Stuff removed from vaccines thread.

[Arborbridge]

Do schools spread Covid? The most recent informed evidence says not: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56072460

No, that's not what the study showed at all. It reported no increase in sick days and then goes on to say that kids do spread Covid but are a lot less likely to get sick with it themselves.

We've known that for some time.

BoE

The argument is being used to keep schools shut. Are teachers getting more sick than the rest of the population of a similar age and health distribution?
https://fullfact.org/health/teacher-covid-transmission/
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... d-says-ons
So no evidence of that either.

But schools were great vectors for spreading the virus, and will be again. Vaccine policy has been working in the wrong way - if they wanted to open schools first, they should have vaccinated people associated with schools i.e. teachers, people of working age, parents with children at school. Instead, we've done the opposite and vaccinated people like me who are not part of that spreading scene. Not that I'm ungrateful, quite relieved, in fact, but it isn't making much difference either to my life or my spreading activities as yet.

Opening schools before was a action which predictbly tipped the R number upwards: let's hope they are not making the same mistake again. All the mood music around that time from HMG was to underplay the effect, but people on the ground knew better.

Arb.

[Arborbridge]

Apologies if this has been mentioned, but there are prominent commentators who actively oppose lockdown. One of the best known is Peter Hitchens, a Daily Mail contributor. He is regularly on Talk Radio. I heard some early ‘discussions’ and Hitchens steam rollered over the then sceptical and unprepared interviewer. The interviewer is now a firm anti lockdown supporter. And judging by the comments, a lot of people think lockdown is a sham

The Swedish example proves it isn’t. Sweden has had far more deaths than neighbouring countries that did lockdowns.

It’s a problem in a democracy. In China you ban people from leaving home, and in flats guards lock the main door at night!

The DM has a pretty dismal record all round: probably best to ignore rags like that, as the province of the bigots and ill-educated. I'm amazed at how many people seem to read it, though people I know have it claim they don't read it! But then they pass on some half truth their wife has picked up from it and amplified according to whatever particular prejudice they have.

[onthemove]

True enough: there is probably not enough discreet data, but for a safety first approach society has sensibly used a broad brush. Lockdowns appear to be working: unlockdowns appear to do the opposite. So the broad brush says keep social mixing wherever and however, to a minimum. Then when more detailed data is available, use it to pinpoint the grey areas. I assume that's what happened previously, and will be happening now/next time.

Unfortunately, Johnson was too ready to have a pretty wild "unlock" before. We could see at the time that it was very much in haste, and the second wve disaster quite well foreseen. We went too far too fast: however, whatever we did would have only delayed the inevitable.

Arb.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with these analyses.

There is one absolutely crucial aspect of analysing UK lockdowns vs UK release of lockdowns that needs to be taken into account...

Namely "Responsibility"

When Boris announced the lockdowns, he took it upon himself (on behalf of the government) to assume responsibility for deciding what was and what wasn't suitable behaviour to combat the pandemic. And it was made clear we as individuals did not have a say in this, that we were not to be trusted, and the government was going to enforce this on us by law! Whether you agreed or not, tough luck, you had to do what the government told you - you weren't being allowed responsibility to decide for yourself. You are not to be trusted as an individual.

But the same still applies when he released the lockdowns.

When he released the lockdowns he *didn't* say that the government was absolving itself of responsibility and returning responsibility to the general public...

... quite the opposite, he still presented it as though the government were taking responsibility for the decisions, and that it was their (the government's) decision that we would be OK to go about our business again.

So much so that the government even positively encouraged people to go out and again with the "Eat out to help out" campaign.

So our release of lockdowns, were very different to the un-locked down-from-the-start position of the likes of Sweden. In Sweden is was made clear that the government were putting the responsibility on the citizens for how they behaved; that the Swedish government's responsibility only went as far as providing the best available scientific information they had on which the individual citizens could then base their behavioural decisions.

People knew and understood that the responsibility was on them in Sweden. The opposite of the situation in the UK.

