New 4-tier system for England

[LittleAH]

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.

Wales acted too late too. SAGE's advice was given in mid-September.

Lockdowns do exactly what they're designed to do, suppress the virus. So they do work. We're delaying the spread so that the health service can cope - why can't people understand this?

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.

That effectively means no hospitality anyway and lockdown too. So things would close.

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.

I'm sorry but this is just foolish. Lockdown's do work in that they reduce the spread of the virus. What you're suggesting is just not manageable in the slightest.

 

[Bantamzen]

Wales acted too late too. SAGE's advice was given in mid-September.

Lockdowns do exactly what they're designed to do, suppress the virus. So they do work. We're delaying the spread so that the health service can cope - why can't people understand this?

Because the moment you relax a lockdown the virus spreads again, this is what viruses do. So unless you are considering a months long lockdown again then they clearly don't work. And if you are considering it, you'd better explain how the millions of people who will lose their jobs will get by, and how the Treasury will patch the half a trillion pound spending deficit.

 

[nlogax]

Tier 3 confirmed for London and parts of Essex and Herts from 00.01 Wednesday morning.

 

[Jamesrob637]

London going into Tier 3 from 23:59 tomorrow night.

Let's see whether Greater Manchester drops a tier this week.

 

[kristiang85]

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.

Quite.

Not to mention the vulnerable are only going to be hurt further in the long run due to the cuts needed for the NHS/social services/benefits when the full scale of the damage to the public purse becomes apparent.

 

[DB]

Wales acted too late too. SAGE's advice was given in mid-September.

According to locktivisits, the answer is always earlier / longer / stricter lockdowns.

What they fail to appreciate is that as soon as it's lifted, the virus spreads again faster as people want to get out again, and do so. Plus while many places are closed the concentration of people in places which remain open is higher, negating a lot of the point of it anyway.

And of course it causes many other issues - loss of jobs, etc, but locktivists tend to be in secure employment or retired, so aren't bothered about this.

They also ignore the point that people have now had enough and are ignoring the rules anyway - stop them meeting in a pub, and they'll just meet in someone's house. The number of cars about, especially in the evenings, shows quite clearly that this is what must be happening.

 

[Trackman]

London going into Tier 3 from 23:59 tomorrow night.

Let's see whether Greater Manchester drops a tier this week.

I reckon bits of Greater Manchester might be split up into different tiers.
Still, that's all very messy.

 

[Saint66]

Parts of Herts affected:

Broxbourne
Hertsmere
Three Rivers
Wartford

 

[MikeWM]

Lockdowns do exactly what they're designed to do, suppress the virus. So they do work.

Then please explain why London has gone Tier 1 -> Lockdown -> Tier 2 -> Tier 3. Doesn't look much like working to me.

We're delaying the spread so that the health service can cope - why can't people understand this?

Because it isn't an acceptable excuse. It was barely acceptable in March. But now they've had 9 months now to put sufficient resilience into the NHS - which would have been a much better use of the hundreds of billions they've frittered away over the year.

 

[DJH1971]

I'm due to travel to London on Friday, and London goes into Tier 3 on Wednesday.

Am I likely to be questioned?

I live in a Tier 2 area.

 

[yorkie]

I'm due to travel to London on Friday.

Am I likely to be questioned?

Probably not.

 

[Bantamzen]

Then please explain why London has gone Tier 1 -> Lockdown -> Tier 2 -> Tier 3. Doesn't look much like working to me.



Because it isn't an acceptable excuse. It was barely acceptable in March. But now they've had 9 months now to put sufficient resilience into the NHS - which would have been a much better use of the hundreds of billions they've frittered away over the year.

Its hard to believe that the government have overspent by several times the overall NHS budget, yet few people seem to be calling them out & some are still convinced we should have more costly lockdowns.

 

[Richard Scott]

I'm sorry but this is just foolish. Lockdown's do work in that they reduce the spread of the virus. What you're suggesting is just not manageable in the slightest.

Go on then, give me good solid evidence because if they did we'd be virus free and getting on with life 8 months later but we're not. You carry on with lockdowns but I want to get on with my foolish life, I'm afraid as do many other people. Expect lockdown will be even more pointless as people's tolerance is dropping so less conforming. All they're doing now if wrecking economy and people's businesses.

 

[bramling]

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

That will make Khan’s day then, he seems to be desperate for it for some reason.

Its hard to believe that the government have overspent by several times the overall NHS budget, yet few people seem to be calling them out & some are still convinced we should have more costly lockdowns.

