When should lockdown end?

[Spencer Fobby]

Much has been said about ensuring we all follow the government’s new laws regarding ‘lockdown’ and those few who have expressed dissent have been slammed both here and pretty much everywhere.  There is a general consensus among most people that preventing a potentially devastating impact on the NHS meant we must all behave in a way never seen before.

Which, in the short term, seems sensible.

But there are other perspectives to be considered and some of them may appear unpalatable at first glance.  A utilitarian approach that puts the greatest good for the most people may sound sensible, but when that translates into allowing the virus to run through the population in a controlled way, so that it is spread out on a manageable timescale – then most people baulk at the prospect, because there is still a general attitude of preserving life at almost any cost. 

But if we want to return to a world with civil freedoms, a functioning economy and opportunity to have our individual autonomy, then this may be the only way forward.  Personally, I don’t see another plausible route back to normality.
 
We face mass unemployment caused by the economic devastation of lockdown, enormous mental health issues of having a populace confined to their homes by law, more poverty, more oppression and worse austerity than we have known since the war, all of which may ultimately lead to rebellions and conflict between those with power and those without.  Society and civilization will take a massive step backwards if we go down a path of draconian controls, surveillance and an economic policy that causes enormous numbers of dependencies on bailouts and benefits.  We suffered years of austerity to bail out bankers… but the government bailouts here will dwarf 2008 and the possibilities are truly horrific for the future generations.  Is the cure potentially worse than the disease?

While I respect the need to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed in the short term by a tidal wave of covid19 cases, my belief is that it is better for society and civilization to allow and control a slow infection through the population to create a herd immunity and that will inevitably mean hundreds of thousands of premature deaths –but spread out over time.  Relaxing lockdown and reinstating it for short bursts when essential.  Until herd immunity is reached.

I believe current lockdown must end soon or we will all be significantly worse off for generations to come. 

[Moby Dick]

When it is safe to do so.

Do you know anyone who has died from Covid 19?
Spoken to any relatives of the deceased?
Do you work in the NHS?

You are a long time dead.
Financial issues and mental issues can be overcome.

[Yankee21]

Mid to late June.

[lostandfound]

Lockdown until June. Repeated lockdowns if there are repeated outbreaks. That's where we are at IMO.

To modify that needs mass testing, contact tracing (versus privacy concerns), effective treatments, a widely available vaccine. None of which the UK currently has.

Mass deaths in excess of other developed nations would be political suicide for any government.

The reality cannot be changed by wishful thinking.

[Mr Sinister]

Mid May start relaxing the lockdown but keep social distancing.

[tobyk1]

It’s anybody's guess when the lockdown might end .... anytime within the next 6 weeks I’d say.

It’ll all depend on data presented to a number of politicians. We just need to pray those individuals don’t have a political agenda (more than they already do), to be seen as taking the most conservation actions and ‘saving’ the public.

[Strawberry]

I need a new name for the briefing, tonight it's the Chancellor;

Under the hill
Knickers
Tea table


Must work on this.

[freeze44]

Mid May start relaxing the lockdown but keep social distancing.

Think your on the money there Mr S.

There has to be a point where the balance between lock down and a relaxation is taken forward.

Other countries are doing it and accepting a level of risk with that but putting in measures to negate those risks.

If a lock down went on for too long, then the consequences will be severe and lives will be lost due to that. 

[Kev40ish]

Think your on the money there Mr S.

There has to be a point where the balance between lock down and a relaxation is taken forward.

Other countries are doing it and accepting a level of risk with that but putting in measures to negate those risks.

If a lock down went on for too long, then the consequences will be severe and lives will be lost due to that.

It’s one of those difficult quandaries. When I was at Uni I studied PPE, Philosophy politics and economics, the problem is; it’s difficult to satisfy all the requirements of society. It’s a tough call for politicians to have to make and not be just led by the science and media as they are currently trying to do.

They cannot ignore the economic impact...

But what do I know 

[Steve2]

I was thinking Christmas time but maybe July or August is more realistic for some relaxation

[freeze44]

It’s one of those difficult quandaries. When I was at Uni I studied PPE, Philosophy politics and economics, the problem is; it’s difficult to satisfy all the requirements of society. It’s a tough call for politicians to have to make and not be just led by the science and media as they are currently trying to do.

