New 4-tier system for England

[WelshBluebird]

I wouldn't necessarily check that a public event would have toilet provision. I'd expect there to be some somewhere.

In "normal times" I'd say that is sensible.
But right now? Considering at least during lockdown #1 it was pretty well publicised about public toilets being shut, if I was going somewhere for a period of time now that was outdoors I'd be making sure I knew where the nearest public toilet was!
And in terms of "some somewhere" - even in this case I have no doubt there would have been if people could have been bothered to look. But it is the same as what happened in the summer with people at beaches not planning ahead both in terms of parking and in terms of toilets and the like. Why bother taking responsibility when you can just blame the restrictions or tiers etc!

 

[DB]

In "normal times" I'd say that is sensible.
But right now? Considering at least during lockdown #1 it was pretty well publicised about public toilets being shut, if I was going somewhere for a period of time now that was outdoors I'd be making sure I knew where the nearest public toilet was!
And in terms of "some somewhere" - even in this case I have no doubt there would have been if people could have been bothered to look. But it is the same as what happened in the summer with people at beaches not planning ahead both in terms of parking and in terms of toilets and the like. Why bother taking responsibility when you can just blame the restrictions or tiers etc!

But why should public toilets be shut? Given that people would be expected to wash their hands, what significant risk does having them open pose? They also provide somewhere which people can just go to wash their hands if they wish to do so.

 

[WelshBluebird]

But why should public toilets be shut? Given that people would be expected to wash their hands, what significant risk does having them open pose? They also provide somewhere which people can just go to wash their hands if they wish to do so.

I mean they shouldn't be. But I'm not talking about if they should be open or not.

I'm saying that if you are going to be travelling to a public event right now in a tier 3 area (so where most places you'd think of - cafe's, pubs etc are closed), then you really should be paying attention to toilet provision, especially given the well publicised issues earlier in the year.

I'm also saying even if you provide toilets - unless they are right infront of them, some people are too selfish to bother to find them. Given there are toilets open in Nottingham city centre right now (I just checked on lockdown loo - which at least claims it is being kept upto date) I think this applies to anybody crapping on someone's door step.

 

[DB]

I mean they shouldn't be. But I'm not talking about if they should be open or not - I'm saying that if you are going to be travelling to a public event right now in a tier 3 area (so where most places you'd think of - cafe's, pubs etc are closed), then you really should be paying attention to toilet provision, especially given the well publicised issues earlier in the year.

The local authorities should be paying attention to toilet provision, not people attending! They will be the ones giving permission for it to go ahead, so they should provide appropriate facilities, or make sure that they are provided by whoever is running the event.

 

[yorksrob]

In "normal times" I'd say that is sensible.
But right now? Considering at least during lockdown #1 it was pretty well publicised about public toilets being shut, if I was going somewhere for a period of time now that was outdoors I'd be making sure I knew where the nearest public toilet was!
And in terms of "some somewhere" - even in this case I have no doubt there would have been if people could have been bothered to look. But it is the same as what happened in the summer with people at beaches not planning ahead both in terms of parking and in terms of toilets and the like. Why bother taking responsibility when you can just blame the restrictions or tiers etc!

But I thought they'd made a decision not to close all the toilets after the Bournemouth beach situation this summer, so as a member of the public I wouldn't expect all the toilets to be closed - particularly as we aren't even (supposedly) in lockdown - even in tier three (as the junta is at pains to tell us !).

 

[sheff1]

I wouldn't necessarily check that a public event would have toilet provision. I'd expect there to be some somewhere.

Quite.
The thought that a planned and licensed public event expected to attract 1000s of people would not have toilet facilities should, in fact, be unthinkable at the best of times. In a situation where people are being exorted to wash their hands regularly, doubly so.

 

[Crossover]

It looks like Manchester is having a couple of smaller markets. Hopefully they manage the situation better than Nottingham and that they can continue through as planned

Coronavirus: Manchester to host scaled-down winter markets

Manchester will hold smaller markets with restrictions after its regular Christmas events were cancelled.

www.bbc.co.uk

Coronavirus: Manchester to host scaled-down winter markets​

Two scaled-down winter markets are to open in Manchester in the run-up to Christmas following the cancellation of the city's annual festive markets.
The city council hopes the markets in St Ann's Square and Piccadilly Gardens will help independent traders who would have set up at the usual markets.
The markets will operate with social distancing, a one-way system and only one shopper at a time at each stall.
Outdoor markets can trade under the government's tier three Covid-19 rules.

