Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
It wasn't. Even the Government didn't use the term.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Further Restrictions Announced by Johnson (22/09)
- Thread starter BJames
- Start date
- Status
It wasn't. Even the Government didn't use the term.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
And would certainly have been incredibly dangerous and damaging.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
What we did did actually bend the curve almost identically to countries that went "harder", though. We were just a couple of weeks late.
I think given that it has been repeatedly called a lockdown in the media, it's a reasonable term to use. Perhaps it may not have been the most strict, and we can debate the relative effectivenesses in other threads, but this semantic pedantry adds nothing to the discussion.
I think it does , the poster I was replying to said a full lockdown didn't work. The fact it wasn't actually a full lockdown and was a partial lockdown , could be the reason it didn't work. It may not have been the reason . But how can you say something didn't work , when we didn't actually do it.
RomeoCharlie71
Established Member
The Scottish Government did, and continue to. In fact Sturgeon refers to it as lockdown almost daily.
So are you saying that if we had had a full lockdown then the virus would now be eliminated?
Although 50,000 cases per day sounds like a big number, it was estimated that there were 100,000 new infections per day during the early stages of the pandemic in April, with only a fraction of these being recorded as testing positive for COVID-19 due to the low levels of testing.
And yet with approximately 100,000 new infections per day, the NHS was not overwhelmed, with the Nightingale hospitals barely used.
Fast forward to today, when there is a lot more testing being done despite the glitches in the system. I can't help but wonder what the actual level of new infections per day is now compared to April, and what proportion of these are being caught by the testing system.
So although 50,000 cases per day sounds like a scary number, does it actually matter, if only a small proportion of these are hospitalised and the NHS is able to cope?
Similarly with deaths. Whilst 200 deaths per day is 200 too many, people die every day from all sorts of diseases and accidents, and the country does not come to a stop. You have to balance the 200 deaths per day from COVID-19 with the excess deaths from conditions which are left untreated, such and cancer and heart disease, as well as the incease in suicides. What matters is the level of excess deaths, and whether this is something that we are all prepared to live with. After all, we accept a certain number of deaths on the roads every day, as the price of being able to use road transport.
I can't help thinking that Boris is trying to scare people though, and the reality will be less serious. If cases stabilise by the end of October, he may extend pub closing time to 11pm, and then to midnight in time for Christmas and the New Year. Similarly for the relaxation of visiting restrictions.
And yet with approximately 100,000 new infections per day, the NHS was not overwhelmed, with the Nightingale hospitals barely used.
Fast forward to today, when there is a lot more testing being done despite the glitches in the system. I can't help but wonder what the actual level of new infections per day is now compared to April, and what proportion of these are being caught by the testing system.
So although 50,000 cases per day sounds like a scary number, does it actually matter, if only a small proportion of these are hospitalised and the NHS is able to cope?
Similarly with deaths. Whilst 200 deaths per day is 200 too many, people die every day from all sorts of diseases and accidents, and the country does not come to a stop. You have to balance the 200 deaths per day from COVID-19 with the excess deaths from conditions which are left untreated, such and cancer and heart disease, as well as the incease in suicides. What matters is the level of excess deaths, and whether this is something that we are all prepared to live with. After all, we accept a certain number of deaths on the roads every day, as the price of being able to use road transport.
I can't help thinking that Boris is trying to scare people though, and the reality will be less serious. If cases stabilise by the end of October, he may extend pub closing time to 11pm, and then to midnight in time for Christmas and the New Year. Similarly for the relaxation of visiting restrictions.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I wonder if pub hours will ever be unrestricted again? The Police and local authorities notably don't like late opening. Could we end up with it back at 11pm permanently I wonder?
Did you actually read the part where I said it could of been or may not have been . I said we don't know . But you can't say a full lockdown didn't work , when we didn't have one.
Nice selective quoting there.
Most people I’ve seen in taxis and most of the drivers as well have been wearing face coverings in my experience for months now. They are just formalising what most people were doing anyway.
You’ve had to wear a face covering in hospitality settings whilst not seated for a while as well. They’ve certainly told you to do this in Costa
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
They won't be until 5 minutes before they take effect, no doubt, but they will be the same as the Newcastle local ones I'd expect.
Probably be at 11pm the day before it comes into force!
Are we any the wiser regarding people stood outside pubs drinking?
I thought they were as well. I've just had a cursory look and there's a blog dating back to the 11th August here from Uber that says face coverings are mandatory in their vehicles. Perhaps that's what we were thinking of...
To have pub closing time at 11pm permanently would require legislation, which I think would be extremely unpopular.
Local authorities may impose conditions on premises open after midnight, but personally I don't think there will be a blanket ban on pubs being open after 11pm.
Not our Costa, you get free food and upsized drinks if you're a non-wearer!
You’ve not been in the one in York, you were Strictly not allowed to move from the bit where you pay until the person at the bit where you get the drinks had moved on, resulting in nobody else being able to be served. They were very strict.
After far too many weeks of having that god awful, frustratingly chipper Uber ad about "no mask, no ride" served to me before every other youtube video (I was seeing a variant of it back in June IIRC), I was under the same impression.
LOL The Irony
On Moderation
That's just the best of a bad deal, it's still a bad deal.
And it's also political suicide. I don't think any leader of any of the parties is that daft.
Or the one in North Berwick, East Lothian, where you are not allowed to sit in if you don't happen to have a smartphone to scan the QR code.
My local Costa Coffee has no such silly rules.
Had to laugh at this cartoon in the Telegraph for tomorrow about using the military to assist in enforcing the new COVID rules.
(Cartoon of an army tank crashing through a wall into a pub with the caption "Time, gentlemen, please")
stevetay3
Member
We may never have had a full lockdown but the fact remains that we are now left with much less of one than before . I for one have never been in favour of lockdowns never have and never will, but the government needs to make up its mind sooner rather than later, economy or no economy, I know which I would choose.
Ive stayed in a few Travelodges recently , the prices have been very cheap even in London. The hotels have been fairly quiet and i think theres still long term residents staying in them too.
What did everyone think of the speech?
Must admit, I find it funny how it's not at all 'realistic' to expect the vulnerable/elderly to isolate/shield whilst we pursue herd immunity, but he does find it 'realistic' and 'possible' that everyone might have to do that if the numbers get too high.
Must admit, I find it funny how it's not at all 'realistic' to expect the vulnerable/elderly to isolate/shield whilst we pursue herd immunity, but he does find it 'realistic' and 'possible' that everyone might have to do that if the numbers get too high.
Yeah I agree with that, it did seem a little like a threat. Not that I agree with it or that it would change my view on anything.
bramling
Veteran Member
A poor speech, but to be fair I’m so sick of him even if it had been good (which it wasn’t) then I’d have probably been wanting to strangle the television.
No mention of young or working age people at all, which to be honest I thought was particularly poor. Meanwhile the usual continuing threatening tone.
It was actually refreshing to hear Drakeford come on immediately afterwards (presumably this was because I’m in Wales). In the hotel restaurant where people were watching Boris got tut tuts, whilst the comments for Drakeford were “that was more relevant”, even though the message was quite similar - he just managed to serve it up in a more approachable way.
Looks like we’re in for a winter or discontent.
- Status