In the UK, when lockdowns were unlocked, it was on the basis that the government still had responsibility for the decision and we were being told it was fine. The responsibility was still on the government, not on the public to judge whether it was appropriate.

So I do not at all believe that you can use the UK lockdown / release of lockdowns, to in anyway shape or form evaluate how the public would behave if the public had been trusted and given the responsibility throughout.

[Leif]

The Swedish example proves it isn’t. Sweden has had far more deaths than neighbouring countries that did lockdowns.

Why compare Sweden to countries immediately next to it?

The death rate in Sweden is typical of much of Europe.

BoE

Because they have similar climates and population densities. In a similar vein, India has suffered far less than expected and it is suggested that the reason is that they tend to work outdoors. In the slums they adopted effective distancing, surprisingly enough.

The UK is believed to have been hit hard due to a late border closure and being a travel hub, along with a very high population density. France has twice the land per person, and we also have most of our population in the south east, with high density housing in many cities such as Manchester. We also had no test and trace for ages.

Ironically we were judged to be one of the best equipped countries to tackle a virus outbreak. But we prepared for the wrong type of virus eg ebola, and not a severe cold.

[onthemove]

Because they have similar climates and population densities.

Can you explain how population density is a factor?

Scientists are quite clear that anything much over 2m, is unlikely to result in tranmission.

UK population density in no way forces people to within 2m.

It might be true that there are aspects of public policy that result in more densly packed people in some, localised places. I've used Swedish buses for commuting when over there for work, and was amazed at how they seemed to have just the right number of seats to match the demand. It was very good an very efficient. Whereas in the UK, it's true that trains might be more packed, but this absolutely is not population density causing that, it's just public policy and investment (or lack of). Double the length of platforms, double the number of carriages on trains, and you could have the density on public transport without any change from general population density. Rebuild bridges to accommodate double decker trains, etc, and you could achieve as similar result.

Even walking on the street... the cities in Sweden are just like the UK. There are a lot of densely packed apartment blocks, etc. The density of people in cities, is not a function of overall population density. Sweden has densly populated cities just like the UK.

Simply saying "population density" as in number of people per square kilometre in the country, ... well, if you use that metric, the UK is nowhere near densely population enough to push people to within 2m of each other.

I've just done some back of envelope calculations...

To achieve a 2m distance from the person stood next to you, would require you to have 4m² of space.

UK population density is 280 people per square Km.
1Km² = 1,000,000m²

So each person has... 3571m² to themselves on average as a result of population density.

That's getting on for 1000x more space than is needed to maintain 2m from other people.

And this assumes everyone in complete isolation... including couples, families living in the same household, etc.

So, when we have that much space each in the UK, it very much seems to me that population density should not be a major factor in the spread of Covid.

As is constantly being repeated, it's the social interactions that matter, not the distance travelled. Covid doesn't care whether you've travelled 5metres or 50 miles to visit someone.

The risk is related to number and frequency of social contacts, not population density.

[XFool]

...Yes. We met/meet for a while during an exercise walk.

Apologies, when you asked "Were we ever actually told that"

I thought the "that" which you were asking about was Lootman's statement "telling people they cannot meet outdoors with one other person outside their household even if they socially distance and wear masks? Nonsense and useless.", which you'd just quoted immediately prior, and which didn't mention anything about exercise.

I was just trying be helpful and answer that question - since you'd asked it - including with a reference to the source of where we are being told 'that'.

Sorry if I seem to have upset people.

Not me!

[XFool]

Apologies if this has been mentioned, but there are prominent commentators who actively oppose lockdown. One of the best known is Peter Hitchens, a Daily Mail contributor. He is regularly on Talk Radio. I heard some early ‘discussions’ and Hitchens steam rollered over the then sceptical and unprepared interviewer. The interviewer is now a firm anti lockdown supporter. And judging by the comments, a lot of people think lockdown is a sham

============================

i wonder what his brother Christopher would have made of it ..

