Local lockdown in Greater Manchester, East Lancashire and parts of West Yorkshire - Discussion

[bramling]

<Puts on tin hat>

Around these parts there is more than a sneaking feeling that these local lockdowns, which notably have been pretty much exclusive to the M62 corridor, are more about the leadership of those boroughs than the virus itself. As testing in these areas increases, so do the number of cases, which in turn appears to strengthen the government's case. The magic number seems to be at around 40 cases per 100,000 (or a whopping 0.04% of the population), but can vary according to the political colour of the respective councils. Allegedly.

This feeling is strengthened when areas like mine (with a very vocal Conservative MP) are suddenly released from the local restrictions, even though there had been no cases for literally weeks at the time the lockdown was ordered. So it seems we were only deemed "clean" when the central government found out that our ward was Tory.....

<Takes off tin hat>

Unfortunately I think there may well certainly be at least an element of truth. Look at the way TfL has been handled compared to the rest of the rail system, and we all know why that is.

 

[Mag_seven]

<Puts on tin hat>

Around these parts there is more than a sneaking feeling that these local lockdowns, which notably have been pretty much exclusive to the M62 corridor, are more about the leadership of those boroughs than the virus itself. As testing in these areas increases, so do the number of cases, which in turn appears to strengthen the government's case. The magic number seems to be at around 40 cases per 100,000 (or a whopping 0.04% of the population), but can vary according to the political colour of the respective councils. Allegedly.

This feeling is strengthened when areas like mine (with a very vocal Conservative MP) are suddenly released from the local restrictions, even though there had been no cases for literally weeks at the time the lockdown was ordered. So it seems we were only deemed "clean" when the central government found out that our ward was Tory.....

<Takes off tin hat>

I'm sure we have seen some politics going on with Tory MPs lobbying the government to lift local restrictions in Tory constituencies whilst the restrictions in Labour constituencies remain in place. Once the decision making process gets political it loses all credibility IMHO.

 

[geoffk]

Anyone find it strange that none of the densely-populated London Boroughs have been subject to extra restrictions on socialising (note: not a "lockdown")?

 

[yorkie]

Anyone find it strange that none of the densely-populated London Boroughs have been subject to extra restrictions on socialising (note: not a "lockdown")?

This is probably because London had a lot of cases early on in the pandemic; the places that are now seeing high numbers of cases were not particularly hard hit at that time.

There is now a reasonable level of immunity in many areas that were hit early on, but other areas have not yet reached similar levels of immunity.

The lockdown was never going to prevent those places seeing a rise in cases; that was a myth which some people believed. All it did was delay the inevitable, and this is now prolonging restrictions in those areas.

 

[30907]

Well, there was that story that was the lead story on the BBC website (of all places) yesterday from Heneghan saying the standard test is so terrible it'll pick up dead fragments of virus, then there's this one:

Experts: US COVID-19 positivity rate high due to 'too sensitive' tests

Up to 90 percent of people tested for COVID-19 in Massachusetts, New York and Nevada in July carried barely any traces of the virus, a new report says.

www.dailymail.co.uk

An unspecified proportion of those tested are probably no longer infectious, yes.
"Those being tested now are probably not infectious" - that doesn't follow. No evidence yet that the increase in positive tests is disproportionately picking up these formerly infectious people among the asymptomatic cases.
(BTW: testing is definitely reaching a higher percentage of all cases, though not yet as much as the estimated 1 in 2k who are currently infectious).

 

[DB]

Anyone find it strange that none of the densely-populated London Boroughs have been subject to extra restrictions on socialising (note: not a "lockdown")?

But what is a 'lockdown'? The government messaging has been so confused that it now basically means whatever they want it to!

 

[big_rig]

Anyone find it strange that none of the densely-populated London Boroughs have been subject to extra restrictions on socialising (note: not a "lockdown")?

My 'densely populated London borough' has 50% more people than the whole district of Oldham, and less than half the total cases. I can draw a line around my flat which has nearly 100,000 people in it that according to PHE has had four cases of coronavirus in total over a three months period (until the week before last when some popped up). With that in mind, no, not at all! There'd be absolutely no point in doing so.

 

[Trackman]

Matt Hancock has just announced extra measures for Bolton and more to come with the sounds of it.
Hospitality venues like pubs and restaurants are being restricted to take away only as from now.
He also says that they are going to make it law regrading people socialising outside their homes.
Looks like I'm stuffed for the time being, nearly bought a train ticket yesterday but something cropped up.

 

[DB]

Matt Hancock has just announced extra measures for Bolton and more to come with the sounds of it.
Hospitality venues like pubs and restaurants are being restricted to take away only as from now.
He also says that they are going to make it law regrading people socialising outside their homes.
Looks like I'm stuffed for the time being, nearly bought a train ticket yesterday but something cropped up.

That's clever - shaft the hospitality industry yet again, and introduce a state of uncertainty throughout the country as to whether they could be told to close at short notice (and as far as most pubs are concerned, that's what 'take away only' will mean in practice).

