Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion

[teuchter]

It's also a bit different on public transport because people are used to the idea that there are 'rules' - you have to have a ticket, etc. It's always been the case that you can be stopped getting on a train, or turfed off. How will people respond to a security guard telling them they can't go into tesco? Especially with the incredibly weak and vague government messaging, and the general perception that we are coming out of restrictions rather than going into new ones.

 

[8ball]

I hope you're just overly pessimistic: people could be playing at being stubborn until it is compulsory, then take to wearing masks or scarves of various and wonderful designs.

I think that's possible. The public are broadly speaking content to be led by the nose on most things. A few people will whine, but just a few.

 

[elbows]

Panorama on the UK response

BBC One - Panorama, Britain’s Coronavirus Gamble

Panorama looks at how the government handled the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic.

www.bbc.co.uk

Thanks for the link, I wont have time to watch this for a few days probably, but I will get round to it in the end.

There is also this BBC piece which I assume comes from the same Panorama research and dwells on the whole herd immunity thing and the crucial first weeks of March. Of course they dont mention the BBCs own role in trying to justify the approach at the time (eg Nick Triggles infamous article that I have gone on about before). There is also mention again about how various bits of thinking were flawed because they came from the flu playbook, without looking into the idea that these same things would also have been flawed and doomed in a bad influenza pandemic. All the same it does manage to expose the flaws in the orthodox thinking of the time, and when it comes to the following quote, its not very different to what I said in my first couple of posts about the virus, because I was affected by orthodox thinking at the time too. But I was talking about global spread and that was my thinking in January, not March!

"This was very much the view that you could not control or contain this outbreak," she says. "[The virus is] going to run through, it's inevitable, it's unstoppable."

Coronavirus: Did 'herd immunity' change the course of the outbreak?

What drove the government's thinking in the crucial stages of the coronavirus outbreak?

www.bbc.co.uk

There are a few new bits of info in there, such as when the government were given the large death estimates, when some scientific advisors managed to come up with a better estimate of doubling time, and the following regarding how far Vallances herd immunity comments and justifications spread:

But despite repeated government denials, the BBC has learned that on 13 March, when Sir Patrick Vallance was outlining the government's approach to tackling the virus, herd immunity was being discussed at the heart of the health service.

From the start of the outbreak, Simon Enright, director for communications for NHS England and NHS Improvement, would offer weekly briefings to media teams in other health organisations and medical royal colleges. He and his team would share some of the latest information on strategy and thinking.

The BBC has seen contemporaneous notes from the meetings and spoken to people on the calls.

At the meeting on 13 March, Mr Enright is said to have relayed information from the government's top scientific and medical advisers.

The notes say the communications chief shared NHS England's own advice on holding internal work events, but say "we are not telling you what to do".

"We want people to be infected with Covid-19," the notes say. "The best way of managing it is herd immunity and protect the vulnerable."

Mr Enright was clear where the idea had come from, according to the notes. It was on the "direct advice" of the chief medical adviser and chief scientific adviser.

NHS England had cancelled one of its own events but only so staff could be retained to work on the coronavirus response, according to the notes.

"In other words - if you cancel events to stop people coming out of service that's fine, but don't cancel because of risk of infection."

Yeah, the Nick Triggle March 13th article would be another example of that message being disseminated, fits right in.

The worst health crisis in a generation. Lives will be lost. All this is true. But what got missed in the government's coronavirus message - understandably, given the scale of the challenge - is that we should also get on with our lives.

We should keep calm and carry on (while following the advice, of course). At the moment, there are two basic things to do - wash our hands regularly and isolate if we develop symptoms.

We should still go out, play sport, attend events and keep children in school. Why? Short of never leaving your home and the rest of the household following suit, it's impossible to eliminate the risk of getting the virus. It's circulating.

Even if you skip your trip to a concert or the theatre, you may well catch it on your way to work or when you do the weekly shop.

This virus is with us now. And it will be for the foreseeable future. Only when we have a vaccine or if herd immunity develops - if enough of the population is exposed to it - will we have protection.

There will no doubt be a time when drastic measures are needed - to flatten the peak, protect the most vulnerable at the time of highest risk and stop the NHS getting overwhelmed - but it's not now. That's the clear message.