They cannot ignore the economic impact...

But what do I know 

Agree it's a tough call for the politicians.

Do the Tories, who normally have the economy centre stage, protect it or their core voters (older people)?

Same for Labour- fuck up the economic future and keep the lockdown on-going?

It will take years to rebuild the care system to be able to cope with the increased need so there has to be a time where the futures of one generation is balanced against another's.

Suppose it requires some tough questions to be posed.

What level of economic impact are we prepared to accept is one.

[Kev40ish]

Agree it's a tough call for the politicians.

Do the Tories, who normally have the economy centre stage, protect it or their core voters (older people)?

Same for Labour- fuck up the economic future and keep the lockdown on-going?

It will take years to rebuild the care system to be able to cope with the increased need so there has to be a time where the futures of one generation is balanced against another's.

Suppose it requires some tough questions to be posed.

What level of economic impact are we prepared to accept is one.

And like you say it’s the young once again who will suffer and have to pick up the pieces when we are all long gone..

[OakTree]

I don't think there will ever be a definitive day lock down ends. I imagine it will be eased in over weeks and months. I personally can't see the day we go back to sitting in pubs, restaurants, coffee shops and other like establishments for many months to come. I think social distancing will be something of the norm for just as long.

It sounds bleak but I just can't get my head round how we can go back to normal if just one person still has the virus. If that was the case surely it would just kick off all over again?

[willie loman]

I have no idea, fortunately there are some real experts on here who will help me out. They have been curiously silent so far.

[freeze44]

I don't think there will ever be a definitive day lock down ends. I imagine it will be eased in over weeks and months. I personally can't see the day we go back to sitting in pubs, restaurants, coffee shops and other like establishments for many months to come. I think social distancing will be something of the norm for just as long.

It sounds bleak but I just can't get my head round how we can go back to normal if just one person still has the virus. If that was the case surely it would just kick off all over again?

Agree be a phased approach to ending this.

Think testing and tracing is the answer to future containment so if 1 person gets the virus all contacts are traced and isolated.

Agree re pubs etc will be hit very hard. Suppose that means the same for football, concerts etc etc?? Grim indeed!

[winkywanky]

I have no idea, fortunately there are some real experts on here who will help me out. They have been curiously silent so far.

Who would help you out with an attitude like yours?

[lostandfound]

I don't think there will ever be a definitive day lock down ends. I imagine it will be eased in over weeks and months. I personally can't see the day we go back to sitting in pubs, restaurants, coffee shops and other like establishments for many months to come. I think social distancing will be something of the norm for just as long.

It sounds bleak but I just can't get my head round how we can go back to normal if just one person still has the virus. If that was the case surely it would just kick off all over again?

A vaccine will be found, and treatments etc. and life will return to normal. Just gonna take a while. Maybe a year to 18 months from now, give or take depending on whether you lean towards optimism or pessimism. What's key IMO is how the situation is managed between now and then.

[threechilliman]

I don't think there will ever be a definitive day lock down ends. I imagine it will be eased in over weeks and months. I personally can't see the day we go back to sitting in pubs, restaurants, coffee shops and other like establishments for many months to come. I think social distancing will be something of the norm for just as long.

It sounds bleak but I just can't get my head round how we can go back to normal if just one person still has the virus. If that was the case surely it would just kick off all over again?

I tend to agree. It'll be many months before all restrictions are lifted. I think the first loosening of measures is still 6 weeks or so away.

[winkywanky]

To the OP: how long's a piece of string?

Like others here have said, it's a balancing act between saving lives, saving jobs, saving people's sanity and all the rest of it. And these are times which no-one has seen in living memory, those making the decisions are very much feeling their way in the dark. I feel almost sorry for them.

I think so far factors such as flattening the curve to prevent the NHS being overrun, the gradually-building herd immunity, the timing of the anticipated arrival of an effective vaccine are the relevant medical ones.

Balance that with trying to stop the economy and employment falling completely off a cliff, and you probably have a critically-timed, gradual retreat from full lockdown, with perhaps a combination of the return of people to the most important jobs, but which are perhaps able to be reintroduced without letting the virus come straight back again to bite us in the arse  .

