Further Restrictions Announced by Johnson (22/09)

[SteveM70]

I know mate - it'll just push alcohol consumption indoors with people getting together anyway in their homes, while the licencing industry just dissolves further into meltdown.

Even if some restaurants and venues remain open, it'll be a massive loss of business. How many people are going to go for a meal knowing they can't enjoy a glass of wine or a pint of lager with it?

CJ

And what’s more, off trade booze is cheaper, so there’ll be a tendency for people to drink more, and with that will come loss of awareness / giving a damn, and less distancing. It’s insane

 

[bramling]

I think the idea is that anywhere in Tier 3 will have their restrictions reviewed after 1 month, and at regular intervals thereafter.

If the North of England is closed down over Christmas, and London & the South East remains open, I can't imagine it will go down well, and Boris Johnson can kiss goodbye to all those "Red Wall" seats at the next election.

Maybe he is planning to quit as Prime Minister before the next election, so he doesn't give a flying f*** about the election result.

I already can’t see a Johnson-induced lockdown being well received closing down betting shops in Liverpool!

You’re right there’s going to be issues. Like with masks, a sense of unfairness will emerge “why are we locked down and other places aren’t?”. That will be inflammatory.

As well as toilet rolls and pasta, during the last lockdown the other part of the supermarket where shelves could often be seen conspicuously bare was the cheap alcohol section. Pushing drinking to homes will be creating problems.

 

[big_rig]

I cannot believe they are closing gyms. Everyone has their own limits when it comes to this but if you include banning all social contact (except outside in a park, in winter..) for me that combination is basically leading to living to work (from home) with nothing else that makes life enjoyable allowed (except I guess going to a restaurant and not having a drink, with the person you live with?). Completely mental. Somebody please ‘take back control’ from these one track mind scientists and inject some reality into this. Life will be even worse for the locked down care home residents who are about the only people susceptible to this anyway. Bet the SAGE crew will be patting themselves on the back for a job well done when they all die of loneliness, as it won’t have been of Covid so doesn’t count.

 

[Mag_seven]

You’re right there’s going to be issues. Like with masks, a sense of unfairness will emerge “why are we locked down and other places aren’t?”. That will be inflammatory.

We have already seen elements of this with Tory MPs in local lockdown areas pleading with the government for their constituencies to be taken out of local lockdown whilst the Labour voting constituencies remain under it.

 

[Carlisle]

So if first lockdown didn't stop spread of virus they think we need to do it again, I'm not a top scientist but know from science if you repeat the same experiment you're likely to get similar results.

Your absolutely right, but if govt really want a second national lockdown they just have to commission an ongoing information campaign telling us we must lockdown now, otherwise we’ll overwhelm our NHS’ & it’s probably job done

 

[C J Snarzell]

And what’s more, off trade booze is cheaper, so there’ll be a tendency for people to drink more, and with that will come loss of awareness / giving a damn, and less distancing. It’s insane

Also forcing alcohol consumption indoors means that there is less 'sensible' or 'responsible' drinking with people more likely to misuse or become dependant.

Drinking in privacy means there is no bar staff telling you they are not serving you more and most people will drink to excess knowing their bed is only a short walk up the stairs or across the hall.

From a long term perspective, that then means further medical issues lumbered on GPs and the NHS, who everyone is trying to protect. I wonder if BJ and Ma'am Sturgeon have actually thought this far ahead - maybe not.

CJ

 

[duncanp]

I already can’t see a Johnson-induced lockdown being well received closing down betting shops in Liverpool!

You’re right there’s going to be issues. Like with masks, a sense of unfairness will emerge “why are we locked down and other places aren’t?”. That will be inflammatory.

As well as toilet rolls and pasta, during the last lockdown the other part of the supermarket where shelves could often be seen conspicuously bare was the cheap alcohol section. Pushing drinking to homes will be creating problems.

The three London boroughs with the highest infection rates are Richmond on Thames, Hackney and Redbridge, whose infection rates increased by between 30% and 40% last week.