I have to say I am really getting proper angry with all this now. It really feels like the Eton boy has been found out good and proper, with a virus simply not doing as he decrees. I know this has come up before, however I so wish Mrs T was in control right now.

It’s like at work we have someone who has been shielding all year. Having just returned from round two of that, he now declares himself unable to carry out certain activities due to “Covid restrictions”, yet has been found to be carrying out the self-same activities on overtime! Then we find he’s driving somewhere in northern England this weekend to pick up his son from uni. How much money has been spent protecting these people, for them to pee it up the wall?... BJ seems to have no clue as to normal life.

 

[Mag_seven]

That will make Khan’s day then, he seems to be desperate for it for some reason.

He seems to want to try and prove that the office of the London Mayor is something more than just a glorified Transport Commissioner.

 

[bramling]

He seems to want to try and prove that the office of the London Mayor is something more than just a glorified Transport Commissioner.

Well that side of things is going really well too...

 

[DB]

Its hard to believe that the government have overspent by several times the overall NHS budget, yet few people seem to be calling them out & some are still convinced we should have more costly lockdowns.

Quite. They could have been working to build up NHS capacity all summer, by partly training nurses, any re-registration and refresher training required for retired medics who were prepared to work, etc. So what did they do? Spaffed half a billion quid on half-price troughing in August.

Plus of course the figures which they claimed showed the most recent lockdown was necessary were not accurate, and the NHS wasn't anywhere near to being overhwelmed as they claimed.

There is also no evidence that hospitality venues are a major source of transmission, so closing these in the run-up to christmas, in most of the country's major cities (i.e. Tier 3 areas), just looks like vindictive scapegoating.

 

[yorkie]

Wales acted too late too. SAGE's advice was given in mid-September.

But what would acting earlier have actually achieved? If the aim is to keep cases really low, then yes locking down earlier will help but you then have to keep the restrictions up as otherwise cases just rise again.

Lockdowns do exactly what they're designed to do, suppress the virus.

I think you're moving the goalposts. People who previously called for lockdowns suggested initially that they would make the virus go away. Then they argued they would make cases drastically reduce.

Now there appears to be an acceptance (though not quite an admission) that they are not actually sustainable and are not a measure that works except as a means to avoid cases rising exponentially while we are waiting for a vaccine to be rolled out.

I think you really ought to admit that lockdowns do not do what was originally claimed/thought (at least not with this virus) and I think that your use of the term "suppress" is perhaps too strong, though I don't want to get into a debate about semantics.

So they do work. We're delaying the spread so that the health service can cope - why can't people understand this?

This is effectively an admission that keeping elderly people alive is deemed more important than the physical and mental wellbeing of the majority of the population, as well as the livelihoods of many younger/poorer people.

Lockdowns do work in that they reduce the spread of the virus.

We can't take damaging actions for an indefinite period of time that merely reduce the spread.

How long do you propose these damaging lockdowns last for?

Are you arguing that the need to ensure that there are spare beds for anyone regardless of age overrides the huge burden to mental health, the loss of millions of livelihoods and the huge damage that is being done to our society and that this can continue indefinitely?

 

[DB]

Probably not.

Indeed - unlikely. I've been into several Tier 3 areas recently. A number of police around at Leeds station yesterday, but they weren't challenging anyone.

Plus of course it is perfectly allowable (the advice about not travelling is just advice, not law), so even if you are travelling into a different tier area the most anyone could do is advise you not to - they couldn't tell you to go straight home again.

 

[bramling]

Quite. They could have been working to build up NHS capacity all summer, by partly training nurses, any re-registration and refresher training required for retired medics who were prepared to work, etc. So what did they do? Spaffed half a billion quid on half-price troughing in August.

Plus of course the figures which they claimed showed the most recent lockdown was necessary were not accurate, and the NHS wasn't anywhere near to being overhwelmed as they claimed.

There is also no evidence that hospitality venues are a major source of transmission, so closing these in the run-up to christmas, in most of the country's major cities (i.e. Tier 3 areas), just looks like vindictive scapegoating.

This really has gone properly insane now. What’s going on is completely unhinged.

Indeed - unlikely. I've been into several Tier 3 areas recently. A number of police around at Leeds station yesterday, but they weren't challenging anyone.

Plus of course it is perfectly allowable (the advice about not travelling is just advice, not law), so even if you are travelling into a different tier area the most anyone could do is advise you not to - they couldn't tell you to go straight home again.

Does this apply to entering Scotland and Wales? I’ve lost track of all the parochial restrictions now, as has seemingly most of the population!

