Lockdown in England from Thursday 5 November until Wednesday 2 December

[317 forever]

The nastiest bits of the regulations (the 'No person may leave or be outside of the place where they are living without reasonable excuse' part - very much *not* a phrase I ever wanted to see again in law) appear to be based on the situation at the end of May, not that at the end of March. In particular the specific exception 'to visit a public outdoor place for the purposes of open air recreation' is there again, which was interpreted rather widely (and in my case as an excuse to start travelling around by train again, in order to go to the seaside - though that isn't quite as appealing an idea as it was in May...)

They explicitly expire in 28 days time, and they repeal the tier regulations, so some other stuff will no doubt be passed before then.

As it specifically states "open air" recreation, I am prepared that this in all probability excludes bus trips per se, as the buses are closed spaces albeit moving ones.

I believe you can also exchange for Travel Vouchers - This is taken from the Avanti site

If you purchased an Advance ticket to or from an area affected by travel restrictions before the change was announced, you may be entitled to a Rail Travel Voucher. The voucher can be used as payment towards a new ticket and is valid for 12 months from the date of issue. The voucher may not be exchanged for cash.

Probably a better option if you don't know when travel will be possible again.

Yes that would be better and simpler. I notice though that it only says you "may" not "will" be entitled.

Keeping an eye out for developments regarding already booked hotels, specifically Travelodge in England and North Wales, during November. Many people will presumably have taken up the '2 nights for the price of 1' Saver rate offer, which would normally mean it's not refundable, but if the hotel isn't open for leisure guests then presumably they may have to do the refund/voucher thing again. Premier Inn were quick off the mark and have offered vouchers or a full refund, but Travelodge are apparently still considering their options. If anyone sees anything definite it would be appreciated if they could flag it up on this thread.

Indeed, as my Premier Inn closed after I had booked to stay there, even on the non-refundable rate, they emailed me with a promise of an automatic refund. They also informed me of the nearest one still open in case my stay in the area was essential.

 

[yorksrob]

Its largely elderly people that end up hopsitalised so they should be doing everything to minimise transmission in care homes yet I can see no evidence of them being offered any help with still 1 in 5 staff on zero hour contracts bouncing from one care home to another. last weeks NHS weekly flu and C19 survey report 390 outbreaks in care homes making it 1195 over last four weeks.

That this is still an issue, truly is the scandal of the pandemic. How much would stable employment conditions in care homes have cost the nation, compared to another lockdown !

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

As it specifically states "open air" recreation, I am prepared that this in all probability excludes bus trips per se, as the buses are closed spaces albeit moving ones.

I don't interpret it that way, as one has to get to the open air recreation. Also if one is undertaking that recreation with the other permitted household,
they presumably have to meet up somehow, if they are a distance from eachother.

 

[317 forever]

Noticed a poll on an AOL page (sorry don't have a link to it) there were 48% against lockdown, with 44% for and rest undecided. Almost all polls up to now have been very pro restrictions, lockdown etc so tide is definitely turning.

And as with Brexit, it's the 48% who lose out.

The BBC are reporting that Sunak will extend furlough until March. So I think it's a pretty safe bet that this lockdown will last more than 1 month. Perhaps not the full 4 months until March but I bet it'll be most of that time!

The timing so late is ironic. Plenty of people lost their jobs in August when employers were having to contribute towards furlough pay.

 

[DustyBin]

For the love of God.

Poundshops, McDonalds, and Tescos, selling ropey clothes. Is that the utter morass we have descended into as a nation?!

Shame on this Government.

I said it before; they’re acclimatising us to being unable to afford luxuries! Slightly tongue in cheek but living standards are going to fall for a lot of people.

I heard on Friday that a lad I used to work with has been made redundant. Him and his fiancé bought there first house last year and she’s pregnant. To top it off she was also made redundant around June/July time. They’re only in their late twenties so weren’t entitled to huge redundancy payments either. Unfortunately both worked in industries ravaged by Covid restrictions. So, about those small sacrifices and minor inconveniences....