 

[ChrisC]

But why should public toilets be shut? Given that people would be expected to wash their hands, what significant risk does having them open pose? They also provide somewhere which people can just go to wash their hands if they wish to do so.

This has been an issue right from the beginning of the first lockdown in March. Many public toilets remained closed right through the summer and some still are. This has been a big problem, especially for elderly people, who have been limited in where they can go and for how long they can leave their homes, because of the fear that toilets may not be open.

I’ve tried to keep my elderly mother active throughout this year by taking her out once a week for a ride in the car and a country walk. We have had to limit these trips out to no more than a couple of hours because of the lack of toilet facilities. When I have been out on my own for longer day trips, finding public toilets open in some rural areas, and small towns has been impossible, and made even worse when the pubs are closed. This should not be happening.

 

[duncanp]

This has been an issue right from the beginning of the first lockdown in March. Many public toilets remained closed right through the summer and some still are. This has been a big problem, especially for elderly people, who have been limited in where they can go and for how long they can leave their homes, because of the fear that toilets may not be open.

I’ve tried to keep my elderly mother active throughout this year by taking her out once a week for a ride in the car and a country walk. We have had to limit these trips out to no more than a couple of hours because of the lack of toilet facilities. When I have been out on my own for longer day trips, finding public toilets open in some rural areas, and small towns has been impossible, and made even worse when the pubs are closed. This should not be happening.

As with everything to do with COVID-19, no doubt some local authorities are using COVID as an excuse to keep the toilets closed, when in fact they are trying to save money.

It is the same with swimming pools (in England at least). These are now allowed to open, but as the article below outlines, more than 200 remain closed, with councils blaming "financial difficulties", and others trying to pretend that lifeguards are involved in contact tracing and community testing.

Keeping pools closed 'a catastrophe for health and wellbeing'

More than 200 council-run pools will stay closed despite the easing of lockdown restrictions.

www.bbc.co.uk

More than 200 swimming pools in England will remain closed despite being able to reopen as lockdown restrictions are eased, a Swim England report has said.
The swimming body said the decision presented a "catastrophe for the health and wellbeing of the nation".
The 221 pools were council-run, with the North West being particularly hard hit, affecting about half a million swimmers, Swim England said.
Councils pointed to financial difficulties in their decision making.

image captionA number of council-run gyms are also still shut
With lockdown in England having come to an end, gyms and swimming pools across the country are allowed to reopen from Wednesday, regardless of what tier their area is in.
"While it's extremely positive that millions of swimmers up and down the country can return to the activity they love, it's unacceptable to even think that so many people or clubs will not have a much-loved swimming pool to visit," Swim England's chief executive Jane Nickerson said.
She said more investment was needed to keep swimming pools and leisure centres open, adding despite a government grant for the industry "financial pressures have not gone away".
Four times world champion triathlete Barbara Holmes, from Lancashire, said: "People need their pools, especially the children."
Ms Holmes, who is the over-60s world champion, has been backing campaigners trying to reopen Fleetwood swimming pool.
"The community needs to be heard," she said.

Trafford Leisure said all of its centres would remain closed until the new year, saying they would be "largely empty and costly to run".
To save money, its chief operating officer said it had had to furlough staff as well as leaving its pool and building unheated.
In Stoke-on-Trent, the council said it recognised the "essential" physical and mental health benefits of leisure facilities but had made the decision to stagger their reopening and only two of the city's gyms would not remain closed.
Council leader Abi Brown said 75% of its leisure centre staff had been "redeployed to critical services including welfare calls and contact tracing" in an effort to bring down coronavirus cases and some centres had been adapted for community testing.

"If the current situation improves, we expect to restart more of our sport and leisure services from the new year," she said.
While some pools have been "mothballed", Ms Nickerson said some would "sadly never reopen".
Swindon's Oasis Leisure Centre is one victim, which will not reopen after its landlord Seven Capital found its operation was "not viable".
A spokesperson for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport said it had announced £100m of funding to support local authority leisure centres, as well as £7.2bn to councils to help with the impacts of coronavirus.

 

[kristiang85]

With London likely to go into Tier 3 next week, I thought I'd post the excess death data for the region. Quite clearly, although COVID deaths seem to be rising, there is a corresponding fall in deaths from other causes. So basically there are no excess deaths (clearly either people are dying who would have unfortunately died anyway, or deaths are being mislabelled as COVID). Also ventilator bed occupancy is below average for this time of year.

