New national restrictions in Scotland

[devon_metro]

So it seems we have the ridiculous dichotomy whereby residents in Level 1 & 2 Areas are free to travel abroad until the "regrading" on Boxing Day, but can't travel to the rest of the UK.

However you can transit through England and accidentally forget to join / miss your connection and legally remain for Christmas.

Did she drop a bollock by not regrading immediately or forget about the Foreign Travel eligibility of Tier 1 & 2 residents.

Seems enforcement is a bit half hearted with a few extra patrol cars in the borders and seemingly no intervention at Railway Stations and Airports.

Amazingly there has been no mention of this glaring anomaly in the media

Until boxing day I believe it is still legal for residents of Level 0-2 to travel to the rest of the UK (not sure about travel into Wales or tier 4 England), as they are permitted to leave their council areas. Foreign travel is not illegal for any tier, but going to the airport might be. Since it is reserved to Westminster it probably isn't going to change.

 

[island]

Until boxing day I believe it is still legal for residents of Level 0-2 to travel to the rest of the UK (not sure about travel into Wales or tier 4 England), as they are permitted to leave their council areas

Your belief is mistaken. A person who lives in any part of Scotland must not, without reasonable excuse, leave Scotland for the purpose of entering or remaining in any other part of the UK, Jersey, or Co. Donegal in the ROI. They may travel through such a place to reach another destination. (Schedule 7A to the Health Protection Coronavirus Restrictions and Requirements Local Levels Scotland Regulations 2020 refers.)

As I have said previously, the enforceability of this is quite another matter.

 

[devon_metro]

Your belief is mistaken. A person who lives in any part of Scotland must not, without reasonable excuse, leave Scotland for the purpose of entering or remaining in any other part of the UK, Jersey, or Co. Donegal in the ROI. They may travel through such a place to reach another destination. (Schedule 7A to the Health Protection Coronavirus Restrictions and Requirements Local Levels Scotland Regulations 2020 refers.)

As I have said previously, the enforceability of this is quite another matter.

I stand corrected! I'd love somebody to challenge it in court. I'm all in support of local travel restrictions if it means we can be released from the seemingly endless lockdown, but to specifically ban travel to the rUK is just classic Scottish Government.

 

[Wynd]

The way to reduce the prevalence of the virus above all else would be to impose really harsh restrictions really early on, and to not lift them. They could only be lifted if all movement was prevented into the relevant area, with exceptions only for people tested & quarantined. Otherwise, as soon as restrictions are lifted, cases would rise. You'd have had to have locked down around 10 months ago and continue to be locked down for several more months yet. This would have caused fr more anxiety, depression and loneliness.


But you'd need to keep them in place; it's not as simple as adding restrictions then the issue goes away. It does not work like that.


The restrictions are not designed to 'get us out of this' and will not eliminate the virus; instead the restrictions are (rightly or wrongly, I'm not getting into that on this post) intended to reduce pressure on the NHS


The rules are definitely not designed for the greater good of everyone; they favour certain groups over others. That is surely not in question; the question is surely whether or not the right issues are prioritised, which of course is not an easy debate to have.

If your aim is to have very low levels of the virus, this means very aggressive restrictions for a very long time, and not lift them. As soon as you lift them, cases will grow again (except in the Summer of course, but that's a very long way away right now!); how long do you think people would accept being in a state of aggressive restrictions for? I think you'd need to have harsh restrictions until the end of April if you wanted to ensure the virus remained at very low levels. From 1st May onwards you may still see a rise when they are lifted, but by then enough elderly people should be vaccinated that it won't matter if cases rise. But could you really lock people down aggressively until the end of April? How much would that cost? Such an act would put young lives in danger.

Im well aware of how this works. Pressure on the NHS and reduce fatalities.


The countries with the harshest restrictions have performed best. Its a plain fact.

I agree, its not even remotely fair and some groups are advantaged over others. Striking a balance is very very difficult, and its debatable weather one has been struck yet at all, but this idea that we need to just get on with our lives devoid of restrictions is ignoring reality.

Ignoring lockdowns and continuing life as normal is entirely unconscionable given the risk to life that this virus poses and is a dubious message to send. I really do not think that view is appropriate to promote.

EDIT. Moderator editing my post for having the temerity to question the promotion by said moderator of a view that undermines public health. Right. Who was it calling me authoritarian here?

 

[Stathern Jc]

Just thought I'd catch up with what has been an intersting thread.

Amazed to see such a plethora of comments since yesterday evening. But very disappointed to find much of it not being as informative or constructive as I would wish to read.
Looking at the time of much of the traffic I wonder if some of the content was driven by "a couple of extra sundowners"?

Here's hoping a new day will see a return to a rational and constructive discussion.

 

[DB]

The countries with the harshest restrictions have performed best. Its a plain fact.

Err, no it's not!

If you look at mainland European countries, some of the worst hit in terms of numbers are also those with the most draconian restrictions - e.g. Italy, Spain, France.