If that trend continues, they could reach the level that Liverpool, Nottingham and Manchester are currently at in a few weeks.

If those boroughs are then not moved to Tier 3, there will be even more anger in the North than there is at the moment, which could be the catalyst for protests, or people just saying "..b******s to the lockdown, I am going to see my family over Christmas whether you like it or not...".

I live just outside Birmingham, which is likely to be in Tier 2 when the restrictions are announced, and according to the purported rules for Tier 2 there will be no mixing of households in hospitality settings such as restaurants and pubs.

This means that me and my brother will not be able to take our mother to a restaurant to celebrate her 80th birthday in December, as well all live separately.

Well Mr Johnson, you can shove that restriction in the same place that the doctor would have to put his finger if he was giving you a prostate examination, as I am simply going to ignore it, and you can kiss goodbye to my vote at the next election.

I am sure that other people will feel the same way as Christmas and the New Year approaches..

 

[brad465]

I think the idea is that anywhere in Tier 3 will have their restrictions reviewed after 1 month, and at regular intervals thereafter.

If the North of England is closed down over Christmas, and London & the South East remains open, I can't imagine it will go down well, and Boris Johnson can kiss goodbye to all those "Red Wall" seats at the next election.

Maybe he is planning to quit as Prime Minister before the next election, so he doesn't give a flying f*** about the election result.

There's already tonnes of speculation about him going next year, potentially before the Spring. I don't know how but I do think Politicians need to be better held to account after they've gone from office, to prevent this sort of selfish behaviour of creating mess so someone else cleans it up. Cameron did exactly the same thing in 2016 and can get away with a low profile that doesn't see much of him beyond his memoirs.

The same can probably be said about all the crony contracts that have been made this year: the Government know how much this crisis is/will be damaging their reputation so it's a case of get rich and hoard what you can before our potential demise.

On the point about "Kissing goodbye to the red wall seats", there have been reports highlighting double-standards in where local lockdowns are being imposed and the lack of Conservative areas in them. Bolton is an exception to this, but Richmond (Rishi Sunak's seat) is an example of a northern Tory seat where apparently a local lockdown doesn't yet exist but has an infection higher than that of where other local lockdowns were imposed.

 

[jtuk]

Richmond supposedly has a huge amount of "infections" from students getting "infected" at uni elsewhere

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's good to hear on the latest news bulletin, local politicians speaking out against the scapegoating of hospitality.

The Mayor of Bury said that nationally only about 2.3% ot transmissions took place in hospitality settings.

I stayed in Morecambe Travelodge (height of luxury setting there! ) last night. Opposite it was a pub. There was constant noise (until about 10:20pm) of people outside who were not socially distanced.

So I think there is a problem in some places.

However I retain the view that the elephant in the room is universities. Pretty much all the high numbers of cases are in student areas.

 

[Richard Scott]

I stayed in Morecambe Travelodge (height of luxury setting there! ) last night. Opposite it was a pub. There was constant noise (until about 10:20pm) of people outside who were not socially distanced.

So I think there is a problem in some places.

However I retain the view that the elephant in the room is universities. Pretty much all the high numbers of cases are in student areas.

If universities are the issue then why are we even worrying about it?

 

[duncanp]

However I retain the view that the elephant in the room is universities. Pretty much all the high numbers of cases are in student areas.

Including at Brunel University in Uxbridge.

If only the local MP could make sure that the students there are not unfairly penalised.

Oh wait......

 

[Bletchleyite]

If universities are the issue then why are we even worrying about it?

The worry is the risk of it "leaking out".

Universities, and possibly sixth forms, should not have reopened in person. It was the most stupid decision imaginable, and it's cost both lives and will cost the economy dearly.

 

[RuralRambler]

If universities are the issue then why are we even worrying about it?