Someone at the BBC knew they were on thin ice with that at the time, as the Triggle analysis only survived for 3 or 4 hours in a Friday 13th March article before being replaced by someone elses analysis. Although that could have been because the governments approach and comms strategy changed during that period, as the backlash begun. Anyway I am repeating myself with this subject, but it pains (but does not surprise) me to see the BBC covering that period of history without taking a look at its own role at the time.

 

[existentialist]

I reckon the nation is going to just ignore the masks in shops thing and they'll quietly withdraw it.

And then conveniently blame the non-mask-wearing populace for the failure of their own attempts to manage the spread of the infection.

 

[elbows]

I reckon the nation is going to just ignore the masks in shops thing and they'll quietly withdraw it.

Its not impossible but I dont consider it the most likely scenario at all. It took a lot to get the stupid establishment resistance to masks to shift, but shift it did, and that policy is now being asked to carry a lot of the weight and compensate for a lot of the relaxed stuff. And without it the government are vulnerable to an even heavier range of accusations if things go wrong in future.

 

[8ball]

It took a lot to get the stupid establishment resistance to masks to shift, but shift it did...

Hang on, who was it getting the stupid establishment to shift?

 

[killer b]

Of course people will comply with the masks in shops thing. Like they've complied, more or less, with every other restriction they've been given over the last few months - what would be different this time?

 

[8ball]

Of course people will comply with the masks in shops thing. Like they've complied, more or less, with every other restriction they've been given over the last few months - what would be different this time?

The only thing I can think of is the association between face coverings and "things that foreigners do".

 

[killer b]

Don't be a dick.

 

[elbows]

Hang on, who was it getting the stupid establishment to shift?

Well establishment thinking is not a complete monolith, some of the shift came from their own internal pressures, some from other supranational bodies, some pressure from other nations (eg Scotland), the passage of time letting the penny drop, pressure from business to relax the 2M rule, and probably plenty else that I missed.

Another way I could put it is that the resistance to masks was entirely predictable, as was the eventual shift. I probably said as much in the past, when the whole masks debate was first beginning in the UK, but I dont have the time or desire to check right now.

 

[8ball]

Don't be a dick.

You're a bit dim, aren't you?

 

[elbows]

The only thing I can think of is the association between face coverings and "things that foreigners do".

14th March:

But in many European countries and the United States, face masks can be used to racialise and stigmatise those of East Asian descent, including when a Chinese student from Britain’s University of Sheffield was verbally and physically harassed in January for wearing a mask, and a Chinese woman was assaulted and called “diseased” in New York in February for doing the same.

Face mask culture during the coronavirus: East vs West

Face masks are selling out in stores worldwide, but whether people wear them when they go outside often depends on where they are from.

www.scmp.com

 

[LDC]

Of course people will comply with the masks in shops thing. Like they've complied, more or less, with every other restriction they've been given over the last few months - what would be different this time?

I'm not so sure about that. Most (all?) of the other restrictions were brought in during the worst weeks of the pandemic, this one is coming in as most people seem to think it's over or something. I hope they do as you say, but it feels like it'll be a massive change/jump if they do given how few people seem to wear them now.

 

[killer b]

You're a bit dim, aren't you?

it was an ambitious request, you're quite right.

 

[8ball]

Well establishment thinking is not a complete monolith, some of the shift came from their own internal pressures, some from other supranational bodies, some pressure from other nations (eg Scotland), the passage of time letting the penny drop, pressure from business to relax the 2M rule, and probably plenty else that I missed.

Another way I could put it is that the resistance to masks was entirely predictable, as was the eventual shift. I probably said as much in the past, when the whole masks debate was first beginning in the UK, but I dont have the time or desire to check right now.

I think I may have spotted the clincher.
On the change in stance, there doesn't seem to be new actual evidence that I've seen, looks more like they have re-appraised it.

 

[killer b]

I'm not so sure about that. Most (all?) of the other restrictions were brought in during the worst weeks of the pandemic, this one is coming in as most people seem to think it's over or something. I hope they do as you say, but it feels like it'll be a massive change/jump if they do given how few people seem to wear them now.

More recently I'm thinking of the recent changes to pub openings, and how there was a common expectation of wild drunkenness and widespread rule breaking and... it just didn't happen.

 

[8ball]

More recently I'm thinking...

 

[elbows]

I think I may have spotted the clincher.
On the change in stance, there doesn't seem to be new actual evidence that I've seen, looks more like they have re-appraised it.