Same with the USA - there is no correlation between states regarding the numbers of cases and the restrictions in place.

 

[devon_metro]

The countries with the harshest restrictions have performed best. Its a plain fact.

Not necessarily. Scotland has been under harsher restrictions than England for many months and has lower case numbers. Yet the death rate (the only metric that really matters) was at times higher per head of population - at least for the "second wave" (data for 16 Oct - 20 Nov) During this time period, Scotland had a lower recorded rate of infections. It is too simplistic to say harsher restrictions = best.

Oh and whilst it may be commedable that Scotland has lower case numbers, has it brought us any greater freedoms? What is the goal of the government in getting numbers low, but still not allowing restrictions to be lifted? Why implement a system of levels by area if you then ignore the published thresholds (Edinburgh was at Level 1/2 criteria for weeks)?

 

[Scotrail12]

Harsh restrictions worked well in Spain, didn't they? Didn't they basically ban children from being outside of their house for around 2 months? (which is such disgusting authoritarianism).

It's beyond me if anyone actually thinks that COVID is the only issue we have to focus on but to each his own I guess.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Dec 2020 ==

There seemed to be a really high number of police at Central Station today. Wandering slowly around the platform though didn't engage with anyone. Wonder why they were there?

 

[Butts]

Your belief is mistaken. A person who lives in any part of Scotland must not, without reasonable excuse, leave Scotland for the purpose of entering or remaining in any other part of the UK, Jersey, or Co. Donegal in the ROI. They may travel through such a place to reach another destination. (Schedule 7A to the Health Protection Coronavirus Restrictions and Requirements Local Levels Scotland Regulations 2020 refers.)

As I have said previously, the enforceability of this is quite another matter.

However the same legislation permits travel abroad from people in level 0-2 Areas and also to the rest of the ROI Guernsey and the IOM.

The important point is this only applies to people living in 0-2 not 3 and 4.

Are you contending it would be illegal to enter England from a level 0-2 area in order to transit to a permitted destination abroad ?

 

[Freightmaster]

I'm well aware of how this works. Pressure on the NHS and reduce fatalities.

...but surely you can see that only sustainable way to achieve that goal is to get the public 'on side' by convincing them
that any new/increased restrictions will not only make a tangible difference to hospitalisations/deaths, but more importantly,
will hasten the eventual loosening of restrictions - i.e. use a carrot rather bashing the public with the lockdown stick!

The countries with the harshest restrictions have performed best. Its a plain fact.

Even if that statement was universally true (which I don't believe it is, as per previous replies),
there is an inverse relationship between the 'harshness' of restrictions and the length of time that
people will tolerate them and furthermore, as soon as you release such restrictions (or the public
get sick of them, whichever comes first!), the virus immediately starts spreading like wildfire again.

I agree, its not even remotely fair and some groups are advantaged over others. Striking a balance is very very difficult, and its debatable weather one has been struck yet at all, but this idea that we need to just get on with our lives devoid of restrictions is ignoring reality.

With all due respect, your idea that Scotland could have 'done a New Zealand' and eradicated the virus
entirely back in the summer if it hadn't been for those pesky virus-riden English pouring over the border
on holiday is also "ignoring reality", I'm sorry to say...

Ignoring lockdowns and continuing life as normal is entirely unconscionable given the risk to life that this virus poses and is a dubious message to send. I really do not think that view is appropriate to promote.

This is one the few (in fact, probably the only) UK hobby forums which the allows the 'anti lockdown' side
of the argument to be heard without drowning it out with ridicule and virtue signalling, which is why there
are so many of us on here - it's more of a safe haven than an echo chamber!

MARK

 

[island]

However the same legislation permits travel abroad from people in level 0-2 Areas and also to the rest of the ROI Guernsey and the IOM.

The important point is this only applies to people living in 0-2 not 3 and 4.

Are you contending it would be illegal to enter England from a level 0-2 area in order to transit to a permitted destination abroad ?

I refer you to my post #182, which you quoted, and which contains the answer to your question.

 

[oldman]

With all due respect, your idea that Scotland could have 'done a New Zealand' and eradicated the virus
entirely back in the summer if it hadn't been for those pesky virus-riden English pouring over the border
on holiday is also "ignoring reality", I'm sorry to say...

In the summer, infection and hospitalization rates were getting very low and Sturgeon was definitely talking about 'eliminating' the virus (not eradicating). I have no doubt she did want to do an Ardern.

Scotland has always had lower rates of infection and I suspect her dream is still of being able to announce it's over before any other part of Britain. Hence the draconian policies.

 

[yorkie]

Harsh restrictions worked well in Spain, didn't they? Didn't they basically ban children from being outside of their house for around 2 months? (which is such disgusting authoritarianism).

Yes they did and it achieved nothing positive; it must have been harmful for the children involved. I'd describe it as a human rights abuse on a massive scale.

It's beyond me if anyone actually thinks that COVID is the only issue we have to focus on but to each his own I guess.

