Keeping R<1 will become easier and easier with vaccination. Under these conditions, covid levels die away, and flare-ups can be stamped out.
Some "steady state" level of COVID" that we "live with" isn't a thing, cos that's not how exponential growth works. Definitely not where (1) we don't have to do anything restrictions-wise, and (2) we still have some control over that level.
R>1 means exponential growth, out of control, until we do something. This *absolutely* has impact, directly on those with it, and collaterally, if many healthcare workers, teachers etc get it and can't work. Those asking the "cost" of restrictions must compare it with this.
Many seem to hope if we treat it like the flu (ie ignore it) it will behave like the flu. However, that's not under our control, and it probably won't:
Without quibbling about R data: flu spreads by people with symptoms. If they stay at home - or, cough/sneeze into tissues or sleeves - it's mostly contained. COVID is spread easily by people without symptoms, talking / singing / exercising indoors.
It's possible that you don't need a law: just as people know not to cough/sneeze openly on the tube, they could also know to wear a mask.
Nonetheless - flu happens to be at levels we can "live with". But if the numbers of people off work with the flu in flu season had been 10x worse, or 100x worse, we would not have been able to "live with" it, and we would have had some restrictions during flu season.
So the options are to leave R>1 and let numbers keep going of control; wait for that to happen, then impose some restrictions (another lock down?) to get it back down. We should be realistic about the costs of either of these. Or keep R<1. This also has costs. However...
These costs are easier and easier with vaccination. We're not talking perma-lockdown. We're talking, masks on public transport. Ventilation requirements in workplaces, pubs, restaurants, schools. Support so people can test and isolate. Essentially: something we *can* live with.
Two final notes. Those against "zero covid", as well as spelling out the alternative and the costs, should also suggest examples of (1) any other country pursuing their model successfully; and (2) any other country who is worse off for having tried to get to zero covid.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The new COVID variant and how we should behave to be safe. tl;dr: it hasn't acquired resistance to anything; soap, distancing, masks and fresh air all still work; but we should act like people indoors are giving off more than they were.
First the science: the new variant is surrounded by the same lipid coating so still killed by washing hands with warm water + soap. Infection still carried in the same tiny droplets given off when breathing / talking; fresh air / masks / distance still reduce this transmission.
Difference is in the protein it makes and how it interacts with our bodies. Somehow easier to infect. So, either infected people breathe out more virus, or you need to breathe in less virus to get infected. But the actions we need to take are the same either way.
COVID can be airborne, in floating “aerosol” particles. We know how these particles move, and how long they stay in the air. What does this mean for minimising risk? TL;DR: ventilate rooms to stop aerosol levels building up; masks and distancing still help but 2m not magic bullet
Aerosol particles are given off especially when someone is talking, without a mask, like a smoker giving off smoke.
If that person has COVID, and someone else breathes in their aerosol, that can pass on COVID infection.
Indoors, over time, the aerosol levels build up and the particles spread further from that person, so everyone else is breathing in more aerosol, meaning more risk of catching COVID. Superspreading events have shown that the particles can spread further than 2m.