thinking about this, if it were me i'd talk to my CA doctor to see if they would be able to record my first UK shot on a CDC card and then schedule my 2nd in CA which would be recorded. so when i returned to england it would show a full vaccination on the cdc card. i do not know (and cant imagine) they are terribly precious about this in the US if i were getting a US approved jab (ie not astra zenca for my first shot).

then in england at least i'd rely on the test to release scheme meaning i'd land at LHR and stay in a hotel and take my day 2 test then day 5 to release and move north--but admittedly, i do not know the scotland rules on if this would be allowed but logistically i would have completed my england requirements and we know there are no further checks if i wanted to move on to somewhere in scotland.

obviously september is ages away in regards to covid restriction time, so one would hope fully vax'd international pax wouldnt need to isolate. but given how our govt handles everything around international travel, i also wouldnt hold my breath.

barring all that, i suppose in the worst case scenario you would need to build in that buffer of days meaning she would have to cut her trip home short by 10 days to be able to isolate once back for that time to start her fall. but hey, at least most of the marriott properties in the UK are rather honest with their availability and room types ;)

Hi Vicki,

I recall your daughter is in the Bracknell area? If she can get to Shepton Mallet (bus from Bath Spa station) there is a vaccination centre there that does walk-ins and they do 2nd doses after 21 days. There are no local residence requirements.

This feels like last year all over again. Government giving up on governing, giving fluffy and inconsistent messaging, policies that leave the onus on the individual or local organisations, nothing can be enforced.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57813402

It's worse, in many ways. Back at the first lockdown, people were being careful and considerate, but the combined lockdown fatigue and vaccine confidence will, I suspect, put paid to much of that. For the many immunocompromised out there (which includes a member of my household), this is a nightmare situation, as the effectiveness of the vaccine is reduced and unpredictable.

I don't really have an answer on this one, though I have upthread given my logic why I feel that face masks should continue to be used in many settings.

But the problem we have here is that there are two Statutory Instruments relating to face masks and hundreds of other SIs relating to fairly draconian restrictions on people's basic freedoms - freedom to meet, have weddings and funerals, travel, eat out, go to sports events and so on. I very much see the point that these laws need to go at the very first opportunity, even the Chinese government doesn't make it illegal to have sex with someone who lives in a different home to you. The face masks SI are particularly silly and unenforceable.

There is one SI covering shops and indoor settings, another SI for public transport. Both allow people not to wear masks for medical reasons - and genuinely some people would be exempt. But they made this a personal decision as to whether you would be exempt, and there wasn't much choice on that. The reason being is that you could not send 20% (or whatever) of the population off to see their GP to beg for a face mask exemption letter. So it was self declared. Hence the two SIs cannot in any meaningful sense be enforced. It is true that a court could assess this self declaration, but for something with a £100 fixed penalty notice this won't be happening. Or rather if courts were to be looking at cases it would be in several years from now, given the backlog in the courts, long after the legislation had expired.

Now with the SIs revoked, public transport operators could say "wear masks as a condition of carriage, no exceptions" but unfortunately this won't happen. People will complain about mixed messages but that's because they want to find mixed messages - which are there already. It's pretty obvious to me that if you want to do the right thing, you wear a mask.

So they're basically expunging a confused, convoluted and unenforceable system that they themselves have created and replace it with some fuzzy, equally unenforceable, system of suggestions. It's so discouraging.

It's still a head-scratcher to me why masks didn't stay mandatory, for another few months at least. You can remove social distancing, but keep the mask rule indoors. For businesses that would be affected by this (such as nightclubs/festivals), you can say no masks, but you need to be tested before entry and 48 hours after you leave the venue. I would have thought this is the most sensible thing to do that would not impact businesses or companies too much.

I watched the press conference yesterday, and to be completely honest, it didn't seem like Boris was confident at all, he just seemed nervous and unsure of if what he was doing was correct.

With the easy access (well, they are here, and from places like Aliexpress) to (K)N95 masks, make sure everyone who wants to wear a mask has one of those. They protect the wearer more than the surgical ones, and imo are much more comfortable. If it's going to be a long journey in hot weather then even the vented masks (usually from DIY shops) can be worn. They're useless for protecting other people, but it fits the UK's new narrative of "only care about yourself". Personally, I won't wear those as it's antisocial, but I can understand if others do.

I very much agree that the confused patchwork of SIs is unhelpful, and that in a democratic society we should in general be removing restrictions on people's liberties.

I think the problem with this is the reality of how this plays out on the ground, where a) having a legal instrument to fall back on where necessary has more weight than the an organisation's own rules, and b) it helps to ensure consistency across different contexts.

I'm going to use the example of disabled access, as I am more familiar with this context and there are parallels between the situations. Plus many of those most affected by the changes on 19th will be disabled people.