 

[DB]

Does this apply to entering Scotland and Wales? I’ve lost track of all the parochial restrictions now, as has seemingly most of the population!

Not sure - like you, I have given up trying to keep up with it all, and not had cause to want to go out of England.

I ony made a point of reading up on the latest tier rules because I am on the edge of a tier 2 area, with two tier 3 areas very nearby.

 

[Jamesrob637]

I'm due to travel to London on Friday, and London goes into Tier 3 on Wednesday.

Am I likely to be questioned?

I live in a Tier 2 area.

No, mainly because this decision has come before any changes were due (Friday night into Saturday)

But it's up to you to question the motive of going and whether you will still be able to do the stuff you had planned.

I'm a big fan of getting in many Wetherspoons in/around London, and I did just that on the 3rd of November just before the national lockdown, but having to have a substantial meal takes away the appeal of "bashing" (notwithstanding the extra time it would take to receive the food at each individual branch, the effects on my stomach of several meals etc.)

 

[DB]

No, mainly because this decision has come before any changes were due (Friday night into Saturday)

The timing doesn't really affect it - chances of being questioned are very low anway, and as the travel advice is not law anyone is within their rights to thank the police for their advice, but say they have decided that they will continue anyway.

It was entirely predictable though that the government wouldn't be able to stick to review periods set out in the terms of the latest of their many sets of restrictions. They just can't help themselves - no doubt after christmas they will dream up a whole new and different tiering scheme.

 

[bramling]

The timing doesn't really affect it - chances of being questioned are very low anway, and as the travel advice is not law anyone is within their rights to thank the police for their advice, but say they have decided that they will continue anyway.

It was entirely predictable though that the government wouldn't be able to stick to review periods set out in the terms of the latest of their many sets of restrictions. They just can't help themselves - no doubt after christmas they will dream up a whole new and different tiering scheme.

I dread to think what January holds for us.

 

[yorksrob]

Wales acted too late too. SAGE's advice was given in mid-September.

Lockdowns do exactly what they're designed to do, suppress the virus. So they do work. We're delaying the spread so that the health service can cope - why can't people understand this?


That effectively means no hospitality anyway and lockdown too. So things would close.

I'm sorry but this is just foolish. Lockdown's do work in that they reduce the spread of the virus. What you're suggesting is just not manageable in the slightest.

I disagree. I went to a number of pubs and restaurants in the old tier 2, and there were quite a lot of small groups enjoying table service which I assume were households. Plus, this would only be in the highest tier. Limited meetings of households would be allowed elsewhere.

 

[DB]

We're delaying the spread so that the health service can cope - why can't people understand this?

Because it's not true - the NHS is not at a level where it's likely to be overwhelmed.

And if they though that was a real risk, why did they do absolutely nothing to build up capacity over the summer?

 

[John R]

Then please explain why London has gone Tier 1 -> Lockdown -> Tier 2 -> Tier 3. Doesn't look much like working to me.



Because it isn't an acceptable excuse. It was barely acceptable in March. But now they've had 9 months now to put sufficient resilience into the NHS - which would have been a much better use of the hundreds of billions they've frittered away over the year.

A bit simplistic. For one thing, it takes more than a few months to train up doctors and nurses to work in an intensive care setting, nor can you just get them from elsewhere as everywhere else is in the same position.

 

[DB]

A bit simplistic. For one thing, it takes more than a few months to train up doctors and nurses to work in an intensive care setting, nor can you just get them from elsewhere as everywhere else is in the same position.

Sure, but it's possible to part-train nurses in the time, which would allow them to work under the supervision of more experienced nurses (either in Covid care or elsewhere) and thereby increase capacity.

 

[MikeWM]

A bit simplistic. For one thing, it takes more than a few months to train up doctors and nurses to work in an intensive care setting, nor can you just get them from elsewhere as everywhere else is in the same position.

It isn't trivial, of course, but you could easily train people in the basics of Covid and Covid-related issues in that time. You don't need to teach them all the other skills that nurses have to learn.

Also, there were many retired and changed-career doctors who were put back on the register back in the spring. As far as I know, they've never been called upon.

 

[jtuk]

We're delaying the spread so that the health service can cope - why can't people understand this?

It's not March anymore, in case you haven't noticed. We might have bought that argument then, given there was uncertainty at the time, but right now you need to show:

a) the health service is in risk of not being able to cope
b) the actions taken will do something to prevent the desired negative outcome

Both are demonstrably false, yet you still have people who think otherwise and are quite happy to cause mass job losses and sentence people to death because you've not looked at the last nine months of data