 

[317 forever]

My view is:
-Where masks when possible. Definitely on public transport. I understand that wearing one for 14 hours or so a day is uncomfortable so you should be able to take it of when there are dividers between you and other people or when people are far away from you (I would say 2 metres). We know that the virus is airborn so wearing a mask does help.
-Socially distance whenever possible. I would go for a metre personally, 2 metres without a mask. Social distancing does help but we can't have 2 metres everywhere just because of limited amount of space.
-Use your common sense. Having 500 people in close proximity is obviously a bad idea and will spread covid, but we shouldn't say ban playing tennis, which will not spread covid much.

I feel that this is a happy limit to our activities. It's just a pity that non-complaince, over-prioritising of schools and colder weather have caused a spike in Covid numbers.

 

[duncanp]

If there is no real difference to cases by the end of November it will not "be the end of it"

At a minimum it will be extended for an extra couple of weeks. There is also the very real possibility of new restrictions - more businesses closed or, as seen elsewhere, people requiring a "permission slip" to leave home at all even for exercise.

Schools must stay open - we can't afford to sacrifice education any more.

I very much doubt whether people will have to comply with the idea of a "permission slip" in order to leave home for any reason at all.

For one thing, it would have to be passed by parliament, and Conservative MPs are getting restive at the suggestion that the current lockdown is extended by a couple of weeks, let alone any new restrictions are introduced.

In any case, how would you police such a scheme? It would require thousands of "Covid Marshalls" on every street, demanding to see someones piece of paper. And what would they do if people told them to go forth and multiply, along with a suggestion as to where they might stick said "permission slip"?

 

[221129]

I feel that this is a happy limit to our activities. It's just a pity that non-complaince, over-prioritising of schools and colder weather have caused a spike in Covid numbers.

I presume you can back that up with actual evidence.

 

[Jamesrob637]

If there is no real difference to cases by the end of November it will not "be the end of it"

At a minimum it will be extended for an extra couple of weeks. There is also the very real possibility of new restrictions - more businesses closed or, as seen elsewhere, people requiring a "permission slip" to leave home at all even for exercise.

Schools must stay open - we can't afford to sacrifice education any more.

What would be best for schools is half of pupils in one week and the other half the following week, and so on and so forth, education being online the week the child is absent. Plus children of key workers as per in the Spring. Meaning somewhere around 55-60% of pupils in at a given time. The children get at least basic education, staff don't have to be furloughed in the main, and there are significantly fewer people in one place at one time to infect others.

 

[Hadders]

What would be best for schools is half of pupils in one week and the other half the following week, and so on and so forth, education being online the week the child is absent. Plus children of key workers as per in the Spring. Meaning somewhere around 55-60% of pupils in at a given time. The children get at least basic education, staff don't have to be furloughed in the main, and there are significantly fewer people in one place at one time to infect others.

Where do the children who aren't in school go, who looks after them? Won't they just meet up with their friends and potentially be in closer proximity than if they remained in school?

 

[Richard Scott]

N

What would be best for schools is half of pupils in one week and the other half the following week, and so on and so forth, education being online the week the child is absent. Plus children of key workers as per in the Spring. Meaning somewhere around 55-60% of pupils in at a given time. The children get at least basic education, staff don't have to be furloughed in the main, and there are significantly fewer people in one place at one time to infect others.

No, enough damage has been done, afraid from experience blended learning only works for a few and many children are showing signs of mental distress now due to this (I do work with teenagers so not making this up to back up my points). Education must carry on without any more interference irrespective of what is happening with this virus. Too much weighting is put on this virus issue by politicians, some media and some of the public without any thoughts to the consequence and trotting out unhelpful phrases like 'they'll get over it' or 'it's for the greater good' or 'people are dying don't be so selfish'. Thus has to stop now.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I presume you can back that up with actual evidence.

It terms of big university cities they had a spike up from mid September that's been attributed to students and then the majority of them have dropped back significantly as October progressed. This was entirely predictable with students coming from all four corners of the country and shacking up in apartments of 4-8 students what did they expect to happen. The universities then didn't help themselves by not running in house freshers week which then resulted in students using city hospitality venues instead and and thus stoke up community transmission albeit unwittingly. Had this been better managed im sure the peak of these spikes would have been lower and thus the spread of the virus into the vulnerable would have been slower such that hopsitalisation levels could have been managed or contained by the Tier system. But as with care homes the govt is failing to apply the lessons learnt from wave one and we are now in the destructive lockdown where the only winners are Boris and his rich mates.

