• 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!

More Lockdowns?

Status
Not open for further replies.

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
The trouble is, we both said we wouldn’t abide by January’s one, but that didn’t help if we wanted to book a hotel or get a bunch of flowers for a funeral. I think back to when I wanted to stay overnight in London for the simple purpose of making it easier to visit the PRO in Kew, and it was a case of either doss overnight in my office or pretend to have a “permitted” reason to use a Premier Inn!

We need to resist this to the maximum extent possible, if we allow *any* kind of restrictions over this coming winter then the precedent is there forever, IMO.

I’ve been up to London by train twice this week, it has been so refreshing being able to travel by train and not think about masks. I wasn’t wearing them before, but this still meant feeling on the defensive.

This is absolutely true.

However if people aren't observing lockdown and going about their lives as best they can, the Government is likely to think "well people are still meeting eachother anyway, why are we taking the economic hit of them not doing so in businesses".
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Brooklands

Member
Joined
20 May 2021
Messages
25
Location
Byfleet
Has anyone considered if employers will continue to pay London weighting to employees who are given a choice to work from home?
At the moment I assume such workers are pocketing monies intended for commuting and meal expenses etc.
Would there be as much enthusiasm for WFH if contracts were altered or wages frozen accordingly?
I’m not sure what the answer is but surely this issue will come to the fore .
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
4,495
for the people who say they wont obey lockdowns kind of not have much choice if the business you frequent is close
That's easy. Go to the supermarket, buy some beer, go round your mate's house. The house behind me had a few blatant parties during lockdown earlier this year. Didn't really bother me unless I was early shift the next day. At least someone was having fun.

Great. How about the blue heart brigade do something useful ‘for the NHS’ like selling their cars, not eating crisps, cheese or beer and be forcibly made to jog in a park every day to reduce air pollution and lose weight.

Oh, hang on, they’d rather sit inside getting Waitrose and Deliveroo to their door, and not have to commute to work anymore? Funny that. Some sacrifice.
It's lucky I wasn't drinking anything when I read this or my keyboard would be ruined!
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
6,538
Location
UK
What about washing your hands, do you have a problem with that?

How about the isolation of positive cases and (currently) their contacts, is there no evidence to back that up?
I wasn't aware of a requirement for hand washing being included in the measures introduced under the Coronavirus Act.

Our pandemic plans specifically advised against isolating infected individuals, and judging by the massive waves we've had since introducing it, I think it's hard to say that it's been massively successful...
 

Green tractor

Member
Joined
30 Aug 2019
Messages
227
Location
Lancaster
I wasn't aware of a requirement for hand washing being included in the measures introduced under the Coronavirus Act.

Our pandemic plans specifically advised against isolating infected individuals, and judging by the massive waves we've had since introducing it, I think it's hard to say that it's been massively successful...

we are/were consistently told we should wash our hands more often and for 20 seconds

https://assets.publishing.service.g...ads/attachment_data/file/213717/dh_131040.pdf page 36
UK Influenza Pandemic Preparedness Strategy 2011



Reducing the spread of disease: infection control & respiratory and hand
hygiene

4.10 Influenza viruses can spread from person to person via the respiratory route when an
infected person coughs and sneezes, and through hand-to-face (nose, mouth or eye)
contact after a person or surface that is contaminated with infectious respiratory droplets
has been touched. Spread of the disease is also possible via fine particles and aerosols
but the contribution to spread is as yet still unclear. Research8 suggests that influenza
viruses can survive on commonly touched surfaces for periods ranging from a few hours
to several days, depending on environment condition, but certainly long enough to
facilitate person-to-person transmission. In general, viruses survive longer on hard non-
porous surfaces, such as door handles, than on soft porous surfaces, such as tissues.
4.11 To protect others and reduce the spread of infection, anyone ill with pandemic influenza
should:
• Stay at home.
• Minimise close contacts.
• Adopt thorough respiratory and hand hygiene practices, i.e. covering the nose and
mouth with a tissue when coughing and sneezing, disposing immediately of that
tissue after use, and washing hands frequently with soap and warm water, or alcohol
gel if water is not readily available
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
6,865
The amount of traffic on the roads in the evening round here would suggest otherwise...