Clever scientists at Oxford University are saying they reckon on an 80% chance of having a safe and workable vaccine ready by September. That would be amazing, and if so, then it's all hands on deck to churn the stuff out as quick as possible, and give it to the most vulnerable, and those working in the NHS and Care Community.

[willie loman]

Who would help you out with an attitude like yours?

Come on winkie, tell it as it is.

[winkywanky]

Come on winkie, tell it as it is.

Why don't you tell us how it is willie?

it's only the flu, it's all bollocks and a waste of time 

Very constructive. If only everyone were like you.

[lostandfound]

To the OP: how long's a piece of string?

Like others here have said, it's a balancing act between saving lives, saving jobs, saving people's sanity and all the rest of it. And these are times which no-one has seen in living memory, those making the decisions are very much feeling their way in the dark. I feel almost sorry for them.

I think so far factors such as flattening the curve to prevent the NHS being overrun, the gradually-building herd immunity, the timing of the anticipated arrival of an effective vaccine are the relevant medical ones.

Balance that with trying to stop the economy and employment falling completely off a cliff, and you probably have a critically-timed, gradual retreat from full lockdown, with perhaps a combination of the return of people to the most important jobs, but which are perhaps able to be reintroduced without letting the virus come straight back again to bite us in the arse  .

Clever scientists at Oxford University are saying they reckon on an 80% chance of having a safe and workable vaccine ready by September. That would be amazing, and if so, then it's all hands on deck to churn the stuff out as quick as possible, and give it to the most vulnerable, and those working in the NHS and Care Community.

Prof Sarah Gilbert. Really hope she's not been sucked into wishful thinking. Wouldn't blame her, but these are hard times.

[winkywanky]

Prof Sarah Gilbert. Really hope she's not been sucked into wishful thinking. Wouldn't blame her, but these are hard times.

It's a very big thing to say at such a time, you have to think they're pretty sure of themselves to be saying it? I sure hope so  .

[tesla]

having a vaccine and mass producing it are two different things

[willie loman]

Why don't you tell us how it is willie?

it's only the flu, it's all bollocks and a waste of time 

Very constructive. If only everyone were like you.

But I don't have your life experience, you've been around the block a few times. That's the benfit of forums.

[winkywanky]

But I don't have your life experience, you've been around the block a few times. That's the benfit of forums.

It's not about life experience, it's more about commonsense and having a bit of consideration for others. You make me sound like bloody Methuselah, I ain't nearly that old  .

Anyway, perhaps let's just leave it there  .

[winkywanky]

having a vaccine and mass producing it are two different things

Very true, although I should imagine lots of companies who don't normally do that sort of thing (but have the equipment to) could and would offer up their services?

Big chemical companies like Ineos perhaps?

[willie loman]

It's not about life experience, it's more about commonsense and having a bit of consideration for others. You make me sound like bloody Methuselah, I ain't nearly that old  .

Anyway, perhaps let's just leave it there  .

Fine no problems.

[Beamer]

It's not about life experience, it's more about commonsense and having a bit of consideration for others. You make me sound like bloody Methuselah, I ain't nearly that old  .

Anyway, perhaps let's just leave it there  .

Your response to the troll absolutely right.
Don't give him the time

[willie loman]

Your response to the troll absolutely right.
Don't give him the time

Come on Beamer , you are the forum expert, don't leave me in suspense. You have contributed magnificently to every thread on the virus, this is when we need you.

[Spencer Fobby]

To the OP: how long's a piece of string?
Clever scientists at Oxford University are saying they reckon on an 80% chance of having a safe and workable vaccine ready by September. That would be amazing, and if so, then it's all hands on deck to churn the stuff out as quick as possible, and give it to the most vulnerable, and those working in the NHS and Care Community.

Well I know no better than anyone how long the piece of string is.  My daughter is a pharmacist and I do know that the vaccine cannot safely be allowed to go into general use across the mass population until it has undergone rigorous trials which include a (usually) 12 month period to watch for unwanted effects/reactions etc.  So 18 months is probably the earliest.

And in the meantime, we may well reach a herd immunity if we practice periods of restrictions and relaxation.

It will be interesting to watch the race between governments to get back to business.  Personally I think (and hope) that we may well see an initial easement in early May.  But it will come with risks.  And I'm willing (as someone on the higher risk scale) to take those risks when permitted.