 

[LAX54]

That this is still an issue, truly is the scandal of the pandemic. How much would stable employment conditions in care homes have cost the nation, compared to another lockdown !

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



I don't interpret it that way, as one has to get to the open air recreation. Also if one is undertaking that recreation with the other permitted household,
they presumably have to meet up somehow, if they are a distance from eachother.

Bus, Train, Car, Walk etc, all are acceptable, nothing is barred, think they may have learned one or two things in the last lockdown

 

[bramling]

That’s how it seems to be around most of our towns. Large supermarkets very busy. Other shops like Home Bargains, B & M, Wilkos, B & Q etc busy selling a wide variety of things. Sadly small independent businesses having to remain closed.

It will probably be exactly the same today. Shops full of people yet churches closed on Remembrance Sunday.

This whole thing is nothing short of a complete disgrace. All he has achieved is redistribute people from one setting to another, and by reducing the numbers of places for people to go has crowded out the remaining ones - in the process creating issues like queues for those who are still at work and don’t have the time on their hands to play Boris games. Meanwhile this is costing billions (again) and ruining those businesses who are closed.

What on earth is Boris thinking? On top of similar disasters like eat out to help out and the 10pm curfew (both tinkering measures which *created* crowded settings which wouldn’t have otherwise existed) one really has to question his mental health and suitability for the role.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

The proportion of people who support lockdowns is dwindling, though it is disappointing to see some people do still defend the indefensible. It's a small, but very vocal, minority.

Yes I believe clothes and shoes have been deemed non-essential, though can still be purchased (where available) from shops selling "essential" items (in England at least!)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Nov 2020 ==

Not sure what the shoe range is, I'll have to look when I'm next there

If clothes are non-essential, perhaps we should all walk around naked until December 2, and use that as a justification/mitigation when brought before the magistrates!

In reality they mean non-essential for immediate purchase, but haven't the balls to say that because it opens a can of exemption worms. As was highlighted in the Wales lockdown with it's barriered off aisles and plastic shelf coverings. Absolutely ridiculous.

I may want a new pair of shoes simply because I like the style, but I need them if my current ones have holes in.

As for Tesco shoe choice, pretty poor to be honest. The kids range may be better. Kids can get through clothing quite quickly (in terms of wearing it out and out-growing them) so perhaps most people don't go over the top price and quality wise.

 

[yorkie]

If clothes are non-essential, perhaps we should all walk around naked until December 2, and use that as a justification/mitigation when brought before the magistrates!

In reality they mean non-essential for immediate purchase, but haven't the balls to say that because it opens a can of exemption worms. As was highlighted in the Wales lockdown with it's barriered off aisles and plastic shelf coverings. Absolutely ridiculous.

I may want a new pair of shoes simply because I like the style, but I need them if my current ones have holes in.

As for Tesco shoe choice, pretty poor to be honest. The kids range may be better. Kids can get through clothing quite quickly (in terms of wearing it out and out-growing them) so perhaps most people don't go over the top price and quality wise.

Basically the whole idea of lockdowns is to ostensibly 'protect' both older and wealthier people, but we all know that they have disproportionately negative effects on (generally) younger and poorer people.

The people who call for lockdowns the most tend to be of the sort who have no concerns over loss of income for themselves and don't consider the impact on people who are in less fortunate positions than they are.

For example they will assume that everyone can afford multiple pairs of shoes for all different occasions, so that if one pair becomes unusable, they have an immediate replacement. This is just one tiny example of the arrogance of lockdown enthusiasts.

Some people try to accuse me of being selfish for opposing lockdowns but the opposite is true; I am fortunate to not be materially affected by lockdowns. My anger is because I care about those who are.

I think with this lockdown we will see massive erosion of the vocal support for lockdowns which has hitherto been (erroneously) deemed by the Government to be indicative of the view of the majority of the population.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

As I took a stroll through central Derby yesterday, I wandered through the shopping centre (Intu) and noted that all the major phone shops, Vodafone, Three, EE and suchlike are closed for the duration of the lockdown.