Yeah the reappraisal was inevitable but this process did start before the 2 metre rule stuff. That was a driving factor but it wasnt the only one. ANd it was just part of this whole 'the new normal', reopening phase stuff that plenty of other countries have had to grapple with in the last couple of months too. eg France just changed their rules about where masks are compulsory.

Also remember that the WHO had a crappy attitude towards masks for the public for ages too, and they shifted within the same sort of period.

 

[8ball]

Yeah the reappraisal was inevitable but this process did start before the 2 metre rule stuff. That was a driving factor but it wasnt the only one. ANd it was just part of this whole 'the new normal', reopening phase stuff that plenty of other countries have had to grapple with in the last couple of months too. eg France just changed their rules about where masks are compulsory.

I wasn't too sure why the WHO's initial line on masks was what it was, but guessed it might be down to the potential harms of masks used badly/wrongly and enhancing spread. Evidence seemed sketchy both ways tbf. For those feeling a bit "gunshy" about coming out of their homes, I think the Government intended the masks business to give a feeling of safety, but I'm not sure whether "you can relax the social distancing but now have to wear a mask" would reassure me that much.

 

[cupid_stunt]

I wasn't too sure why the WHO's initial line on masks was what it was, but guessed it might be down to the potential harms of masks used badly/wrongly and enhancing spread.

I would add in concerns over the global shortage of masks, when they were needed by medical staff.

 

[8ball]

I would add in concerns over the global shortage of masks, when they were needed by medical staff.

Oh, yeah - good point - I remember it being said but don't recall the WHO weighing in on that.
Seems like this shit has been going on forever.

 

[elbows]

More recently I'm thinking of the recent changes to pub openings, and how there was a common expectation of wild drunkenness and widespread rule breaking and... it just didn't happen.

Common expectation? Not exactly but I know what you mean. There were nerves about the policy and I still would not have done that bit when they did it, but not because I expected millions of people to abandon social distancing entirely. My concern was for specific chains of transmission, individual spread, local clusters etc. Some people take these ideas to their extreme and expect mass non-compliance and spikes within weeks. The reality is almost always far more mixed than that, and we have mostly only had anecdotal evidence about behaviours over these months. Also we havent really been given much data about compliance in general, press conferences tended to focus on transport figures where it was easy to show a massive and sustained change to behaviours. In fact it is likely that there has been plenty of non-compliance with all manner of rules all the way along. Some of it through no fault of peoples own instincts, but rather the situations they were placed in with their financial situation, jobs, accommodation etc. But in other areas there have been some people 'cheating' all the way through, and compliance has varied by region, age, etc.

I dont know exactly how much of a problem the minority who react very badly to mask stuff will cause. I suppose I expect there will be specific incidents that get highlighted in the news, and some of these will be quite ugly. But no matter how bad such incidents are for the people (eg shop workers) involved, there is a difference between a bunch of incidents and non-compliance on a scale that will force a rethink about how compliance is enforced. When it came to other issues of policing the pandemic in past months, the likes of Hancock would fall back on the rhetoric about 'public consent based policing', which often involved a somewhat hands-off approach. The masks stuff could test that somewhat illusory stance, or it could be dealt with via the usual absurdities and turning a blind eye.

 

[elbows]

I think the Government intended the masks business to give a feeling of safety, but I'm not sure whether "you can relax the social distancing but now have to wear a mask" would reassure me that much.

This is part of the ongoing incompatibility between restoring the economy and crushing the transmission of the virus. They understandably want to have their cake and eat it, but it cant be done, so we have these awkward balancing acts.

Part of their resistance to masks would have been that it makes everything obviously abnormal and unsettling, but at the same time they didnt want people to behave normally. But eonomically there came a time when they did want people to start behaving more normally, and had to find a way to compensate for the impact of that on transmission. And so we've had these months of very mixed messages from the government, which the Gogglebox participants had no trouble spotting and mocking at the time.

Personally I would feel much better about going to a store if I was confident that almost everyone would be wearing a mask. But thats me, a person who is not going to drift into a sense of normality just because some months went by since the peak, someone who doesnt need to see people wearing masks to remind me that the virus is still out there and that these are not normal times.

