideration is being given to other areas, that we locked down too late, came out of lockdown too early etc.


We still dont have any evidence that these lockdowns or restrictions have made any impact whatsoever.Is it the lockdown?

There's plenty of evidence if you bother too look.


Is it the "vaccine"?

Case numbers started to fall long before the vaccine was being administered in anything likely to have a material effect, and the falls can be seen in groups outside that haven't been vaccinated.


Is it the climate?

Do you think there's a material difference between December and January?


Is it the the switch to lateral flow testing a few weeks ago for all pillar 2 (tests undertaken outside hospital) that isnt picking up the same level of false positive "cases" that the PCR was doing and that is showing in the "case" numbers.

Testing does not affect hospitalisation and deaths, both of which are closely tracking the case numbers.

In any event I see no evidence for this claimed switch in testing and no change in daily PCR tests performed that would indicate such a change.


The timing certainly seems to point towards it.

Correlation does not equal causality, and in this case we don't even appear to have correlation.
 

Wizaard

Well-known member
It's not about setting it up for a once in a century pandemic, it's about improving critical mass, general infrastructure and capabilities and with improved investment long term, to provide more capability to deal with regular 'business' and spikes in usage through the seasons.

The country has literally wasted billions in the last year on daft, sticking plaster projects like Nightingale hospitals, useless PPE, track and trace and furlough payments to support companies that were concerned they wouldn't hit profit targets (rather than actually make a loss).

The country wouldn't have avoided a lockdown, but how do we know it wouldn't have been lessened with more potential ICU capacity, better investment in staff - i.e. paying them properly - and building stock levels of various critical equipment - where possible - to something a little more robust than paper thin inventories that result in panic buying and wasted money.

We're constantly told that there's never any money for anything, but the second it was needed, money was found. I find it very hard to believe that increased, but measured spending over a longer period of time would not have been more useful than chucking huge wads of borrowed cash at an emergency issue like headless chickens.

It's funny that money is not the right answer until it's needed to support commercial interests rather than public interests.
Nails it. The systemic weakening of the NHS infrastructure over the past decade - and it has been deliberate - has exacerbated the situation, without any doubt. We just couldn't cope and are still struggling to do so a year in.

All about cutting costs and not considering value.
 

RUSTY_2_STANDS

Well-known member
Nails it. The systemic weakening of the NHS infrastructure over the past decade - and it has been deliberate - has exacerbated the situation, without any doubt. We just couldn't cope and are still struggling to do so a year in.

All about cutting costs and not considering value.
And so are the health services of a lot of other countries caught up in this pandemic. So their governments must have underfunded them as well.
 

Wizaard

Well-known member
And so are the health services of a lot of other countries caught up in this pandemic. So their governments must have underfunded them as well.
Maybe that is the case. Certainly the well funded ones seem to have escaped the brunt.

Anyway, are you saying that it's right we underfunded the NHS because the rest of the world did the same?

Seems irrelevant to me.
 

Tangerinemoss

Well-known member
Let's be straight about this. There's going to come a time when it's impossible to maintain lockdowns and pay people not to work. That time is probably already upon in reality, but we all know why we can't change the current situation.

The only way out of this longer term is to start reinvesting properly in the NHS to give it a fighting chance of being able to deal with this sort of thing properly. We've pumped billions into the economy over the last 12 months, you have to wonder what we could have saved with a better thought out longer term approach to the NHS that would have left it under less pressure. Don't forget, when things get back to 'normal' there's going to be a LOT of pent up demand for non-critical procedures that have been postponed or that people have lived with to support the greater good.

Some of that £350m a week would be helpful I'm sure. 👍
Superb post, I doff my hat.

Long term strategy, that's what we need, not flip flop policies
 

RUSTY_2_STANDS

Well-known member
Maybe that is the case. Certainly the well funded ones seem to have escaped the brunt.

Anyway, are you saying that it's right we underfunded the NHS because the rest of the world did the same?

Seems irrelevant to me.
I actually don't know if we have underfunded the NHS. And neither do you. It depends who you listen to and who you believe. I've worked in public service and they were always moaning about being underfunded. But at the same time wasting hundreds of thousands of tax payers money. The amounts of money wasted was eye watering.
No doubt the NHS underfunded to cope with this pandemic, but who foresaw that? And do you fund the NHS to cope with a situation like this that may only happen once every 100 years? Or may never happen.
 

straightatthewall

Well-known member
I actually don't know if we have underfunded the NHS. And neither do you. It depends who you listen to and who you believe. I've worked in public service and they were always moaning about being underfunded. But at the same time wasting hundreds of thousands of tax payers money. The amounts of money wasted was eye watering.
No doubt the NHS underfunded to cope with this pandemic, but who foresaw that? And do you fund the NHS to cope with a situation like this that may only happen once every 100 years? Or may never happen.

I tend to believe the people who work within the health service who say it's underfunded. Same as I trust that those in education can spot lack of investment too.
Why do i trust them? Because 99.9% of them aren't in it to get rich. They have no vested interest in getting more other than for understanding what could be done with more if it was provided.

And the argument that this is about a pandemic rather than structural underfunding is spurious in the extreme. The country hasn't had a real war for 75 years. So i presume it's fine and dandy to strip back defence budgets rather than keep investing in personnel and hardware 'just in case'?
 

RUSTY_2_STANDS

Well-known member
I tend to believe the people who work within the health service who say it's underfunded. Same as I trust that those in education can spot lack of investment too.
Why do i trust them? Because 99.9% of them aren't in it to get rich. They have no vested interest in getting more other than for understanding what could be done with more if it was provided.

And the argument that this is about a pandemic rather than structural underfunding is spurious in the extreme. The country hasn't had a real war for 75 years. So i presume it's fine and dandy to strip back defence budgets rather than keep investing in personnel and hardware 'just in case'?
I don't know what the answer is. That's why I've asked the question. I don't know enough about NHS funding to know the answer. I do know that the sector of public service I worked in wasted money in huge amounts. Then moaned it was underfunded. But the NHS I don't know.
 

straightatthewall

Well-known member
I don't know what the answer is. That's why I've asked the question. I don't know enough about NHS funding to know the answer. I do know that the sector of public service I worked in wasted money in huge amounts. Then moaned it was underfunded. But the NHS I don't know.

I'm not so one-eyed as to think that there's no wasteful practices in the public sector and I would say that part of improved investment should also be aligned with better use of the money (something that seems to have been said for as long as I can remember). Part of that comes with paying staff in a way that attracts talent rather than forces it to leave for or stay in the private sector. Staff in the NHS or other public sector jobs are no different to anyone else. Treat them like you don't care and they'll work like they don't care.

Anyway, moving off topic from the original OP so I'll park my bus there.
 
Top
X