[shiptonlad]

Can't see it being safe to punt until there is a widely available vaccine.
Anyone who is over 60 who punts before that is dicing with death. All service providers will be too.
There is no doubt in my mind that the whole landscape is going to change.

[freeze44]

Another thread fucked up 

Why can't those who want to squabble do it by pm?

Really not interested 

[winkywanky]

Well I know no better than anyone how long the piece of string is. My daughter is a pharmacist and I do know that the vaccine cannot safely be allowed to go into general use across the mass population until it has undergone rigorous trials which include a (usually) 12 month period to watch for unwanted effects/reactions etc.  So 18 months is probably the earliest.

And in the meantime, we may well reach a herd immunity if we practice periods of restrictions and relaxation.

I may be wrong, but the impression got was that the usual lengthy timescale over which new vaccines were appraised would/could be shortened to some degree?

I know there are different types being considered (for example one attacks the genetic code of the virus or something like that), perhaps that can allow this?

[shiptonlad]

I am not trying to squabble with anyone! I am in a high risk category and by the time it is safe for me I might have given up anyway. Any service provider with any sense will be considering possible alternate employment, especially those who have a young family.

[lostandfound]

There are already vaccines and therapeutics undergoing clinical trials. Maybe a new "thalidomide" will be be given a rushed approval. Tough decisions for those in authority.

[freeze44]

I am not trying to squabble with anyone! I am in a high risk category and by the time it is safe for me I might have given up anyway. Any service provider with any sense will be considering possible alternate employment, especially those who have a young family.

Hey Shiptonlad no one is saying you are squabbling fella. 

My post was directed at the usual suspects who want to turn a thread into some kind of personal battle that fucks the purpose of the thread up.

[winkywanky]

I am not trying to squabble with anyone! I am in a high risk category and by the time it is safe for me I might have given up anyway. Any service provider with any sense will be considering possible alternate employment, especially those who have a young family.

I may be wrong, but I don't think Mr. Freeze meant you. His comment just happened to come right after your post  .

[winkywanky]

And lo and behold, our posts crossed in the ether 

[shiptonlad]

Cheers freeze and windy. Whatever I can't see massage shops opening before end of May.

[winkywanky]

I know I'm not winking in my picture, but how did you know I was suffering from flatulence?

[Spencer Fobby]

I may be wrong, but the impression got was that the usual lengthy timescale over which new vaccines were appraised would/could be shortened to some degree?

I know there are different types being considered (for example one attacks the genetic code of the virus or something like that), perhaps that can allow this?

A vaccine needs to be administered to 90% of the population, and there is always the possibility of serious adverse reactions some time after - something like a thalidomide response on this scale is not a risk a government or a pharma company (and their insurers) would countenance.  I really don't see them shortening the timeline from test to market quick enough.

There are other, darker, forces at bear too - the huge numbers of deaths in care homes and the fact that it is the elderly and those with underlying conditions that are most at risk, coupled with the fact that those very people are a 'burden' on society may mean that a utilitarian response will be the one the government makes... Once it is able to frame the arguments for the 'public good'. 

[Spencer Fobby]

As for getting back out there - I've been seeing sugar babies rather than aw girls for the last 2 years (hence my low number of reviews) and I fully intend to hole up with my regular for a couple of days of fucking as soon as it's lifted. 

[winkywanky]

There are other, darker, forces at bear too - the huge numbers of deaths in care homes and the fact that it is the elderly and those with underlying conditions that are most at risk, coupled with the fact that those very people are a 'burden' on society may mean that a utilitarian response will be the one the government makes... Once it is able to frame the arguments for the 'public good'.

You really think the govt is thinking in those terms?

[Beamer]

A vaccine needs to be administered to 90% of the population, and there is always the possibility of serious adverse reactions some time after - something like a thalidomide response on this scale is not a risk a government or a pharma company (and their insurers) would countenance.  I really don't see them shortening the timeline from test to market quick enough.

There are other, darker, forces at bear too - the huge numbers of deaths in care homes and the fact that it is the elderly and those with underlying conditions that are most at risk, coupled with the fact that those very people are a 'burden' on society may mean that a utilitarian response will be the one the government makes... Once it is able to frame the arguments for the 'public good'.

Pure fantasy   ..........  what sort of government do you think would go down this road?