The other issue about lockdowns is the moralising you got from politicians and the police about low-risk activities, implying that if you did say a 15-mile walk from your house on your own through isolated countryside lasting 7 hours you were somehow a virus spreader. I'd like to see some proper scientific explanation on how walking around quiet countryside makes you a virus-spreader. The 'stay at home' mandate went too far and had too much moralising on harmless activities; remember that issue where those 2 women in a bubble who went for a walk on their own round a lake and (gasp) drunk some coffee got in trouble with the police? Again negligible risk - were the police worried that an insect might transmit Covid to the nearest house half a mile away if it crawled over them? I suspect in this case the biggest risk of Covid transmission was through the police unnecessarily harassing these two women.
 
Last edited:

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
This is absolutely true.

However if people aren't observing lockdown and going about their lives as best they can, the Government is likely to think "well people are still meeting eachother anyway, why are we taking the economic hit of them not doing so in businesses".

I’d like to think the latter was the case, however this doesn’t seem to have bothered them this year. Either that or Boris actually thought people were taking notice of the meeting restrictions, in which case he’s even more deluded than we thought!

The other issue about lockdowns is the moralising you got from politicians and the police about low-risk activities, implying that if you did say a 15-mile walk from your house on your own through isolated countryside lasting 7 hours you were somehow a virus spreader. I'd like to see some proper scientific explanation on how walking around quiet countryside makes you a virus-spreader. The 'stay at home' mandate went too far and had too much moralising on harmless activities; remember that issue where those 2 women in a bubble who went for a walk on their own round a lake and (gasp) drunk some coffee got in trouble with the police? Again negligible risk - were the police worried that an insect might transmit Covid to the nearest house half a mile away if it crawled over them? I suspect in this case the biggest risk of Covid transmission was through the police unnecessarily harassing these two women.

Absolutely, and linked to this is the way some people have used all this as an excuse to pursue pre-existing unrelated agendas. For example the Acton Bridge couple using Covid as a means to try and exclude trainspotters, or the “cyclists stop panting virus through our village” banners seen last year. Fortunately we don’t seem to have seen so much of this stuff this year.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
6,865
(re. ban on low-risk activities such as countryside walking)
Absolutely, and linked to this is the way some people have used all this as an excuse to pursue pre-existing unrelated agendas. For example the Acton Bridge couple using Covid as a means to try and exclude trainspotters, or the “cyclists stop panting virus through our village” banners seen last year. Fortunately we don’t seem to have seen so much of this stuff this year.

Reminds me of the illegal 'closure' of a footpath (by landowners, not the council) on 9 September 2001 in south Hampshire, somewhere between Sway and Lymington. Foot and mouth was the excuse; even though footpaths in Hampshire had officially re-opened in early June, the disease was on its way out, and it never reached Hampshire anyway. Was, I suspect, down simply to anti-walker attitude by the landowners. Suffice to say, knowing the law was on my side and there was no risk of spreading foot and mouth by that stage in that part of the country anyway, I ignored it.

Was pretty mad, but obviously the events of a couple of days later then rather eclipsed it.

I’d like to think the latter was the case, however this doesn’t seem to have bothered them this year. Either that or Boris actually thought people were taking notice of the meeting restrictions, in which case he’s even more deluded than we thought!
Nah, 'Boris' isn't deluded, even though he has a carefully-cultivated and manufactured image as a jovial fool. All part of an elaborate game to keep him popular, I suspect. Same way that this very definition of the British elite is always claming to stand up for the 'British people' against the 'elite'.
 
Last edited:

Eyersey468

Established Member
Joined
14 Sep 2018
Messages
2,135
To be honest if they announce yet another lock down I will only be doing the absolute bare minimum, they have long since squandered any goodwill I had through their lies and their hypocrisy
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Imagine that, free healthcare at the point of use and protecting others is something people feel empowered to defend and support.
The NHS is not some defenceless puppy that needs protecting and saving, it is a government run health organisation paid for by our taxes. And if people pay less taxes because they are forbidden to work or buy goods or services due to restrictions then there is less money for the NHS.

Put simply the longer restrictions go on, the more damage is inflicted on the NHS.
 

ExRes

Established Member
Joined
16 Dec 2012
Messages
5,761
Location
Back in Sussex
The NHS is not some defenceless puppy that needs protecting and saving, it is a government run health organisation paid for by our taxes. And if people pay less taxes because they are forbidden to work or buy goods or services due to restrictions then there is less money for the NHS.

Put simply the longer restrictions go on, the more damage is inflicted on the NHS.