However, outside the shopping centre, the small independent phone shops, doing unlocking, selling second hand phones, vape liquids and so on were open as normal. How can these be regarded as 'essential businesses'?

I guess they aren't, but being independent they can take the risk of being caught without fear for their corporate image. In the meantime they make more money to pay any potential fine down the road. Plus I guess they do not have the on-line presence of the big corporates. Trading Standards may eventually peruse the high street, may go into the shop to explain, "oh sorry guv, didn't understand the rules, Fred's Phones a few doors away was open so I thought it was OK". Closes immediately but re-opens a day later under different ownership following a cash transaction with a distant relative.

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

This whole thing is nothing short of a complete disgrace. All he has achieved is redistribute people from one setting to another, and by reducing the numbers of places for people to go has crowded out the remaining ones - in the process creating issues like queues for those who are still at work and don’t have the time on their hands to play Boris games. Meanwhile this is costing billions (again) and ruining those businesses who are closed.

What on earth is Boris thinking? On top of similar disasters like eat out to help out and the 10pm curfew (both tinkering measures which *created* crowded settings which wouldn’t have otherwise existed) one really has to question his mental health and suitability for the role.

'Boris' and 'thinking', in the same sentence. I mean really. I nearly reported the post

 

[Pete_uk]

Just found this on Facebook as a reply to the local police telling people that they can report breaches of the covid regulations on line:

So the government are encouraging you to report your neighbours if they don’t follow the new rule of gathering numbers. Before following this advice you should really consider the fact that the government won’t be there to help you jump start your car or lend you tools or a cup of sugar if you need it. They won’t be an extra set of eyes to watch over your property if you are away. They won’t keep an eye on your kids if they are playing in the street and someone strange is hanging around. We need each other, it’s how we get by and live in peace, because at the end of the day the government won’t be standing on your door step to help you out when this gets real.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Just found this on Facebook as a reply to the local police telling people that they can report breaches of the covid regulations on line:

So the government are encouraging you to report your neighbours if they don’t follow the new rule of gathering numbers. Before following this advice you should really consider the fact that the government won’t be there to help you jump start your car or lend you tools or a cup of sugar if you need it. They won’t be an extra set of eyes to watch over your property if you are away. They won’t keep an eye on your kids if they are playing in the street and someone strange is hanging around. We need each other, it’s how we get by and live in peace, because at the end of the day the government won’t be standing on your door step to help you out when this gets real.

And what is pretty certain is that the police won't be there to help when 'grassed on' neighbour puts a brick through your window, daubs paint on your walls or keys your car. Sorry, no resources available, not a priority etc. Society generally continues regardless of 'the authorities' because most of us know that we need to get on reasonably well with each other - as the Facebook reply states.

 

[DustyBin]

And what is pretty certain is that the police won't be there to help when 'grassed on' neighbour puts a brick through your window, daubs paint on your walls or keys your car. Sorry, no resources available, not a priority etc. Society generally continues regardless of 'the authorities' because most of us know that we need to get on reasonably well with each other - as the Facebook reply states.

Quite, and it further reinforces my opinion that the government is deliberately turning the population against itself....

 

[bramling]

Basically the whole idea of lockdowns is to ostensibly 'protect' both older and wealthier people, but we all know that they have disproportionately negative effects on (generally) younger and poorer people.

The people who call for lockdowns the most tend to be of the sort who have no concerns over loss of income for themselves and don't consider the impact on people who are in less fortunate positions than they are.

For example they will assume that everyone can afford multiple pairs of shoes for all different occasions, so that if one pair becomes unusable, they have an immediate replacement. This is just one tiny example of the arrogance of lockdown enthusiasts.

Some people try to accuse me of being selfish for opposing lockdowns but the opposite is true; I am fortunate to not be materially affected by lockdowns. My anger is because I care about those who are.

I think with this lockdown we will see massive erosion of the vocal support for lockdowns which has hitherto been (erroneously) deemed by the Government to be indicative of the view of the majority of the population.

What we see happening at the moment is proof that people aren’t buying-in to this lockdown. I use the term buy-in carefully, as I bet if you went up to a lot of these people and asked if they “support” the lockdown they would say that they do. Their actions however tell a different story.