This is the government's own data. It's criminal how they are peddling the narrative that's going to put even more people out of work and inflict misery on so many.

And indeed I know the North have already been going through this, and should not still be in Tier 3, but clearly no lessons are being learned.

 

[yorksrob]

I remember that when they were peddling the "we must go into tier 3 at all costs" narrative during the last lockdown, they were saying that tier 3 was needed because tier 2 wasn't having enough effect.

Now that Kent has been in tier 3 since lockdown and still isn't seing a significant reduction in infections, will they admit that tier 3 is pointless !

 

[DB]

will they admit that tier 3 is pointless !

I think we know the answer to that!

It's well established now that if cases go down following a restriction being introduced, this is automatically due to the restriction (no consideration given to whether it actually is causation).

If cases go up or stay the same following a restriction, it's because people aren't following the rules / the rules aren't strict enough, and without the rules it would have been worse.

 

[yorksrob]

I think we know the answer to that!

It's well established now that if cases go down following a restriction being introduced, this is automatically due to the restriction (no consideration given to whether it actually is causation).

If cases go up or stay the same following a restriction, it's because people aren't following the rules / the rules aren't strict enough, and without the rules it would have been worse.

Indeed. My question was sadly rhetorical.

Seen this on the BBC:

Covid: Public must think carefully about Christmas risk, NHS bosses warn

NHS bosses say they are worried about January, after the US saw a spike in cases after Thanksgiving.

www.bbc.co.uk

"Chris Hopson, chief executive of NHS Providers, told the BBC: "We're about to hit our busiest time of year so people are really worried that if we relax the restrictions now the NHS simply won't be able to cope with all of the work that it needs to do in late December, January and February."
In its letter to Prime Minister Boris Johnson, NHS Providers said while there were "good signs of progress" in some parts of the country, there was a "worrying increase in infection rates across a wide range of areas", including Essex, Kent, London and parts of Lincolnshire.
It called for areas to be moved into tier three - the highest level of restrictions - "as soon as this is needed, without any delay"."

They seem to be arguing that a rise in infections in areas that are currently tier 2, should be used as an excuse not to move areas that have been in tier 3 for weeks and have reducing infections, into tier 2

 

[nlogax]

It's been suggested for a while that London will return to tier 3 in coming days, and after a meeting this morning that now appears pretty much inevitable.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55301192

London faces a move to tier three - England's highest level of coronavirus restrictions - in the coming days, the BBC has been told.
Ministers and officials are said to be "deeply concerned" about a sharp rise in Covid-19 cases across the capital.
The BBC's Hugh Pym reports London MPs have been briefed on the latest data, with a move to tier three now believed to be possible as soon as today.
But our health editor said no final decision had been made.
Council leaders in London are understood to be alarmed at the projected rise in cases and some are pushing for a "tier three plus" regime with tougher restrictions than tier three on its own.

 

[Mojo]

It's been suggested for a while that London will return to tier 3 in coming days, and after a meeting this morning that now appears pretty much inevitable.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-55301192

Return? London was never in tier 3.

 

[nlogax]

Return? London was never in tier 3.

Indeed, my mistake. But effectively a return to full lockdown as per November.

 

[Mojo]

Indeed, my mistake. But effectively a return to full lockdown as per November.

Not quite - you do not need a reasonable excuse to leave your home.

Tier three still allows for so-called non essential shops to remain open as well as hair salons etc.

 

[MikeWM]

Clearly the 4 weeks of lockdown 2.0 worked really well then!

Let's just keep on doing the same things over and over and dig an ever deeper hole.

 

[hwl]

Clearly the 4 weeks of lockdown 2.0 worked really well then!

Let's just keep on doing the same things over and over and dig an ever deeper hole.

The highest case rates in London are in the Under 18 age group who were probably near to "normal" than other age groups in what they could theoretically do during November / very early December.
Also high levels for public transport use in those area during 2.0 (flagged by TfL) and higher levels of still physically attending work too.

So much for being able to hold out for 2 weeks between reviews given Hancock emergency 1530 likely announcement!

 

[kristiang85]

The highest case rates in London are in the Under 18 age group who were probably near to "normal" than other age groups in what they could theoretically do during November / very early December.

Great evidence for keeping schools open and shutting down pubs/hospitality even further. Sigh.