I often wonder that, with Peter Hitchens.

[XFool]

The trouble is, we still have a very unclear knowledge of how this virus spreads. It is only too easy to jump to facile conclusions.
Do schools spread Covid? The most recent informed evidence says not: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56072460
Does it spread outdoors? Quite unlikely: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-55680305
Does it spread via touching surfaces? Rarely: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00251-4

So, really... it isn't infectious, then?

However:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56072460
Co-researcher Dr Mike Tildesley said: "We are not saying there is no risk.

"It's an absence of evidence."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-55680305
"It also helps to evaporate the liquid droplets in which it is carried."

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00251-4
"Studies and investigations of outbreaks all point to the majority of transmissions occurring as a result of infected people spewing out large droplets and small particles called aerosols when they cough, talk or breathe. These can be directly inhaled by people close by. Surface transmission, although possible, is not thought to be a significant risk."

But these studies do not seem to be being fed into how the lockdowns are designed.

I rather doubt that. I would expect it is the understanding of how it spreads that drives the lockdown policy.

[XFool]

True enough: there is probably not enough discreet data, but for a safety first approach society has sensibly used a broad brush. Lockdowns appear to be working: unlockdowns appear to do the opposite. So the broad brush says keep social mixing wherever and however, to a minimum. Then when more detailed data is available, use it to pinpoint the grey areas. I assume that's what happened previously, and will be happening now/next time.

Unfortunately, Johnson was too ready to have a pretty wild "unlock" before. We could see at the time that it was very much in haste, and the second wve disaster quite well foreseen. We went too far too fast: however, whatever we did would have only delayed the inevitable.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with these analyses.

There is one absolutely crucial aspect of analysing UK lockdowns vs UK release of lockdowns that needs to be taken into account...

Namely "Responsibility"

And I don't agree with your (following) analysis.

Why? Namely one word: "Responsibility" - Or rather, two words: "Responsibility" & "Infectious"

They go together like... 'a fish and a bicycle'?

Nothing wrong with personal responsibility... except, with a highly infectious disease. In which case it isn't my personal responsibility/my consequences; your personal responsibility/your consequences. It IS that, plus it's also my personal responsibility/your consequences; your responsibility/my consequences. Before we even come to my/your responsibility/many other people's consequences. "Infectious" - it comes with the territory.

When Boris announced the lockdowns, he took it upon himself (on behalf of the government) to assume responsibility for deciding what was and what wasn't suitable behaviour to combat the pandemic.

Yep. Same as the government did during the last war. They didn't announce: "We are now at war with Germany. Those are the facts, so it is up to all you citizens to take responsibility for whatsoever actions you may decide to take from now on."

[Leif]

Because they have similar climates and population densities.

Can you explain how population density is a factor?

Scientists are quite clear that anything much over 2m, is unlikely to result in tranmission.

UK population density in no way forces people to within 2m.

We’ve seen that in the absence of lockdown the virus spreads.

The UK has large towns and cities close together, with a large flow of people between them. Mr Spreader might live in town A, and work in town B. Mrs Spreader works in town C. Child Spreader is at school in town A. Sometimes they shop in town D. So one family can spread it round four towns. That scenario is more likely with a population spread over a smaller area, where people move round multiple towns and cities.

An old joke is that Swedes don’t have to be told to socially distance, they do it anyway. There is some truth in that.

[onthemove]

True enough: there is probably not enough discreet data, but for a safety first approach society has sensibly used a broad brush. Lockdowns appear to be working: unlockdowns appear to do the opposite. So the broad brush says keep social mixing wherever and however, to a minimum. Then when more detailed data is available, use it to pinpoint the grey areas. I assume that's what happened previously, and will be happening now/next time.

Unfortunately, Johnson was too ready to have a pretty wild "unlock" before. We could see at the time that it was very much in haste, and the second wve disaster quite well foreseen. We went too far too fast: however, whatever we did would have only delayed the inevitable.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with these analyses.

