• 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!

New lockdown in England, including school closures, announced by Johnson, 4/1/21

Status
Not open for further replies.

matacaster

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2013
Messages
1,603
My view has not changed. From the start, over 70's and clinically vulnerable should have been asked to quarantine(as far as possible) and supported by local council etc in doing so. The nightingale hospitals should have been staffed with some exerienced staff supervising military and volunteers and kept for covid only, with these staff not being used in other hospitals. If it's such an emergency, I'm sure having diversity, separating sexes (reducing capacity) and fire service certificate are the least of our worries. The rest of us should have just continued as normal, not taking economy (which pays for health service). Whilst unpalatable, covid is not the instigator of medics having to choose who lives and dies, its part of the job DNR.

What happens come February if there's a new strain which is even worse or they discover that the vaccine given immunity only last for a few months.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Cletus

Established Member
Joined
11 Dec 2010
Messages
2,230
Location
Dover
Being in Kent, I don't really think the 2nd lockdown ended. :(

Perhaps more should be done to make the NHS more able to cope?
 

Andyh82

Established Member
Joined
19 May 2014
Messages
3,538
We are being led by an absolute monster. How that man sleeps at night is beyond me.
He clearly doesn’t want to do these measures hence why he’s always said to dither and delay.

Whereas the other key leaders seem to want, demand or introduce the toughest measures much more easily.

There is no mainstream opposition to less measures, most complaints from other parties seem to be that they weren’t brought in quick enough, or lasted long enough, or weren’t tougher, and that more stuff wasn’t cancelled and more money wasn’t dished out.
 

APT618S

Member
Joined
7 Dec 2018
Messages
430
In my opinion far too few people consider the "costs" of lockdown.
Whilst US-centric this summary links to several CDC reports and peer reviewed journals amongst others detailing the tragic costs:
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
You can whinge all you like about the effect on the economy, but ultimately if the NHS collapses, we'll all have more to worry about than money, so it is in all our best interests to avoid that happening. This is an unprecedented national emergency which requires major severe measures to get through it, and denying reality doesn't change reality, deal with it. The UK is one of the worst countries in the world affected by COVID, probably thanks to fannying about this time last year when cases were first reported, instead of making a strong leadership decision, shutting the borders and locking down immediately like they did in New Zealand. Sometimes making sacrifices now is necessary to avoid an even worse fate in the future. We dithered around the first time and tried to avoid making the sacrifices, we are paying the price for it now. The best thing to do is not repeat the mistakes of the past and the consequence of the past, but act now to avoid a worse fate down the line. I'm glad the government has had the courage to implement the lockdown when the evidence strongly suggests it is needed. It is not going to last forever.

Whilst I agree with what you say about making sacrifices now to avoid worse coming later, I disagree with what you say about the New Zealand comparison. If we wanted to achieve temporary elimination New Zealand style, we'd have had to shut down well before we had - they had a lower starting point and consequently were able to pursue an elimination strategy more easily (along with their geographic factors). Even then, we had achieved elimination, we'd now be stuck in the situation of figuring out how to open back up to the world

I'd also like to see the justification for why I should be worried about the NHS collapsing? If it simply popped out of existence tomorrow, I don't think I'd notice..
 
Last edited:

Bertie the bus

Established Member
Joined
15 Aug 2014
Messages
2,791
It has been seen that tier 3 and 4 measures are insufficient to ease the virus propagation,
Has it? Boris Johnson was on the news just this afternoon saying it was too early to judge. Things really do move quickly if between lunchtime and 8PM the same day the situation goes from too early to judge to confirmation they weren't working.
 

nedchester

Established Member
Joined
28 May 2008
Messages
2,093
As usual a load of opposition consisting of the same narrow minded stuff as of months past. The fact is that the new strain is causing hospitalisation rates to soar, at a time of year where demand for NHS services peaks, and there is no sign of it slowing down, never mind easing. The fact is that in some areas the NHS is reaching or approaching its limit. The fact is that the virus spreads through close contact via aerosols, so minimising close contact is likely the best (only) way to slow it down before a widespread vaccination can take effect. It has been seen that tier 3 and 4 measures are insufficient to ease the virus propagation, and logic states that easing restrictions and encouraging people to mingle won't do any better, so the only logical alternative is to impose harder restrictions to further restrict people mixing, for a period of time until the pressure on the hospitals eases and the vaccine can take hold.