 

[SuperNova]

Clearly the 4 weeks of lockdown 2.0 worked really well then!

Let's just keep on doing the same things over and over and dig an ever deeper hole.

Well had the government actually listened to scientific advice, then the 4 week lockdown would've been unnecessary.

The only way to supress the virus is through social distancing until the vaccine is up and running properly.

 

[yorksrob]

Well had the government actually listened to scientific advice, then the 4 week lockdown would've been unnecessary.

The only way to supress the virus is through social distancing until the vaccine is up and running properly.

Which advice is this ? The advice that penalises the hospitality industry in spite of the evidence showing it not to be a major source of outbreaks, and most likely transmission ?

The advice that has led to residents in tier 3 crowding into shops that are open becausecsocially distanced restaurants and pubs have been closed ?

 

[MikeWM]

Well had the government actually listened to scientific advice, then the 4 week lockdown would've been unnecessary.

The only way to supress the virus is through social distancing until the vaccine is up and running properly.

What advice? If you mean we should have had a 'firebreak lockdown' earlier, say in October, as many of the 'scientists' were suggesting, I refer you to Wales and how incredibly pointless that was.

 

[SuperNova]

Which advice is this ? The advice that penalises the hospitality industry in spite of the evidence showing it not to be a major source of outbreaks, and most likely transmission ?

The advice that has led to residents in tier 3 crowding into shops that are open becausecsocially distanced restaurants and pubs have been closed ?

The advice that we should've had a two week firebreak lockdown at the start of October and wouldn't have led to a 4 week full lockdown with infection rates still quite high, with Tier 3 effectively being a mini-lockdown. But of course we should just let the virus overrun the population... Have you got any better ideas?

 

[DB]

The advice that we should've had a two week firebreak lockdown at the start of October and wouldn't have led to a 4 week full lockdown with infection rates still quite high, with Tier 3 effectively being a mini-lockdown. But of course we should just let the virus overrun the population... Have you got any better ideas?

A two week 'firebreak' worked really well in Wales, didn't it?

And yes, we should just let the virus circulate while protecting those at risk as far as possible - and to all those who say 'but you can't protect them effectively', it should be highlighted that none of the measures so far have done so either, despite the massive societal problems they have caused.

 

[Bantamzen]

The advice that we should've had a two week firebreak lockdown at the start of October and wouldn't have led to a 4 week full lockdown with infection rates still quite high, with Tier 3 effectively being a mini-lockdown. But of course we should just let the virus overrun the population... Have you got any better ideas?

Looks over at Wales, scratches head.....

I'm not sure how many more firebreaks, lockdowns, circuit breakers we need to have to demonstrate that they don't work. All they do is delay the virus, the moment you step out of them the virus does the one & only thing in it's purpose, it spreads. Now that we have an up & running vaccination programme, every day that passes means less risk to those who are vulnerable. When a substantial number of vulnerable are fully vaccinated, there will be precious little excuse to keep locking down.

 

[yorksrob]

The advice that we should've had a two week firebreak lockdown at the start of October and wouldn't have led to a 4 week full lockdown with infection rates still quite high, with Tier 3 effectively being a mini-lockdown. But of course we should just let the virus overrun the population... Have you got any better ideas?

The two week lockdown wouldn't have worked. It didn't in Wales.

My suggestion would be not to close anything, but continue to have restrictions on how many households can meet indoors. Rule of six for areas of low infection, Rule of two in higer infection rate areas with no meeting in private homes, rule of one in very high rate areas, with WFH where possible (bubbles excepted).

Rule of six outdoors.

 

[hwl]

Great evidence for keeping schools open and shutting down pubs/hospitality even further. Sigh.

In RoI they have the lowest case rates in europe, they have closed hospitality and non essential retail since mid October.

 

[Darandio]

In RoI they have the lowest case rates in europe, they have closed hospitality and non essential retail since mid October.

They reopened at the start of this month.

 

[Richard Scott]

The advice that we should've had a two week firebreak lockdown at the start of October and wouldn't have led to a 4 week full lockdown with infection rates still quite high, with Tier 3 effectively being a mini-lockdown. But of course we should just let the virus overrun the population... Have you got any better ideas?

Yes, no lockdowns, fire breaks or any of that nonsense as obviously doesn't work. I'm afraid it's time for people to take responsibility for their own health. If they consider themselves vulnerable then act accordingly as what's been done so far isn't helping them it's just dragging this out for longer.