[winkywanky]

I think there'll be some pragmatism out of sheer necessity, like at the moment there's not even enough PPE for the NHS so they're obviously getting priority over Care Homes, and if it came to two people needing one available Intensive Care bed then the younger/fitter would probably get it.

But I can't see any actual plan being put forward which would knowingly discriminate against the old.

[lostandfound]

I do recall a statement that lockdown lifting would be targeted by age and geography. I think they will allow young people out, in parts of the country which are not hotspots. They'll get infected but are unlikely to get seriously ill. Meanwhile boffins will be studying their immune response, and if lots of them have lasting immunity it may then be considered safe to the let some older age groups out as well. Vulnerable groups who need to be shielded may have to isolate until a proven vaccine is available, which may be up to two years.

[Doc Holliday]

Well I know no better than anyone how long the piece of string is.  My daughter is a pharmacist and I do know that the vaccine cannot safely be allowed to go into general use across the mass population until it has undergone rigorous trials which include a (usually) 12 month period to watch for unwanted effects/reactions etc.  So 18 months is probably the earliest.

And in the meantime, we may well reach a herd immunity if we practice periods of restrictions and relaxation.

The trial period will be the shortest possible much less than 12 months. Some of the safety aspects will have already have the box ticked, because the vaccine will be similar to other vaccines already in use. This is a new vaccine and not a new untested drug. Circa six months can be knocked of the timescale by beginning to manufacture it before trials are completed. If the trial is not successful it can be scrapped. The wasted manufacturing cost pales into insignificance against what the virus has already cost the global economy. It is also possible to have an emergency use of a vaccine before it has been fully approved should we find ourselves in a desperate situation. Don't underestimate though how long it will take to manufacture sufficient quantities of the vaccine to immunise the world!

Herd immunity is unlikely. It would take too long unless you let it run riot and then if the virus behaves like other coronaviruses, the immunity will not be long lasting and may well be only a few months? We do not yet know.

A vaccine is the best hope but that may suffer from the same problem as natural immunity meaning it has to be modified periodically to keep up with virus mutations. We simply do not know?

The other possibility is the virus mutates to be less deadly but remains highly contagious and we learn to live with it as we do with Influenza.

A vaccine is the best hope. Huge amounts of money and prioritisation will be thrown at it but there is no guarantee? 

With regard to easing the lockdown it has to be done, but we have no experience of this and it will be trial and error. This virus is very contagious. One thing is for certain without adequate testing it cannot be achieved.

[Spencer Fobby]

You really think the govt is thinking in those terms?

I believe Dominic Cummings was advocating something along these lines.  I don't remember what the specific quote was that was attributed to him, but it was pretty callous. 

I do think weighing up the pressures of the economy and re-electability is more important to them than simply saving lives.  And right now, they are probably listening to a lot of different advice and opinions, and also looking at the global competition in terms of getting back to business... 

[willie loman]

The trial period will be the shortest possible much less than 12 months. Some of the safety aspects will have already have the box ticked, because the vaccine will be similar to other vaccines already in use. This is a new vaccine and not a new untested drug. Circa six months can be knocked of the timescale by beginning to manufacture it before trials are completed. If the trial is not successful it can be scrapped. The wasted manufacturing cost pales into insignificance against what the virus has already cost the global economy. It is also possible to have an emergency use of a vaccine before it has been fully approved should we find ourselves in a desperate situation. Don't underestimate though how long it will take to manufacture sufficient quantities of the vaccine to immunise the world!

Herd immunity is unlikely. It would take too long unless you let it run riot and then if the virus behaves like other coronaviruses, the immunity will not be long lasting and may well be only a few months? We do not yet know.

A vaccine is the best hope but that may suffer from the same problem as natural immunity meaning it has to be modified periodically to keep up with virus mutations. We simply do not know?

The other possibility is the virus mutates to be less deadly but remains highly contagious and we learn to live with it as we do with Influenza.

A vaccine is the best hope. Huge amounts of money and prioritisation will be thrown at it but there is no guarantee? 

With regard to easing the lockdown it has to be done, but we have no experience of this and it will be trial and error. This virus is very contagious. One thing is for certain without adequate testing it cannot be achieved.

Good post , agree with all you say, except the last sentence.