You can whinge all you like about the effect on the economy, but ultimately if the NHS collapses, we'll all have more to worry about than money, so it is in all our best interests to avoid that happening. This is an unprecedented national emergency which requires major severe measures to get through it, and denying reality doesn't change reality, deal with it. The UK is one of the worst countries in the world affected by COVID, probably thanks to fannying about this time last year when cases were first reported, instead of making a strong leadership decision, shutting the borders and locking down immediately like they did in New Zealand. Sometimes making sacrifices now is necessary to avoid an even worse fate in the future. We dithered around the first time and tried to avoid making the sacrifices, we are paying the price for it now. The best thing to do is not repeat the mistakes of the past and the consequence of the past, but act now to avoid a worse fate down the line. I'm glad the government has had the courage to implement the lockdown when the evidence strongly suggests it is needed. It is not going to last forever.

I tend to agree with this.

I am pretty anti-restrictions but we are in a situation where the infection rate is out of control. I would say that schools have been major drivers of this and explain why infections started to grow from September onwards. What do you expect with bubbles of 300 or more in primary schools along with cross infection between siblings.

Additionally we do have a vaccine which does seem a route out of this mess and I really think the Government needs to throw everything at the vaccine to reduce the numbers of those getting serious disease. I think (and hope) it's a case of short term pain (yes I know it's been going on for 10 months) for medium/longer term gain.

Back in March 2020 we couldn't see a way out, now perhaps we can.
 

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
3,632
Location
First Class
In my opinion far too few people consider the "costs" of lockdown.
Whilst US-centric this summary links to several CDC reports and peer reviewed journals amongst others detailing the tragic costs:

You’re absolutely right. Some people view those who oppose lockdowns as whingers who can’t cope with a little inconvenience. The reality is many people are experiencing serious mental health issues, or severe financial hardship (the two often go hand in hand). The consequences of these restrictions can be absolutely devastating, but it’s fine to simply gloss over this apparently....
 

gaillark

Member
Joined
27 Jan 2013
Messages
216
Can I ask how you can say with such certainty that some of these measures won't be permanent? After all, a year ago the idea that a democratically elected British government would remove so many of our basic human rights was unthinkable. Nothing is off the table now. And that includes the possibility that some of these measures will be permanent. At the very least, many of the effects will certainly be permanent (for example hildren who will recieve worthless qualifications, people who will commit suicide, complete collapse of the economy and resulting long term effects...).
Totally agree.
Police state now even hassling old lady in Marble Arch to disperse because she was feeding bread to pigeons!
video on: https://www.rt.com/uk/511522-covid-police-disperse-old-woman/
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
16,132
Location
0036
I thought he said it will be from the early hours of Wednesday morning ?

Can't recall what we did in March, were Post Offices still open for letters and parcels ? think they were, so same again ?
Post offices were open, but it was not always legal to go to one.

Totally agree.
Police state now even hassling old lady in Marble Arch to disperse because she was feeding bread to pigeons!
video on: https://www.rt.com/uk/511522-covid-police-disperse-old-woman/
Feeding bread to pigeons is not a reasonable excuse for leaving home in a tier 4 area.
 

gaillark

Member
Joined
27 Jan 2013
Messages
216
Post offices were open, but it was not always legal to go to one.


Feeding bread to pigeons is not a reasonable excuse for leaving home in a tier 4 area.
What do you mean going to a post office was not always legal?
 