 

[Mag_seven]

What we see happening at the moment is proof that people aren’t buying-in to this lockdown. I use the term buy-in carefully, as I bet if you went up to a lot of these people and asked if they “support” the lockdown they would say that they do. Their actions however tell a different story.

Time to dust off one of the old sayings that your mother or whoever used to reel off namely that "actions speak louder than words".

Its clear from what you have observed that there is a basic truth in that saying there!

 

[bramling]

Time to dust off one of the old sayings that your mother or whoever used to reel off namely that "actions speak louder than words".

Its clear from what you have observed that there is a basic truth in that saying there!

Yes that sums it up absolutely perfectly.

 

[ChrisC]

What happened in Wales, with barriers across aisles selling what were supposed to be non essential items in large shops, got a lot of negative publicity. It all did seem a complete shambles.

Is the current situation in England any better or is it actually even worse and very unfair to small independent businesses on our high streets. The likes of Tesco, Sainsburys, Asda etc can be open and sell everything. Shops like Home Bargains and B & M, which often only have a couple of aisles of food can open and sell their whole range. Even pound shops, many of which sell very little food seem to be open. Yet the small independent family businesses have to close.

Is that actually much difference to having the barriers across the aisles in Wales. You can buy your homewear, clothes, shoes, electrical goods, toys and Christmas gifts in Tesco but the shutters are down at the small shop next door that may have served that community for 50+ years. Tesco, Sainsburys, Asda etc have driven enough small businesses off the high streets of our towns and now the government are helping them to do more of this during the crucial run up to Christmas.

 

[DB]

What happened in Wales, with barriers across aisles selling what were supposed to be non essential items in large shops, got a lot of negative publicity. It all did seem a complete shambles.

Is the current situation in England any better or is it actually even worse and very unfair to small independent businesses on our high streets. The likes of Tesco, Sainsburys, Asda etc can be open and sell everything. Shops like Home Bargains and B & M, which often only have a couple of aisles of food can open and sell their whole range. Even pound shops, many of which sell very little food seem to be open. Yet the small independent family businesses have to close.

Is that actually much difference to having the barriers across the aisles in Wales. You can buy your homewear, clothes, shoes, electrical goods, toys and Christmas gifts in Tesco but the shutters are down at the small shop next door that may have served that community for 50+ years. Tesco, Sainsburys, Asda etc have driven enough small businesses off the high streets of our towns and now the government are helping them to do more of this during the crucial run up to Christmas.

Both are completely flawed for a number of reasons - no shops should have been forced to close, and the lack of public buy in to the stay at home message just means that those remaining open are busier.

 

[317 forever]

It terms of big university cities they had a spike up from mid September that's been attributed to students and then the majority of them have dropped back significantly as October progressed. This was entirely predictable with students coming from all four corners of the country and shacking up in apartments of 4-8 students what did they expect to happen. The universities then didn't help themselves by not running in house freshers week which then resulted in students using city hospitality venues instead and and thus stoke up community transmission albeit unwittingly. Had this been better managed im sure the peak of these spikes would have been lower and thus the spread of the virus into the vulnerable would have been slower such that hopsitalisation levels could have been managed or contained by the Tier system. But as with care homes the govt is failing to apply the lessons learnt from wave one and we are now in the destructive lockdown where the only winners are Boris and his rich mates.

Exactly, you have summed up the drawbacks with Unis opening. With schools, children of parents with Covid can catch a very mid version of it, pass it on to other children, who in turn pass it on to their own parents. This is the drawback not with education itself but with the schools being open again.

If clothes are non-essential, perhaps we should all walk around naked until December 2, and use that as a justification/mitigation when brought before the magistrates!

In reality they mean non-essential for immediate purchase, but haven't the balls to say that because it opens a can of exemption worms. As was highlighted in the Wales lockdown with it's barriered off aisles and plastic shelf coverings. Absolutely ridiculous.

I may want a new pair of shoes simply because I like the style, but I need them if my current ones have holes in.

As for Tesco shoe choice, pretty poor to be honest. The kids range may be better. Kids can get through clothing quite quickly (in terms of wearing it out and out-growing them) so perhaps most people don't go over the top price and quality wise.

Ironically, the only "essential" clothing for the time being is masks or other face coverings.