Unis/Govt should have tested students on arrival at Uni so those bringing covid with them could have been identified and isolated quickly. College unis with their own bars etc should have been a lot more forceful with social distancing etc in their bars - they've stopped virtually all F2F teaching, libraries etc are controlled, but their college bars remain a free for all at night. Unfortunately, Unis have only themselves to blame for the state they find themselves, but they're trying to blame the students.

The worry is the risk of it "leaking out".

Universities, and possibly sixth forms, should not have reopened in person. It was the most stupid decision imaginable, and it's cost both lives and will cost the economy dearly.

I agree. Unis conned students into moving in just to get the hall/flat rents. They should never have been allowed to do that. Should have been online only this year (except for when courses require physical attendance), but Unis are too profit driven to countenance not getting their dosh.

 

[HSTEd]

Universities, and possibly sixth forms, should not have reopened in person. It was the most stupid decision imaginable, and it's cost both lives and will cost the economy dearly.

Cancelling lab teaching in sciences can cause problems with accreditation of the degree.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Cancelling lab teaching in sciences can cause problems with accreditation of the degree.

First of all, the situation is exceptional, so exceptional measures may be necessary. For example, courses could be reshuffled to delay such work later in the course where possible.

Secondly, students could perhaps have attended for distanced lab use for specific weeks, with lower density hall of residence occupancy.

But even if you assume that those students who do require in person lab work attended, that'd be a fraction of the full set. They could probably have had a halls of residence flat each.

 

[duncanp]

The worry is the risk of it "leaking out".

Universities, and possibly sixth forms, should not have reopened in person. It was the most stupid decision imaginable, and it's cost both lives and will cost the economy dearly.

If Tier 3 restrictions are imposed on Nottingham, no doubt someone will highlight the publicly available figures which show that in the last 7 days there were 757 cases in University Park, Lenton Abbey & Jubilee Campus, 474 cases in Arboretum, Forest & Trent University, but only 4 cases in Clifton South.

If the non student population start blaming students for the restrictions, it could sour relations between the two communities and put students at risk of verbal and physical abuse.

 

[HSTEd]

Secondly, students could perhaps have attended for distanced lab use for specific weeks, with lower density hall of residence occupancy.

Unfortunately in the labs themselves distanced lab use is functionally impossible at my university.

The labs are fully utilised pretty much all day, five days a week.

 

[yorksrob]

I stayed in Morecambe Travelodge (height of luxury setting there! ) last night. Opposite it was a pub. There was constant noise (until about 10:20pm) of people outside who were not socially distanced.

So I think there is a problem in some places.

However I retain the view that the elephant in the room is universities. Pretty much all the high numbers of cases are in student areas.

That may be true, but then again we know that the virus doesn't transmit as well outside. The arrangements inside would have been more crucial.

I have a friend who works in public health, and she thinks that older school age children are also bringing it home.

 

[northernchris]

You've got to love Sky News. "Up to 6 months". Well yes, that's when the current covid legislation expires. So I suppose theoretically restrictions could blast that long, but it doesn't mean they will. Putting it in the headline is downright silly.

At first I did think it was 6 months until I re-read the paragraph, but it's the sort of reporting to be expected from Sky

I stayed in Morecambe Travelodge (height of luxury setting there! ) last night. Opposite it was a pub. There was constant noise (until about 10:20pm) of people outside who were not socially distanced.

So I think there is a problem in some places.

However I retain the view that the elephant in the room is universities. Pretty much all the high numbers of cases are in student areas.

I think part of the problem with pubs is in areas where household mixing is banned, they are likely to be the next place for people to meet so will attract groups more than other locations. There's also the issue around closing time - mass crowds congregating around takeaways / taxi ranks etc. giving the virus more opportunity to spread, so although not the fault of the hospitability sector, by closing pubs in the worst hit areas should reduce other transmission avenues.

 

[C J Snarzell]

It's easy to blame students for their partying lifestyle, but the real problem is places like halls of residence where there is alot of interaction simply by students sharing communal areas. The only failsafe way of 'policing' this would be to confine everyone to their rooms which would be inhumane and just escalate mental health.