There is one absolutely crucial aspect of analysing UK lockdowns vs UK release of lockdowns that needs to be taken into account...

Namely "Responsibility"

And I don't agree with your (following) analysis.

Why? Namely one word: "Responsibility" - Or rather, two words: "Responsibility" & "Infectious"

They go together like... 'a fish and a bicycle'?

Nothing wrong with personal responsibility... except, with a highly infectious disease. In which case it isn't my personal responsibility/my consequences; your personal responsibility/your consequences. It IS that, plus it's also my personal responsibility/your consequences; your responsibility/my consequences. Before we even come to my/your responsibility/many other people's consequences. "Infectious" - it comes with the territory.

When Boris announced the lockdowns, he took it upon himself (on behalf of the government) to assume responsibility for deciding what was and what wasn't suitable behaviour to combat the pandemic.

Yep. Same as the government did during the last war. They didn't announce: "We are now at war with Germany. Those are the facts, so it is up to all you citizens to take responsibility for whatsoever actions you may decide to take from now on."

Effectively, the essence of your argument is that as far as you're concerned, the public can't be trusted, that they're too thick to modify their behaviour appropriately, such that therefore we can indeed use the UK exit from lockdowns as scientific means to establish exactly how people would behave even if they were given the responsibility for their own behaviour as the Swedes were instead of legally enforced lockdown.

Can I ask... are you basing this on yourself... that you know that if we had been treated as adults in the same way that the Swedes were, that you're saying you yourself would carry on oblivious to the pandemic around you, that you wouldn't give people extra distance, that you would carry on visiting friends and relatives as though nothing had happened, etc?

Or are you saying that, well, oh, no of course *you* would have behaved responsibly even if it weren't legally enforced, but it's everyone else who you consider would not behave responsibly?

Much like how the majority of motorists feels that they are an above average driver, and that if everyone just behaved like they did, the world would be great.

In my view it's rather arrogant and condescending, and certainly not scientifically valid, to make such an assumption and therefore conclude from the UK lockdowns vs UK release of lockdowns that the lockdown itself, legally enforced, was indeed what actually reduced the infection rate, rather than being able to trust people.

[Leif]

I don’t accept the view that if the government trusted us to be responsible, everything would be fine. I’ve met many people who didn’t or don’t believe the virus kills. Many changed their mind months after the first lockdown started, but only because of the deaths. I’ve also seen many people who were irresponsible. I know a rec ice hockey team that ignored rules on staying in groups of six, and only doing drills. Instead they played normal games. I’ve seen groups of kids ignoring rules. Kids are likely to be asymptomatic carriers, ie the worst kind of spreader.

YouTube is full of comments from people who are more knowledgeable about virology than the experts advising the government. If only the government had listened to these experts, who have no formal training, rather than people who have spent their lives studying viruses. [Irony alert.]

[onthemove]

Because they have similar climates and population densities.

Can you explain how population density is a factor?

Scientists are quite clear that anything much over 2m, is unlikely to result in tranmission.

UK population density in no way forces people to within 2m.

We’ve seen that in the absence of lockdown the virus spreads.

We've seen the evidence that if you absolve the population of responsibility, lock them down, and then later tell them it's OK to go about their business again, in fact, even encourage them to do so with "Eat out to help out", then yes the virus spreads again.

But this tells you nothing about how that same population would have behaved if they had been told from the beginning that the outcome is entirely up to them... that there is a serious disease out there, that you you'll be given all the relevant data, and all the relevant advice of the scientists about ways you can mitigate the risk to you and your family and the people around you, but that it's up to you to evaluate the appropriate level and to behave appropriately.

You really believe that when people see the hospitals over capacity, their friends and relations getting ill and dying, that people would just carry on regardless like mindless zombies?

Because that's effectively what the argument is for legally enforced lockdowns.

[88V8]

We had an infection peak after Christmas. I don't think that was anything to do with a second coming: Or even a second helping this year

There has also been a drop in flu cases. Due to diminution of mingling? If not, what else?