No problems in the NHS, as a part time fully qualified Staff Nurse my daughter has been told this weekend, as last, that she is not required for duty
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Reminds me of the illegal 'closure' of a footpath (by landowners, not the council) on 9 September 2001 in south Hampshire, somewhere between Sway and Lymington. Foot and mouth was the excuse; even though footpaths in Hampshire had officially re-opened in early June, the disease was on its way out, and it never reached Hampshire anyway. Was, I suspect, down simply to anti-walker attitude by the landowners. Suffice to say, knowing the law was on my side and there was no risk of spreading foot and mouth by that stage in that part of the country anyway, I ignored it.

Was pretty mad, but obviously the events of a couple of days later then rather eclipsed it.


Nah, 'Boris' isn't deluded, even though he has a carefully-cultivated and manufactured image as a jovial fool. All part of an elaborate game to keep him popular, I suspect. Same way that this very definition of the British elite is always claming to stand up for the 'British people' against the 'elite'.

You may well be right on the latter point, I’m not sure what’s worse really - being out of touch to the point of ridicule, or trashing our entire economy and way of life to keep a segment of the population happy. Either way it’s a shambles.

I was having a discussion at work about this. Whilst voting for Boris in 2019 was one thing (given the alternatives), it was never really something to enjoy doing - I know I had misgivings, but equally felt it was the only viable option given the choice we had. Likewise the leadership line-up to replace May was all pretty toxic too. But how anyone can *like* Boris I will never get, far from being some lovable bumbling charmer, I find him increasingly creepy and sinister, and I’m surprised many don’t seem to feel the same.
 

james60059

Member
Joined
6 Jul 2006
Messages
839
Location
Hinckley
Yes, the government can close whatever it wants, but people will continue to do whatever they’re comfortable with, even if it’s not allowed.
Unless you go plane spotting at East Midlands Airport, the police will soon be over you dishing out the fines.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
6,969
Location
Taunton or Kent
Before any lockdown is ever considered again, there needs to be a well publicised cost to benefit analysis that not only tries to predict how many lives a lockdown might save (primarily from covid and/or any other pathogen we'd try to stop spreading), but how many lives a lockdown will cost from ignoring other conditions and in particular from the lockdown itself, and, where possible, the cost to quality of life.

We know from the ONS already that 2020 saw a record number of alcohol deaths, and experiences of depression doubled to 20% of adults in at least England & Wales. We also know children's education and general growing up needs have been compromised, domestic abuse incidences/severity has increased, and other costs further down the line are yet to emerge.

Correct me if I've not been looking properly, but I don't ever recall seeing a prominent media outlet reporting a cost to benefit analysis of lockdowns (beyond economical costs anyway); I know there are journal articles that have considered the costs, but not widely reported, if at all, and they certainly have never been part of any No.10 briefing. We do such analyses with most other policy decisions and/or business decisions, why does covid handling have to be different?

We also have a society that has been so successfully divided by the work of the corporate media, and a political system whereby political parties rely on division to succeed (FPTP in particular here), that no rational debate is possible on most issues now. Nowhere is this more true than with covid restrictions, including lockdowns; anyone who wants to argue for a compromise or highlight costs is immediately shouted down. If we do get another lockdown soon, this will likely be why, and/or because the costs haven't had enough time to fully materialise.
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
6,538
Location
UK
Correct me if I've not been looking properly, but I don't ever recall seeing a prominent media outlet reporting a cost to benefit analysis of lockdowns (beyond economical costs anyway); I know there are journal articles that have considered the costs, but not widely reported, if at all, and they certainly have never been part of any No.10 briefing. We do such analyses with most other policy decisions and/or business decisions, why does covid handling have to be different?
As far as I can tell, there is more process around routine and dull issues of public procurement, than of shutting down the whole nation.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
6,865
You may well be right on the latter point, I’m not sure what’s worse really - being out of touch to the point of ridicule, or trashing our entire economy and way of life to keep a segment of the population happy. Either way it’s a shambles.
Maybe a bit of both - out of touch he may be, a fool he definitely isn't - sadly.
I was having a discussion at work about this. Whilst voting for Boris in 2019 was one thing (given the alternatives), it was never really something to enjoy doing - I know I had misgivings, but equally felt it was the only viable option given the choice we had. Likewise the leadership line-up to replace May was all pretty toxic too. But how anyone can *like* Boris I will never get, far from being some lovable bumbling charmer, I find him increasingly creepy and sinister, and I’m surprised many don’t seem to feel the same.

