can anyone recommend any decent articles in left publications discussing post-lockdown / transition from lockdown? would be v interested

So far it looks like the answer is "no" & in a spirit of comradeship I'd like to ask... why?

If we can abstract this away from the prism of the Fucking Labour Party for a minute, I think this is absolutely correct. https://twitter.com/LeftieStats/status/1253320092948955137

With the best will in the world, a vaccine isn't coming any time soon & there is going to be a climbdown in some way from our current position pretty soon - what do people think that should look like? What factors should be taken into account? There's so many important questions

Can we relax the lockdown and try to keep younger & less vulnerable people with fewer risk factors having a more normal existence, but away from older & more vulnerable individuals? Is this feasible, desirable, etc?

Is the idea of an app to do automated contact tracing worth the civil liberties problems that poses? Are these inherent, can these be worked around?

At the moment I think - correct me if I'm wrong - that a large part of the discourse is premised on "do nothing that means more people die of coronavirus soon", but it's just not at all a sustainable position. Does anyone think this is a long-term plan? I ask this quite honestly!

There are definitely limits to this but I think we're in many ways sleepwalking into a very similar position as FBPE people did over Brexit. https://twitter.com/francisqcoyle/status/1253002488896262145

Realise that many people will be angry, possibly even distressed, about even thinking about this & I really really apologise if so. I'll keep any further comments to this thread so you may want to mute (& apologies - this should have been my first tweet).

I think this is really good as a summary of (some of?) the options available. https://twitter.com/politicsofnv/status/1253224810026541056

I guess I might as well add roughly what I'm trying to think about. Spanish stats suggest 95% of all deaths are coming from the (upper limit) 29% of population with one or more of people with these known conditions.

We can look roughly at the age profile (left) of people with one or more of a wider list (right).

Should say next that these are estimates based on documented numbers I've read, rather than The Truth, but they seem reasonable to me...

The CFR estimate for <40s is generally around 0.2%. The prevalence of these risk factors in those groups is about 12%. Applying this & taking a bit of uncertainty around everything, this means that high-risk groups have a risk in region of 2-4%, and low-risk groups 0.03% to 0.06%

(& these are case fatality rates, not infection fatality rates, so will overstate actual risk if accurate)

So being able to isolate vulnerable groups does quite massively reduce the risk to everyone else - but 1) this relies on having accurate estimates of IFRs, 2) *feasibility* of isolating vulnerable groups, which obviously problematic.

Again, not saying these numbers are necessarily correct, but they do seem plausible, and it's got to the point where taking risk seriously is something we probably need to do.

I'm not in favour of END THE LOCKDOWN NOW, I'm just saying that at some point soon we're going to have to think about how much risk (individual & societal!) we can deal with and manage. I don't know what the answer is, but I think a realistic view of risk is important...

Realise I sound like fucking Frank Furedi talking about risk but it's pretty salient now, and at least I'm not trying to wind people up.

And again I'm not saying everyone should think about their own personal risk but want to emphasise that there are external/societal risks - increased individual risk means increased risk for other people you come into contact with, which is why feasibility of separation important