I don't see how any intelligent person can maintain that preventing human interaction does not reduce the spread of an infectious disease. Even in 1666 they knew that.
Whether the concomitant economic effects are worthwhile is another matter.

In my view it's rather arrogant and condescending, and certainly not scientifically valid, to ....conclude from the UK lockdowns vs UK release of lockdowns that the lockdown itself, legally enforced, was indeed what actually reduced the infection rate, rather than being able to trust people.

Trust some people. But not enough. One can trust some people not to steal; we tend not to lock our doors at home, but just try that in town. Some people, but not enough.

V8

[onthemove]

I don’t accept the view that if the government trusted us to be responsible, everything would be fine. I’ve met many people who didn’t or don’t believe the virus kills. Many changed their mind months after the first lockdown started, but only because of the deaths. I’ve also seen many people who were irresponsible. I know a rec ice hockey team that ignored rules on staying in groups of six, and only doing drills. Instead they played normal games. I’ve seen groups of kids ignoring rules. Kids are likely to be asymptomatic carriers, ie the worst kind of spreader.

YouTube is full of comments from people who are more knowledgeable about virology than the experts advising the government. If only the government had listened to these experts, who have no formal training, rather than people who have spent their lives studying viruses. [Irony alert.]

And so what?

Like you say, people changed their minds when reality hit.

That's exactly my point. Give them the real news, that they can trust, and they will modify their behaviour. The public are not mindless, unthinking zombies.

We know that youngsters are barely affected from getting infected. Clearly the government couldn't admit it with all the hysteria, but the outbreaks in university halls of residence, where the students were away from their families and typically only mixing with people of similar age, was probably beneficial overall.

It was actually building up a level of immunity and tolerance in a portion of the population who are not particularly at risk from severe effects. Let it rip through a halls of residence, it's unlikely that the majority would suffer any major issue, and hey presto, you already have tolerance building up in the next generation.

Most old people have been keeping away from their grandchildren, and children anyhow.

Allowing a 'controlled burn' in certain age groups could help to reduce the R rate in future. A controlled spike now, could help those youngsters become a fire break against future transmission.

In fact, there is evidence that immunity from actually catching the virus itself, might be conferring broader protection / tolerance against different strains, compared to the vaccines...

"The findings, published in Nature, provide the strongest evidence yet that the immune system "remembers" the virus and, remarkably, continues to improve the quality of antibodies even after the infection has waned. Antibodies produced months after the infection showed increased ability to block SARS-CoV-2, as well as its mutated versions such as the South African variant." https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 131909.htm

Most people at christmas who were going to visit elderly relatives, voluntarily self isolated for 10 to 14 days prior to visiting relatives.

It's not good news to the pro-lockdown zealots, but the relaxation in rules that permitted more mixing at christmas had virtually no effect on infection rates according to a subsequent analysis by the BBC. That's entirely because people actually can be trusted to act appropriately.

"...a closer look at the numbers suggests this trend was already happening and was probably caused by the new, more infectious variant of the virus rather than increased contact between people ... He says the research did not show an increase in contacts with more vulnerable groups, such as elderly people, as expected. This suggests people may have decided not to spend Christmas with those at higher risk from the virus.." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/55669736

And there's a Danish study here...

"Danish study suggests local lockdown had no effect on SARS-CoV-2 infection rate" https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210 ... -rate.aspx

And then in relation to other rules like mask wearing, the anecdotal evidence is not great in their favour...

Just prior to the enforcement of mask wearing, I looked around a counted how many people were wearing masks in Tesco, even after the rules had been announced but before they became mandatory... I counted around 2 people that I saw in the whole store wearing masks immediately prior to enforcement of mask wearing.

A few days later, when the rules became legally mandated, I counted again, and this time it was we over 95% compliance... there were very few people not wearing masks.

If masks are so effective, then such a step change in mask wearing should have quite a step change in infection rates.