For me, I was so strongly opposed to everything 'Boris' and his inner circle (Patel, Raab, and the rest) stood for, and so strongly opposed to Brexit, that it was a clear choice to vote tactically against him. Though it has to be said I have never voted Conservative, as I have never agreed with their outlook on life (though Major wasn't so bad) - and certainly never will now.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,438
Location
Yorkshire
To be honest if they announce yet another lock down I will only be doing the absolute bare minimum, they have long since squandered any goodwill I had through their lies and their hypocrisy
Same here and I would still be seeing people as much as possible.

Before any lockdown is ever considered again, there needs to be a well publicised cost to benefit analysis ...
An excellent post (as usual :)) and I completely agree.

That said, I feel we will not fully understand the disbenefits for many years, so any such analysis was done for this winter, there is a risk it could severely underestimate the long term effects.

I think the negative effects on children and young people in particular have been vastly underestimated and I find it frustrating how the pro-lockdown lobbyists are so dismissive of such concerns.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
6,865
We also have a society that has been so successfully divided by the work of the corporate media, and a political system whereby political parties rely on division to succeed (FPTP in particular here), that no rational debate is possible on most issues now. Nowhere is this more true than with covid restrictions, including lockdowns; anyone who wants to argue for a compromise or highlight costs is immediately shouted down. If we do get another lockdown soon, this will likely be why, and/or because the costs haven't had enough time to fully materialise.

That's the thing. Regardless of whether a lockdown is the best thing at a particular time or not, the shouting down of lockdown sceptics and the trivialisation of lockdown's severe side effects just isn't right, and not good for democracy.
 
Last edited:

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
15,164
(And don't get me started on FPTP: a mechanism for a party which has never received 50% of the vote in my lifetime to spend 32 of the 45* years beginning 1979 in power, 27 of those years in absolute power. We complain about the USA but their system actually seems better as the opposition is less split. Ironically the two-party Republican and Democrat system works better than our three-party system where the two 'left'ish parties are always bickering, Judean People's Front style).
I'm not sure I'd say the US system is better. Any system that delivers Trump as a president with a minority of the vote is not better.
 

Eyersey468

Established Member
Joined
14 Sep 2018
Messages
2,135
I feel we will not fully understand the disbenefits for many years, so any such analysis was done for this winter, there is a risk it could severely underestimate the long term effects.

I think the negative effects on children and young people in particular have been vastly underestimated and I find it frustrating how the pro-lockdown lobbyists are so dismissive of such concerns.

I agree
That's the thing. Regardless of whether a lockdown is the best thing at a particular time or not, the shouting down of lockdown sceptics and the trivialisation of lockdown's severe side effects just isn't right, and not good for democracy.
Agree 100%
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
15,982
Location
0036
The original post seems to be usual government process of selectively leaking plans to the weekend press and seeing what the reactions are like.
 

ExRes

Established Member
Joined
16 Dec 2012
Messages
5,761
Location
Back in Sussex
We also have a society that has been so successfully divided by the work of the corporate media, and a political system whereby political parties rely on division to succeed (FPTP in particular here), that no rational debate is possible on most issues now. Nowhere is this more true than with covid restrictions, including lockdowns; anyone who wants to argue for a compromise or highlight costs is immediately shouted down

Please don't forget that a massive amount of the division has been caused by 'ordinary' people on social media, no doubt many of those are only too quick to blame Government and the media while washing their hands of any responsibility for their own actions
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
6,865
I'm not sure I'd say the US system is better. Any system that delivers Trump as a president with a minority of the vote is not better.

True, there is that, electoral college is a nonsense. One may as well decide the result on the party that wins 2 out of 3 from Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.

However at least you have the distinction between the President and Congress, unlike here where the prime minister and the Government are always from the same party (yes I am aware a President is a head of state, unlike a prime minister). And however outrageous he was, Trump has proved to be a transient figure, lasting just 4 years.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
6,969
Location
Taunton or Kent
Please don't forget that a massive amount of the division has been caused by 'ordinary' people on social media, no doubt many of those are only too quick to blame Government and the media while washing their hands of any responsibility for their own actions
I don't condone anyone who does this, but firstly some of those 'ordinary people' could easily be bots, so their masters should be at fault there. Also, we can blame the Government, other Governments worldwide and the social media companies themselves for not tackling this issue in the first place.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
6,865
I don't condone anyone who does this, but firstly some of those 'ordinary people' could easily be bots, so their masters should be at fault there. Also, we can blame the Government, other Governments worldwide and the social media companies themselves for not tackling this issue in the first place.