I never went to University but my friend studied at the University of Central Lancashire in the early 2000s and his first year was spent living in the student halls. He had a small bedroom that was incorporated with five other bedrooms - therefore you had six students sharing a kitchen, bathroom, and living room.

What then happens is that a student from outside the bubble of six may visit for something as legitimate as working together on a project or exchanging text books. No partying actually takes place.

The logistics of preventing infections amongst students is virtually impossible and as another forum member as stated - is it really necessary? These are fit young people who are less likely to die in comparison to an elderly person living in a care home.

CJ

 

[Bletchleyite]

The logistics of preventing infections amongst students is virtually impossible and as another forum member as stated - is it really necessary? These are fit young people who are less likely to die in comparison to an elderly person living in a care home.

The problem is when one of them goes home and it gets into the family. While unsavoury, the idea of them being strongly discouraged from going home for Christmas has a lot of mileage.

 

[Ianno87]

The problem is when one of them goes home and it gets into the family. While unsavoury, the idea of them being strongly discouraged from going home for Christmas has a lot of mileage.

I think students have been grossly misled. Alot of offers would've been accepted in summer when restrictions were easing etc so it felt we were on the way out.

How many places would've been accepted on the terms of "by the way, you may be stuck here at Christmas"...?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think students have been grossly misled. Alot of offers would've been accepted in summer when restrictions were easing etc so it felt we were on the way out.

Students are generally intelligent enough to be able to weigh up consequences, though.

How many places would've been accepted on the terms of "by the way, you may be stuck here at Christmas"...?

I'd have deferred due to weighing up said consequences. The difficulty if everyone defers is capacity - unless we did something like introducing National Service of some kind (so a mandatory year out) and then just have everyone start at 19 going forward? (Scotland would be OK, it'd allow them to be sensible and move it to 18 - the Safeguarding related issues of 17 year olds at uni must be immense).

 

[TheSel]

Students are generally intelligent enough to be able to weigh up consequences, though.

Great. Sack all the politicians, and give their jobs to the students. Problem solved.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

(Scotland would be OK, it'd allow them to be sensible and move it to 18 - the Safeguarding related issues of 17 year olds at uni must be immense).

Most Scottish students do start University at 18. 2 years of nursery (start at the age of 3, usually), 7 years primary school, 6 years secondary school, then onto FE. You can leave secondary school at the end of 4th or 5th year, though.

I know people who got the required results at Higher, left at the end of 5th year, worked for a year then started Uni at the same time as their mates. I know of very few people starting Uni at 17 (unless they started nursery at 2 and a half)

 

[Ianno87]

Students are generally intelligent enough to be able to weigh up consequences, though.

Not sure about that - the excitement of living away from home for the first time probably skews the decision quite alot.

Especially as this years freshers will have been "set" on their university choice well pre-Covid (my mind on preffered choice was made up the previous September).

That's a big thing to give up.

 

[Whistler40145]

I don't know why some people automatically assume that because one area has extremely high levels of COVID19 that everywhere else with considerably lower levels will be treated the same

 

[C J Snarzell]

The problem is when one of them goes home and it gets into the family. While unsavoury, the idea of them being strongly discouraged from going home for Christmas has a lot of mileage.

Although, it's still some way off - Christmas is going to present some massive challenges and obstacles for all of us this year.

It's a pity I can't go into hibernation until the spring like a wildlife animal and wake up when all this is over.

Sadly, I think by March 2021, we'll still be living under this fiasco with Boris bumbling and clenching his fist, Valence & Whitty looking more like perplexed Science teachers and Hancock quivering - my money is on him being the first to jump ship from the cabinet.

CJ

 

[johntea]

I just hope any potential restrictions announced tomorrow aren't too harsh on household visits - I have ONE friend that comes round every Saturday and at the moment it is about the only thing I can look forward to - having worked at home all week it becomes a bit cabin fever to then spend the weekend alone!