In reality, when you looked at the charts of infections from that period, there was no perceptible change at all... not even when you know where you're looking.

Similarly with all those people on the beaches who the media crucified and even the prime minister was not complimentary about...

"How the beach 'super-spreader' myth can inform UK's future Covid response
News that no outbreaks were linked to beach trips highlights important message about outdoor transmission, says expert
...
According to Prof Mark Woolhouse, an epidemiologist at Edinburgh University who sits on the government’s SPI-M committee, the chance of a super-spreader event among the crowds that turned up from Bournemouth to Southend was minimal in theory – and nonexistent in practice.

“Over the summer we were treated to all this on the television news, pictures of crowded beaches, and there was an outcry about this,” he told MPs. “There were no outbreaks linked to public beaches. There’s never been a Covid-19 outbreak linked to a beach, ever, anywhere in the world, to the best of my knowledge.”" https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... d-response

Time and time again in this pandemic we see media incited hysteria, which subsequently - and much more quietly - does indeed get proven as such.

Unfortunately that hysteria is feeding into law...

As lootman points out, you aren't allowed to meet a friend even if you keep a distance and wear a mask.

You can't go to the beach. Even though "There’s never been a Covid-19 outbreak linked to a beach", you're not intelligent enough to understand that and make that judgement call for yourself, you are told by the government you are not allowed to go to the beach.

Too many of the pro-lockdown folk are just getting swept up by the media hysteria... you know, those stories that publish the pictures of the exceptions, that lead their readers to infer the exceptions are the norm.

You know, that leads to an assumption that the whole 68million people in this country are dumb, and that you dear reader, are the only one who would be responsible, so therefore the population at large needs to be spoonfed how to behave and forced to wear face nappies like the irresponsible babies that they are.

[Bubblesofearth]

Much like how the majority of motorists feels that they are an above average driver, and that if everyone just behaved like they did, the world would be great.

Driving is actually quite a good analogy for the value of enforcement. Deaths due to driving have come down dramatically in the UK as a consequence of the various clampdowns on speeding, drink driving and the wearing of seatbelts.

It's a sad fact that enforcement is required in many walks of life to prevent people killing themselves and others. To believe otherwise would IMO be dangerously naive.

BoE

[Lanark]

I don’t accept the view that if the government trusted us to be responsible, everything would be fine.

Another aspect of this is people who would like to isolate themselves more, but simply can't, because they have a mortgage to pay and a job to hold down. Legal mandates and furlough make it possible for them.

[XFool]

Effectively, the essence of your argument is that as far as you're concerned, the public can't be trusted, that they're too thick to modify their behaviour appropriately, such that therefore we can indeed use the UK exit from lockdowns as scientific means to establish exactly how people would behave even if they were given the responsibility for their own behaviour as the Swedes were instead of legally enforced lockdown.

I suppose there are various ways of summing up the essence of my argument:

1. Governments really DO unavoidably have a role in some circumstances. Libertarian philosophies, like the ever popular "Government is the problem, not the solution", "Public bad, private good", simply aren't going to work in some cases. Sorry!

2. In my book "Personal responsibility" doesn't quite hack it when it comes to a global outbreak of a dangerous infectious disease. You either get this, or you don't.

Can I ask... are you basing this on yourself... that you know that if we had been treated as adults in the same way that the Swedes were, that you're saying you yourself would carry on oblivious to the pandemic around you, that you wouldn't give people extra distance, that you would carry on visiting friends and relatives as though nothing had happened, etc?

Turning the question around: Would I have executed my own personal, government approved, lockdown? My guess, possibly not - I just don't know. Obviously I would have been aware, obviously I would have taken some precautions. Would I have known exactly what to do? My simple guess is no. There would, as now, have been loads and loads of 'information' ( ) available. I bet that Peter Hitchens and Toby Young would have been giving it large... What there wouldn't have been is one authoritative, clear source of (hopefully) reliable information, to be followed by everyone. Or, in other words, exactly what is needed in a pandemic.