True and remember that 'ordinary people' are influenced by politicians and the media.

I suspect that the marked rightwards trend of sections of the UK electorate in the past 15 years is due, more than anything, to influence by the media and by politicians.
 
Last edited:

NorthKent1989

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2017
Messages
1,898
If we have another lockdown to ‘save the NHS’ then the vaccines don’t work, most of the population is vaccinated now, there is literally no reason to continue with further lockdowns and restrictions.

Why should there be another lockdown? The politicians world wide have shown their hypocrisy gathering in Cornwall, not isolating when told too, mixing not just households but marriages in the case of Matt Hancock, no! Enough is enough, venues maybe closed but I’m certainly not going to stop seeing my family and friends and Christmas is going ahead in my household, and I suspect many will have the same outlook too. We. Are. Done!

And to those of you saying “Well don’t us the NHS then if you aren’t willing to sacrifice yet another year!” I hope you realise that the NHS relies on having a good economy and people actually working in order to pay the taxes that support the NHS, because if we have another lockdown then say goodbye to your precious sacred cow as Richard Branson and his buddies start using the carving knives upon it.
 

Cdd89

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2017
Messages
1,451
If we have another lockdown to ‘save the NHS’ then the vaccines don’t work, most of the population is vaccinated now, there is literally no reason to continue with further lockdowns and restrictions.
The problem is that there just isn’t that much headroom in the NHS at Winter; it’s almost certain that the NHS will be “pressured”, the only question is how much. Now I fully agree with you that the NHS should be expected to “manage” and we shouldn’t lock down, even with pretty high levels of pressure — but the fact is there will be pressure and there will be fierce debate.

Because this debate will be pretty marginal, even small percentage points of additional vaccinated people can make a big difference. The small percentage (especially of older age groups or those who haven’t already been infected) not getting vaccinated are giving ammunition to those who want to call for lockdowns later in the year.
 

duncanp

Established Member
Joined
16 Aug 2012
Messages
4,856
The problem is that there just isn’t that much headroom in the NHS at Winter; it’s almost certain that the NHS will be “pressured”, the only question is how much. Now I fully agree with you that the NHS should be expected to “manage” and we shouldn’t lock down, even with pretty high levels of pressure — but the fact is there will be pressure and there will be fierce debate.

Because this debate will be pretty marginal, even small percentage points of additional vaccinated people can make a big difference. The small percentage (especially of older age groups) not getting vaccinated are giving ammunition to those who want to call for lockdowns later in the year.

Yes, it is not a question of whether the NHS will be "under pressure" this winter, it is more a question of will the "pressure" be due to another wave of COVID cases, an increase in flu cases which were suppressed last winter because of the lockdown, or the backlog of non COVID cases which have built up.

The most practical thing we can do is to increase the number of people who are eligible for the free flu jab this autumn, and distribute it to pharmacies and pop up vaccination clinics so that it is easy for people to obtain.

The flu jab should not be compulsory, but as with COVID if more people are vaccinated then fewer will become so ill that they need hospital treatment.

People need to be educated about the most appropriate method of treating their symptoms. Many common conditions could be treated by pharmacists, who are trained to ask appropriate questions beforehand.

The online NHS symptom checker, or NHS 111, provides an easy means for people to triage themselves before deciding what to do about whatever it is that is bothering them.
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,909
I’d dispute that a majority of the population stuck to “stay at home” during the January lockdown. Naturally they didn’t use stuff like hotels or restaurants as they were closed, but people certainly didn’t minimise their time outside home, and that includes rules on socialising, meeting up, et cetera.

I'm not saying people followed it to the letter, but people generally didn't have parties etc

The amount of traffic on the roads in the evening round here would suggest otherwise...
Certainly lockdowns 2 and 3 looked nothing like the lockdown 1 in terms of traffic volumes on the road and I'm far from convinced they were all going to / from work, places of education or food shopping and the like.

If we have another lockdown to ‘save the NHS’ then the vaccines don’t work, most of the population is vaccinated now, there is literally no reason to continue with further lockdowns and restrictions.
Depends what one means by the vaccine working. As Professor Van Tam put it; (paraphrase)
If you mean it prevents you getting covid after two doses then I would suggest people are whistling in the wind, I know some people who have had both doses and got covid a couploe of months after the second dose. If however you mean they didn't die or end up in hospital for a period of time then yes it has worked.

See from 09:40 to 12:50 on the link above (you will need to sign in)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top