It's almost as if they want to cause multiple bankruptcies. That or they are totally incompetent.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

Further restrictions imposed in Bolton now.

Coronavirus: Bolton restrictions tightened amid rise in cases

Only allowing takeaways and curtailing nightlife are among the new rules for the Greater Manchester town.

www.bbc.co.uk

Tighter restrictions have been introduced in Bolton, including only allowing takeaways from hospitality venues, after a rise in Covid-19 cases.

The new measures also include a curfew which will require all venues to close between 22:00 and 05:00.

Health Secretary Matt Hancock said the town in Greater Manchester had "the highest case rate in the country."

He said there were 120 cases per 100,000 in Bolton, which had already been under stricter lockdown measures.

The announcement comes after ministers and government advisers expressed concern over a "sharp rise" in cases across the UK, especially amongst the young.

 

[Trackman]

That's clever - shaft the hospitality industry yet again, and introduce a state of uncertainty throughout the country as to whether they could be told to close at short notice (and as far as most pubs are concerned, that's what 'take away only' will mean in practice).

It's almost as if they want to cause multiple bankruptcies. That or they are totally incompetent.

I agree.
What about all these independent pubs and restaurants who have stocked up with supplies?
There is only so much they can take before they throw the towel in.

 

[greyman42]

Is there any evidence that pubs and restaurants are causing the rise in the virus in the Bolton area?

 

[Scrotnig]

Is there any evidence that pubs and restaurants are causing the rise in the virus in the Bolton area?

The authorities there have stated that they are - that is what passes for 'evidence' these days I'm afraid.

 

[C J Snarzell]

Today's events in Bolton make for very grim reading. The people of Bolton have basically been put under similar lockdown measures to those that we were subject to nationally back in March.

The knock on effect to businesses and livelihoods is potentially catastrophic. I've commented about the impact of the prolonged effects of social distancing measures on another covid thread.

I seriously do think that there is likely to be acts of civil unrest if the government continues to impact of people's lives like this.

I know many people who live in Bolton who have done what's necessary to stay safe and protect NHS services, but even they are hacked off now by the government's tactics.

CJ

 

[Bletchleyite]

Today's events in Bolton make for very grim reading. The people of Bolton have basically been put under similar lockdown measures to those that we were subject to nationally back in March.

But without additional business support and a new furlough scheme.

This I find to be unacceptable. I would be surprised if there isn't unrest.

 

[Huntergreed]

Today's events in Bolton make for very grim reading. The people of Bolton have basically been put under similar lockdown measures to those that we were subject to nationally back in March.

The knock on effect to businesses and livelihoods is potentially catastrophic. I've commented about the impact of the prolonged effects of social distancing measures on another covid thread.

I seriously do think that there is likely to be acts of civil unrest if the government continues to impact of people's lives like this.

I know many people who live in Bolton who have done what's necessary to stay safe and protect NHS services, but even they are hacked off now by the government's tactics.

CJ

Indeed - looks extremely harsh indeed, arguably made harder by reduced support for the affected businesses (especially hospitality businesses with an imposed curfew). I imagine this will likely lead to at least some form of civil unrest (or at least disobedience), but that these incidents will be labelled as “selfish”, “dangerous” and “irresponsible”. The government don’t seem to listen to what the majority want anymore, but rather who can scream the loudest (sadly, in this case, the lockdown enthusiasts are the predominantly vocal group)

 

[Bantamzen]

But without additional business support and a new furlough scheme.

This I find to be unacceptable. I would be surprised if there isn't unrest.

And a curfew, is this the first time such as measure has been used in this country for this? I'm afraid unrest is inevitable, and dare I say it perhaps even hoped for? Something very sinister is happening here, and I will be the first amongst us here to say if these are extended I will be pushing against them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed - looks extremely harsh indeed, arguably made harder by reduced support for the affected businesses (especially hospitality businesses with an imposed curfew). I imagine this will likely lead to at least some form of civil unrest (or at least disobedience), but that these incidents will be labelled as “selfish”, “dangerous” and “irresponsible”. The government don’t seem to listen to what the majority want anymore, but rather who can scream the loudest (sadly, in this case, the lockdown enthusiasts are the predominantly vocal group)

I wonder what Andy Burnham thinks about this? He's been very quiet so far.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Sep 2020 ==

And a curfew, is this the first time such as measure has been used in this country for this? I'm afraid unrest is inevitable, and dare I say it perhaps even hoped for? Something very sinister is happening here, and I will be the first amongst us here to say if these are extended I will be pushing against them.

It isn't an actual curfew, rather a licensing imposition that venues have to close (you can still go for a 3am run if you want).

But yes, I'm opposed to this approach. It's become too bitty and too messy, as I expected you'd get by devolving things to our largely grossly incompetent local authorities.

 

[C J Snarzell]

Not just Burnham who I would be interested to listen to......Ian Hopkins (Chief Constable of GMP) who is already sitting on a police force awash with various scandals, incompetence and lack of public confidence.