Bertie the bus

Established Member
Joined
15 Aug 2014
Messages
2,791
Feeding bread to pigeons is not a reasonable excuse for leaving home in a tier 4 area.
If you do it in an outdoor public space, do it alone or with members of your household or bubble, and it is a leisure activity of yours then it most certainly is a reasonable excuse for leaving home in a tier 4 area.
 

brick60000

Member
Joined
18 Apr 2013
Messages
442
As usual a load of opposition consisting of the same narrow minded stuff as of months past. The fact is that the new strain is causing hospitalisation rates to soar, at a time of year where demand for NHS services peaks, and there is no sign of it slowing down, never mind easing. The fact is that in some areas the NHS is reaching or approaching its limit. The fact is that the virus spreads through close contact via aerosols, so minimising close contact is likely the best (only) way to slow it down before a widespread vaccination can take effect. It has been seen that tier 3 and 4 measures are insufficient to ease the virus propagation, and logic states that easing restrictions and encouraging people to mingle won't do any better, so the only logical alternative is to impose harder restrictions to further restrict people mixing, for a period of time until the pressure on the hospitals eases and the vaccine can take hold.

You can whinge all you like about the effect on the economy, but ultimately if the NHS collapses, we'll all have more to worry about than money, so it is in all our best interests to avoid that happening. This is an unprecedented national emergency which requires major severe measures to get through it, and denying reality doesn't change reality, deal with it. The UK is one of the worst countries in the world affected by COVID, probably thanks to fannying about this time last year when cases were first reported, instead of making a strong leadership decision, shutting the borders and locking down immediately like they did in New Zealand. Sometimes making sacrifices now is necessary to avoid an even worse fate in the future. We dithered around the first time and tried to avoid making the sacrifices, we are paying the price for it now. The best thing to do is not repeat the mistakes of the past and the consequence of the past, but act now to avoid a worse fate down the line. I'm glad the government has had the courage to implement the lockdown when the evidence strongly suggests it is needed. It is not going to last forever.

There is absolutely nothing narrow minded about expressing very real concern about the state of the economy after this, and the rapidly worsening state of people's mental health.

Considering and weighing up the pros and cons of locking down, versus the pros and cons of worsening mental health & a rapidly declining economy is exactly the opposite of being narrow minded.

It's clear something needs to be done, but it also seems clear that what is being done isn't, doesn't, and won't work. Compliance is plummeting. From a selfish perspective, the only perk of the last lockdown was walking around Birmingham with zero traffic on the road, and zero people around! It was blissfully peaceful. If I see scenes like I saw last March again, I'll be amazed.

People have lost all respect for the government at this point, and rightly so. Boris said on national television yesterday that schools were safe for kids to go back to, yet today is closing them.

How is stopping me from going for a picnic, or a sit in the park to enjoy some fresh air, going to do me, or anybody else - or the NHS - any harm whatsoever? It isn't. On the other hand, how is sitting in my university four walls, with an online education that doesn't come anywhere close to the standards of in person (socially distanced) teaching, and inability to see my family or friends or get some fresh air going to do my mental health any good? It isn't.

I really, really worry for people's mental health through all of this. And I really worry for the economy, too. Destroyed economy = no NHS funding, no jobs, increased poverty, more people on the streets (worsening the current crisis), more mental health problems, more misery for everyone.

I don't envy the government at all - but I don't sympathise with them anymore. They had their chance to do their best and have my sympathy for just being unlucky to be in government at this point - they lost their chance when they handled all of this so poorly.
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
16,132
Location
0036
What do you mean going to a post office was not always legal?
It would not, on its own, have been a permitted trip under the first couple of sets of lockdown rules last year, unless the trip was for work purposes.
 

Nicholas Lewis

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2019
Messages
6,129
Location
Surrey
The virus was driven down to low levels over summer partly because of lockdown but more likely respiratory viruses naturally decay in the Northern Hemisphere May to September so vaccine or not its not unreasonable to see a repeat of this.

Also allegedly 2.7m have tested positive now and I know its been mentioned that doesn't stop you getting it again but this is effectively tantamount to a vaccination so with pure vaccinations herd immunity should be building up over next few weeks and whilst case levels may be slow to respond hospitalisations and mortality should show improvements if this vaccine is really working. However, we need to be careful going into summer we dont confuse a natural decay from one bought on by seasonal improvement over vaccinations and sleepwalk into another problem next autumn.
 

Darandio

Established Member
Joined
24 Feb 2007
Messages
10,678
Location
Redcar
It would not, on its own, have been a permitted trip under the first couple of sets of lockdown rules last year, unless the trip was for work purposes.