Some scientific advisors are aware of the importance of sending messages to each other socially via our behaviour. For example the issue of shaking hands - this was discouraged for two reasons, the actual transmission via handshakes, but also because not shaking someones hand is a reminder to those present that these are not normal times, and that other behaviours should also be modified. I think even Johnson described that bit at some point, in one of the press conferences in the early days, although he didnt sound entirely convinced.

 

[8ball]

Personally I would feel much better about going to a store if I was confident that almost everyone would be wearing a mask. But thats me.

In most places I have barely seen any masks til the last couple of days, but with the masks it also feels like the social distancing has gone to shit, including when density has been low enough that people could distance easily enough if they wanted to.

Whenever I have the mask on, it always just feels like a ritual to make some people feel better. Would be nice if people carried on with doing the other stuff.

 

[elbows]

In most places I have barely seen any masks til the last couple of days, but with the masks it also feels like the social distancing has gone to shit, including when density has been low enough that people could distance easily enough if they wanted to.

Whenever I have the mask on, it always just feels like a ritual to make some people feel better. Would be nice if people carried on with doing the other stuff.

'mask wearing will encourage people to be more lax in other areas' was one of the original concerns that fed into the establishment resistance to mask wearing in the first place. But at some stage these concerns were outweighed by the obvious benefits.

It is bad that various businesses have used the mask rules to tear up their previous distancing measures, I'm not happy about that. But masks arent just for show, they should have a real effect on transmission too, so my stance is not quite the same as yours but I certainly sympathise with various points you are making. Also sorry for adding to my last post after you had already quoted from it.

 

[8ball]

'mask wearing will encourage people to be more lax in other areas' was one of the original concerns that fed into the establishment resistance to mask wearing in the first place. But at some stage these concerns were outweighed by the obvious benefits.

It is bad that various businesses have used the mask rules to tear up their previous distancing measures, I'm not happy about that. But masks arent just for show, they should have a real effect on transmission too, so my stance is not quite the same as yours but I certainly sympathise with various points you are making. Also sorry for adding to my last post after you had already quoted from it.

From looking at the literature, I'm not sure the benefits of masks were necessarily "obvious" early on. Even now there seem to be plenty of dissenters from the science world, and the most vocal advocates seem to have strong links to bodies with the existing messaging. Usually we'd get picky about that sort of thing.

But then I don't regard the mask as such a terrible imposition, and if there's a small chance of reducing transmission to vulnerable groups that seems fair enough. If the Government had retained more credibility in its handling of all this I might have been less pernickety over it, I guess.

No probs about the edit - am always doing it myself. I personally think a "no post is final until it has been up for 3 days" rule is reasonable.

 

[weltweit]

I think come Friday people will be wearing them in shops and it will be the minority that are not wearing them that will stand out.

Whether it will be a task for security on the doors not only to restrict access but also to stop people entering without a mask I don't know, but for the larger stores it might come to that.

 

[Wilf]

Just been in the big Tesco in Rochdale, which is under some kind of sub-Leicester semi lockdown (the town, not tesco ). I had a mask on as did 2 other people, maybe 10% of the people I saw. The store had also abandoned the queue at the door, though I heard staff saying they are still doing it in Middleton (even bigger Tesco 4 miles away).

Even the '1 meter+' thing, along with other official advice is barely happening. To me it's lots of things: the 'message' itself is a mess. I've personally no idea of how many people can we can meet/in what circumstances, what the bubble stuff amounts to. It's a mishmash of shite that has just about disappeared from people's real thinking about their day to day lives. And it's also the 'messaging'. Vague waffle from central government that is anyway undermined by its push to get the economy going and get people in work/on public transport. But it's more than that, there's no way these messages become embedded in real life. real communities. There's no way government can now turn the tap on and off to deal with local outbreaks.the Of course we'll see how that works if there's a second wave along with the winter flu.

 

[8ball]

I think come Friday people will be wearing them in shops and it will be the minority that are not wearing them that will stand out.

Whether it will be a task for security on the doors not only to restrict access but also to stop people entering without a mask I don't know, but for the larger stores it might come to that.

Imagine security getting into a fight with non-mask wearers as masked line up to enter the shop.
That would be the most 'pandemic disaster movie' thing that has happened since the bog roll bizarreness.

Crazy with us being this far into it.

 

[editor]

I'm at Paddington now. It's very very quiet and it ll feels a bit melancholy. Loads of the usual shops are closed. The railway companies must be losing an absolute fortune.