 

[bramling]

What would be best for schools is half of pupils in one week and the other half the following week, and so on and so forth, education being online the week the child is absent. Plus children of key workers as per in the Spring. Meaning somewhere around 55-60% of pupils in at a given time. The children get at least basic education, staff don't have to be furloughed in the main, and there are significantly fewer people in one place at one time to infect others.

Even if we ignore the detrimental impact on education, there's a big flaw with that idea - namely that for many families their childcare arrangements are geared around knowing their children are at school during specific days and times. The moment you take the children out of school this causes a problem, so you're then causing a whole load more people to potentially be off work.

As a related aside, many "key workers" are mightily sick of the fact that they're at work and have been all year without ceremony, whilst being in the workplace seems to be such a problem for others.


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

What happened in Wales, with barriers across aisles selling what were supposed to be non essential items in large shops, got a lot of negative publicity. It all did seem a complete shambles.

Is the current situation in England any better or is it actually even worse and very unfair to small independent businesses on our high streets. The likes of Tesco, Sainsburys, Asda etc can be open and sell everything. Shops like Home Bargains and B & M, which often only have a couple of aisles of food can open and sell their whole range. Even pound shops, many of which sell very little food seem to be open. Yet the small independent family businesses have to close.

Is that actually much difference to having the barriers across the aisles in Wales. You can buy your homewear, clothes, shoes, electrical goods, toys and Christmas gifts in Tesco but the shutters are down at the small shop next door that may have served that community for 50+ years. Tesco, Sainsburys, Asda etc have driven enough small businesses off the high streets of our towns and now the government are helping them to do more of this during the crucial run up to Christmas.

Neither situation is satisfactory. It would simply have been better to allow all shops to remain open, perhaps excluding those places where there's a high incidence of unavoidable inter-personal contact, e.g. hairdressers.

All that's happened is they've crowded out those shops which have remained open, and seemingly gifted us a return to queues to get into the supermarket.

I'd be interested to know if there's any evidence either way as to what extent shops are considered to be a place where spread is likely. My local newspaper has a piece this week suggesting shops are the second highest-risk place after schools, however I find this rather suspect, not least because the gist of the article was that "X percentage of infected people said they'd been in a shop", which is kind of a statement of the obvious as most people visit shops regularly, but doesn't confirm that this is where they picked up Covid. Evidently with so many people in my area working from home the paper has decided to give public transport a break!

 

[DB]

Exactly, you have summed up the drawbacks with Unis opening. With schools, children of parents with Covid can catch a very mid version of it, pass it on to other children, who in turn pass it on to their own parents. This is the drawback not with education itself but with the schools being open again.

What's your exit strategy then? Closing the schools might slow the spread down a bit although even that isn't certain. Then what? Keep schools closed until there is an effective vaccine (which might be never)?

 

[bramling]

What's your exit strategy then? Closing the schools might slow the spread down a bit although even that isn't certain. Then what? Keep schools closed until there is an effective vaccine (which might be never)?

I definitely think the longer term risk of a generation of children with stifled development is on balance a bigger risk than Covid.

 

[35B]

Exactly, you have summed up the drawbacks with Unis opening. With schools, children of parents with Covid can catch a very mid version of it, pass it on to other children, who in turn pass it on to their own parents. This is the drawback not with education itself but with the schools being open again.

Children can, but the suggestion is that such cases are rare. As a parent, I regard that risk as well worth taking compared to the alternative of my children's education - which is not just the core syllabus - being limited as it was in the spring. As it is, the current lockdown measures stop all of their extra-curricular activities, inside and outside school.

As importantly, all the teachers I know feel a similar commitment to their pupils' education.

 

[Mojo]

Not sure if this is best here, or in the Supermarkets thread, but somehow missed this article from The Grocer yesterday

English supermarkets told to cordon off areas of non-essential goods

The Grocer understands the UK government has told retailers it will not go as far as the Welsh ban

www.thegrocer.co.uk

Hopefully this isn't true, but I do remember many shops last time closing off sections, albeit for a very short initial period.

It seems that there was some truth in this, someone posted on a local Facebook page that the local Tesco’s which has two floors has sealed off the upstairs section which has things like clothes & electronics. Meanwhile another branch that has everything on the ground floor has remained open entirely.