For millions of people the only way to obtain money (benefits and pensions) is through their post office account, of course it was permitted.
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
16,132
Location
0036
For millions of people the only way to obtain money (benefits and pensions) is through their post office account, of course it was permitted.
It was permitted to go to a post office if one needed to obtain money (though I think you overestimate the number of people whose only method to obtain money is through a post office), but posting a greetings card, say, would have broken the law that was in effect from 26 March to (at least) 12 May.
 

Darandio

Established Member
Joined
24 Feb 2007
Messages
10,678
Location
Redcar
It was permitted to go if one needed to obtain money (though I think you overestimate the number of people whose only method to obtain money is through a post office), but posting a greetings card, say, would have broken the law that was in effect from 26 March to (at least) 12 May.

I don't think I am, millions of accounts are still on the original card that isn't for use in an ATM. Even some later cards are for use in a Post Office ATM only and they aren't that widespread.

Parcels were still allowed and I don't recall a single restriction on posting a greeting card. In fact, the government sent a letter to all postmasters thanking them for providing such a service during lockdown by keeping people in touch.
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
16,132
Location
0036
I don't think I am, millions of accounts are still on the original card that isn't for use in an ATM. Even some later cards are for use in a Post Office ATM only and they aren't that widespread.

Parcels were still allowed and I don't recall a single restriction on posting a greeting card. In fact, the government sent a letter to all postmasters thanking them for providing such a service during lockdown by keeping people in touch.
Your lack of recollection does not change what the law was at the time.

I wonder if it will be the same when the new regulations are published.
 

Darandio

Established Member
Joined
24 Feb 2007
Messages
10,678
Location
Redcar
Your lack of recollection does not change what the law was at the time.

I wonder if it will be the same when the new regulations are published.

Show me it. You seem to have a good handle on posting laws on here whether anyone asks or not, surely you've got it to hand?
 

3141

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2012
Messages
1,772
Location
Whitchurch, Hampshire
Picking up a point you made in post #1842 of the New 4-tier system for England thread (now locked), if the survival rate for Covid is 99.7%, and the virus was allowed to spread unchecked, we’d get 201,000 deaths out of the UK population of about 67 million. The real number would very likely be higher, because the NHS couldn’t cope with the total number of patients needing treatment for Covid plus other problems.

I think we should take steps such as the new lockdown to try to prevent that happening. Do you think we should not?

You also said

“What evidence have you got for that [saying lockdowns had reduced the rate at which the virus is spreading, the number of cases and the number of deaths]?.....A look at restrictions versus infection/death stats for countries with widely differing levels of restrictions shows no such correlation (e.g. Sweden has done a lot better than Italy or Spain), and in individual countries there is no evidence to show a correlation”.

Comparisons between countries are unproductive because situations differ in many ways: population density, overall health, climate, general attitudes and behaviour, age distribution of population, the predominant variant of the virus, and others.

Saying that “in individual countries there is no evidence to show a correlation” contradicts the factual experience. Both lockdowns in the UK were followed by reductions in the number of cases, the R number and other relevant statistics. As the virus spreads by means of human contact it seems very probable that reducing the contacts reduced the spread of infections. I cannot prove that; you certainly cannot prove that there is no correlation.
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
I would say that schools have been major drivers of this and explain why infections started to grow from September onwards.

That could equally be explained by autumn - respiratory infections rise at about that time every year.
 

farleigh

Member
Joined
1 Nov 2016
Messages
1,148
It was permitted to go to a post office if one needed to obtain money (though I think you overestimate the number of people whose only method to obtain money is through a post office), but posting a greetings card, say, would have broken the law that was in effect from 26 March to (at least) 12 May.
This is incorrect.

Posting a letter or parcel has never been proscribed and Post Offices were operating a full service throughout (albeit with social distancing etc)
 

nedchester

Established Member
Joined
28 May 2008
Messages
2,093
That could equally be explained by autumn - respiratory infections rise at about that time every year.
Of course but with Covid added to the equation that magnified the effect of serious illness.
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,071
That could equally be explained by autumn - respiratory infections rise at about that time every year.
They do, although of course there is a reason why that happens every year at exactly the time schools go back, and not a few weeks later when the weather starts to turn....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top