CJ

 

[Class 33]

Again they're fussing about younger people getting this virus, chances are all will make a healthy recovery and contribute towards herd immunity, more of this age group that have it sooner it happens and vulnerable can stop shielding. I just wish politicians would step back, look at this in the wider context rather than reacting hysterically every time a few people (let's be honest 99 in 100,000 is not a huge figure) contract this virus otherwise we're going to be carrying on like this for a very long time.

Indeed so. It's all a complete shambles all this local lockdown mess, and the problems this will cause people living in these towns/cities. As that beauty therapist mentioned on the ITV News last week "We're like puppets on a string. They are playing with people's lives.". The government are going about this the wrong way, due to concentrating on the numbers of new cases(which has risen due to the significant increase in daily testing!) which is now mostly the under 40's who only tend to suffer mildly if contracting Coronavirus, and not taking into account the very low daily deaths and hospital admissions. It's ridiculous beyond belief what the government is doing now. As you say, if they carry on with this strategy then all these umpteen local lockdowns and nationwide restrictions are going to go on for months on end or even indefinitely! The government need to get a grip, sort this mess out, and get this country back to normal! We just can't continue on like this....

 

[C J Snarzell]

I think it's safe to say we could see some civil unrest in the weeks/months ahead as many people start to rebell against a government that has clearly lost its way.

My cousin works in a local hospital with a Nightingale facility that is not being used and there has been no covid admissions to the same hospital for two weeks.

Everything about this whole mess is completely wrong.

CJ

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think it's safe to say we could see some civil unrest in the weeks/months ahead as many people start to rebell against a government that has clearly lost its way.

I think there will certainly be repercussions from this, such as groups of drunk youths fighting the Police.

 

[Mag_seven]

Just a gentle reminder that this thread is for the discussion of the local lockdowns in Greater Manchester, East Lancashire and parts of West Yorkshire. For discussion on the new nationwide rules (In England) on the size of gatherings see:

Potential reduction in indoor gatherings

I’ve felt passionate about many things during this pandemic, but THIS is, for me, a tipping point. The government have absolutely NO right to do this given the statistics and evidence at this point, and quite frankly I think this is a loss of democracy and an example of pure authoritarianism...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Bantamzen]

I think there will certainly be repercussions from this, such as groups of drunk youths fighting the Police.

It will be far more than that, believe me.

 

[DelayRepay]

I do understand the need for some form of action, but I really don't understand the 10pm curfew. Reading the rules on the council website, the 10pm curfew doesn't just apply to pubs, but also applies to cinemas and retailers that were not on the list of 'essential' from the original lockdown.

Why?

If the film at the cinema is scheduled to finish at 10:30pm, they will have to cancel it or change the time so it finishes at 10pm. How is that any more or less safe?

If a restaurant changes to takeaway only, how does it become more dangerous to serve customers at 10:30 compared to 9:30?

Is there any actual reason behind this particular rule?

 

[Mojo]

Is there any actual reason behind this particular rule?

As is usual, essential workers will end up being shafted with being unable to get food on night shifts.

 

[DelayRepay]

As is usual, essential workers will end up being shafted with being unable to get food on night shifts.

That was my thought too. My sister works night shifts as a care worker, and found it quite a challenge not being able to get a coffee from the drive-through McDonalds during the original lockdown.

But I am sure they haven't brought this rule in just to shaft night shift workers, and I am intrigued as to why it is safe for a takeaway to be open at 21:55 but not at 22:05. Is the virus nocturnal now? Whether you agree with them or not, there is at least some logic behind the other restrictions but this one just seems bizarre.

 

[Andy Pacer]

It seems rather strange. Surely there would be less people around at 10pm than, say, 10am anyway.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

It seems rather strange. Surely there would be less people around at 10pm than, say, 10am anyway.

Maybe the "thinking" is that after 10 p.m. the folk (that are still out and about) are more likely to be no longer observing social distancing, possibly due to increasing levels of inebriation.

Still an arbitrary cut-off time though, just like the 4.00 a.m. one for international travellers.

 

[takno]

I do understand the need for some form of action, but I really don't understand the 10pm curfew. Reading the rules on the council website, the 10pm curfew doesn't just apply to pubs, but also applies to cinemas and retailers that were not on the list of 'essential' from the original lockdown.

Why?

If the film at the cinema is scheduled to finish at 10:30pm, they will have to cancel it or change the time so it finishes at 10pm. How is that any more or less safe?

If a restaurant changes to takeaway only, how does it become more dangerous to serve customers at 10:30 compared to 9:30?

Is there any actual reason behind this particular rule?

The short answer is that it was probably requested by some sad act from the local council, who's been absolutely furious for years that even though him and the missus are tucked up with their cocoa by 9.30, there are still people outside his window making noise. Even though he managed to get the street lights turned off a few years for "austerity", they're still bloody at it, and he's not missing a chance this big.