A: the value of law, rather than individual company policy:
The decent thing to do when, say, a wheelchair user is trying to manoeuvre their wheelchair onto a bus is to move and give them space to do so. However, if people don't do this, it is left to the wheelchair user - who has zero authority - to ask people nicely to move. Their lives are made much easier if the bus driver takes a stand and says something like "I'm not moving until you've given this person space to position their wheelchair safely".

Is the Equality Act required for the bus driver to do that? Not at all: it can simply be the policy of the bus company in question. But bus drivers are often what Lipsky has called 'street level bureaucrats' - while they have considerable discretion, and that discretion can have major impact on people's lives, they often have very little input into the policies of the organisation and they have competing resource pressures. They just want to get from A to B with the least hassle possible.

In that context, is often helpful for them to be able to say to someone who is being difficult "it's the law" (without going into the specificities). It carries more weight than "it's the bus company's policy". Of course, the worst people will simply ignore them anyhow. But then they have the implicit threat, if necessary, of involving the police (regardless of whether they do or not).

By contrast, if it's just a policy, more people would be inclined to say "so what" - and more bus drivers would be inclined to say "well, this is more hassle than it's worth if the law doesn't back me up (or enable my company to back me up)". And they're more likely to turn a blind eye to the policy, to the detriment of the disabled passenger.

In the context of masks I see some strong parallels here. Will bus drivers be willing to risk confrontation?

B. the problem of inconsistency:
This is a linked though distinct issue. If people can't be confident that there is consistency of policy and treatment across multiple buses/companies, that is a problem. This applies both to people who are vulnerable (who may feel they have no choice but to avoid travelling), but also to society as a whole: it sets consistent expectations that become social norms.

Much like drink-driving: it is Not An Acceptable Thing To Do because of the risk to others as well as yourself. It's against the law, but it is also socially far more unacceptable than 30 or 40 years ago. Was it fear of punishment that caused this? No - and some people still do it. But I think there being a consistent legal prohibition is inextricably linked to these cultural shifts. If it had been left to choice, or the discretion of individual police forces, I doubt there would have been that wider cultural shift.

The 7th July SAGE meeting minutes and modelling inputs were published yesterday evening:

https://www.gov.uk/government/collec...ings-july-2021

In summary:
- expect high cases until end of summer, as the unvaccinated get covid antibodies from infection (and 30% of those vaccinated get some more antibodies).
- hospitalisations are expected to exceed 1,000 admissions per day.
- likelihood of an immune escape variant emerging is unknown, but "combination of high prevalence and high levels of vaccination creates the conditions in which an immune escape variant is most likely to emerge".

The video of yesterdays press conference is here:

My opinion:
No matter what the PM says, it wasn't foreseen to be like at stage 4 this when the roadmap was defined. However we are where we are, and taking into account UK politics (as it is ultimately a political decision) I am not sure I see an alternative. At least the rhetoric about irreversible has been toned down - not because anyone wants to go back to restrictions, but countries that didn't make promises about not reversing removing restrictions were able to remove restrictions earlier (as the UK is now doing).
The best path forward for the UK would be to gradually remove restrictions, to level the re-opening wave, as stressed by Chris Whitty in the press conference. The responsibility for that now lies with the local authorities (and similar public organisations), private companies and the general public.

I mean, this is not just about actual policies that become law. Clear and concise communication is key in managing a pandemic if we are to believe the experts. It is just not coherent what HMG is doing.

I lost count how many times BJ made a "mission accomplished" statement only to backtrack later on.

Yes, so an exit wave was always foreseen and inevitable, but you can argue the delta variant being more transmissible has perhaps made this a bit more tricky. We are at least below the models done earlier this year as noted in my previous posts so perhaps that is of some comfort.

What makes this very hard is the timing as SAGE notes:

Further delay may on the face of it seem like a decision which only has positives, but as SAGE notes (even just on the strict grounds they view this) it may not be. Gradual change as you noted is better than abrupt change back to pre covid normality - but then I don't know anyone who realistically thinks after next Monday everything will just instantly flip back to be like pre covid life.

It is a very difficult decision and the politicians must take onboard the advice from SAGE, and then look at all the other factors around finance, economics, other health consequences, people's livelihoods, businesses etc. etc. Not a decision I would like to be making, but then the ones which don't have a clear right and wrong answer always are the difficult ones to take,

Well, yes, there will be a final wave, and it would be fair to label it the exit wave. But that honorific will be awarded retrospectively.

it's plucky, some might say foolhardy to label the forthcoming tsunami of infection an exit wave.

Anyone wants to take bets on some sort of winter lockdown?

Well yes a wave related to the exit from lockdown. I make no predictions regarding it being a final wave and didn't use that term, which as you say may be something different.