What this is reminding me of now is the BSG episode. Then, I did exercise "personal responsibility", based on what I was hearing from scientists - plus what I was also hearing from farmers! ( ) I stopped eating beef. But that wasn't infectious (at least not in the same sense as COVID-19) so "personal responsibility" had a real world meaning, rather than being merely a political slogan.

Or are you saying that, well, oh, no of course *you* would have behaved responsibly even if it weren't legally enforced, but it's everyone else who you consider would not behave responsibly?

Much like how the majority of motorists feels that they are an above average driver, and that if everyone just behaved like they did, the world would be great.

Err... So you now reckon everyone thinks they know best? I agree! But I think you may just have kicked your own argument into the long grass...

[onthemove]

We had an infection peak after Christmas. I don't think that was anything to do with a second coming: Or even a second helping this year

There has also been a drop in flu cases. Due to diminution of mingling? If not, what else?

I don't see how any intelligent person can maintain that preventing human interaction does not reduce the spread of an infectious disease. Even in 1666 they knew that.
Whether the concomitant economic effects are worthwhile is another matter.

In my view it's rather arrogant and condescending, and certainly not scientifically valid, to ....conclude from the UK lockdowns vs UK release of lockdowns that the lockdown itself, legally enforced, was indeed what actually reduced the infection rate, rather than being able to trust people.

Trust some people. But not enough. One can trust some people not to steal; we tend not to lock our doors at home, but just try that in town. Some people, but not enough.

V8

Two things...

Firstly the evidence suggests that the infection peak at christmas was not related to the relaxing of rules...

"...a closer look at the numbers suggests this trend was already happening and was probably caused by the new, more infectious variant of the virus rather than increased contact between people ... He says the research did not show an increase in contacts with more vulnerable groups, such as elderly people, as expected. This suggests people may have decided not to spend Christmas with those at higher risk from the virus.." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/55669736

Secondly, you completely miss the point ..

"I don't see how any intelligent person can maintain that preventing human interaction does not reduce the spread of an infectious disease."

There isn't only 1 way of preventing human interaction, as I keep repeatedly pointing out, and that analysis of the christmas data backs up...

People can and do behave appropriately where they are treated with respect, and recognise that they have been given the responsibility, and given the appropriate facts upon which they can make their decisions.

This will invariably mean people will choose not to visit relatives in at risk groups, purely out of their own responsibility and concern.

You don't have to bring into law an enforced lockdown to effect an appropriate reduction in human interaction.

Why is this so difficult for people to understand?

Are people really so arrogant to think that they are so superior to everyone else that they themselves would behave appropriately, but of course the rest of the population are beneath them and couldn't possibly be expected to behave in a similarly responsible manner?

Or are people looking at themselves, and saying that they themselves would be behaving irresponsibly if they weren't forced to behave responsibly by law, and therefore at least presuming everyone else will be the same? (at least this wouldn't be arrogant and condescending!)

[Lanark]

You can't go to the beach. Even though "There’s never been a Covid-19 outbreak linked to a beach", you're not intelligent enough to understand that and make that judgement call for yourself, you are told by the government you are not allowed to go to the beach.

Maybe the guidance has changed but right now it says this:

Exercising

You should minimise time spent outside your home, but you can leave your home to exercise. This should be limited to once per day, and you should not travel outside your local area.

You can exercise in a public outdoor place:
by yourself
with the people you live with
with your support bubble (if you are legally permitted to form one)
in a childcare bubble where providing childcare
or, when on your own, with 1 person from another household

This includes but is not limited to running, cycling, walking, and swimming. Personal training can continue if participants are from the same household or support bubble. It can also continue if it is one-on-one, although this should only take place in a public outdoor place, and not in someone’s private home or garden.

Public outdoor places include:
parks, beaches, countryside accessible to the public, forests

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-lo ... exercising

So if your local area includes a beach theres nothing to stop you from using it.