Agreed

 

[PG]

Nicola Sturgeon communicates far better than Boris Johnson,

Indeed and that is a key quality for a leader. One wonders if things would have developed differently if we'd had someone with more limited communication abilities?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 22 Dec 2020 ==

There seemed to be a really high number of police at Central Station today. Wandering slowly around the platform though didn't engage with anyone. Wonder why they were there?

I assume the question is rhetorical as I'd assume it was to get broadcast by the media so as to influence peoples travel plans.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

Covid in Scotland: Scottish level four rules 'may be strengthened'

Nicola Sturgeon warns that the current top level of restrictions may need to be tightened further.

www.bbc.co.uk

The top level of Covid-19 restrictions in Scotland may need to be strengthened further to contain the new strain of the virus, Nicola Sturgeon has warned.

The whole Scottish mainland is to move into level four from Boxing Day due to concerns about the new Covid variant.

The first minister said this was "essential" to protect the NHS and contain the faster-spreading virus.

And she said consideration must be given to whether the current level four rules were sufficient to do the job.

The government is to narrow the definition of "essential retail" - forcing hardware shops and garden centres to close - while guidance urging people to stay at home as much as possible may be put down in law.

(my bold)

I can see this three weeks lasting quite substantially longer than three weeks somehow! Feels like we're back at square one now.

 

[AlistairCowell]

Sturgeon also announced garden centres and hardware stores are to be classed as "non-essential" and will also have to shut.
Looks like we're going back to square one from boxing day.

We could be heading for another "23rd March 2020" but on a different day and another few months of pain.

 

[Journeyman]

Although I've voiced general support for restrictions in the light of my own COVID experience, this is now going far too far.

 

[Scotrail12]

Although I've voiced general support for restrictions in the light of my own COVID experience, this is now going far too far.

Agree - this one is going too far and it's beginning to worry me. If takeaways close and we can only use supermarkets, then I think I'll be at official breaking point (I can't eat off oven food for months). I really don't know how much further Sturgeon can realistically go with the restrictions yet she keeps saying there is a likelihood that she will.

If she keeps a single restriction once a good chunk have been vaccinated, then the power has gone to her head big time.

 

[kez19]

Agree - this one is going too far and it's beginning to worry me. If takeaways close and we can only use supermarkets, then I think I'll be at official breaking point (I can't eat off oven food for months). I really don't know how much further Sturgeon can realistically go with the restrictions yet she keeps saying there is a likelihood that she will.

If she keeps a single restriction once a good chunk have been vaccinated, then the power has gone to her head big time.

I didn’t realise it’s spreads in takeaways as back in March they were open but I think it is maybe pushing it too.

Why she can’t keep things open including garden centres beats me but oh well...

 

[Scotrail12]

I didn’t realise it’s spreads in takeaways as back in March they were open but I think it is maybe pushing it too.

Why she can’t keep things open including garden centres beats me but oh well...

There isn't any info on whether or not takeaways can remain open, just speculating on what further restrictions she may introduce. No idea why she can't keep garden centres open either. Again, more companies going out of business and people being out of jobs.

 

[PG]

Sturgeon also announced garden centres and hardware stores are to be classed as "non-essential" and will also have to shut.

The lockdown bandits will be able to add diy items to their list of things to flog at exorbitant prices! Fifty quid for a tin of paint anyone

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

Wouldn't be surprised if the 6 from 2 outdoors rule gets dropped too. That wasn't allowed in March/April but is (currently) permitted in the level 4 restrictions.

 

[Darandio]

There isn't any info on whether or not takeaways can remain open, just speculating on what further restrictions she may introduce. No idea why she can't keep garden centres open either. Again, more companies going out of business and people being out of jobs.

I was about to ask about takeaways, thanks for confirming it actually hasn't been stated as a real possibility.

If they tried that down here then there will be a new Gunpowder Plot and i'm organising it.

 

[DustyBin]

The countries with the harshest restrictions have performed best. Its a plain fact.

You make the assertion that it's a "plain fact" and yet the evidence doesn't support this....

 

[PG]

If they tried that down here then there will be a new Gunpowder Plot and i'm organising it.

TBH the way things are going down there someone may well try to emulate the good Mr Fawkes regardless!

 

[kez19]

There isn't any info on whether or not takeaways can remain open, just speculating on what further restrictions she may introduce. No idea why she can't keep garden centres open either. Again, more companies going out of business and people being out of jobs.

I agree speculation seen it on some media sites

The irony encourage go outdoors but can’t go to garden centre ... okey dokey...


I wonder if that’s a new aim (be on both governments) knock so much out of hospitality ie pubs/clubs/hotels... next target takeaways? I rather be wrong in any case but seems to be a pattern going if that was to be true.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

The BBC link I posted above (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-55414617) has been updated, with hints that the general public may be put under stricter restrictions to facilitate the full-time return of schools.

Scottish Conservative group leader Ruth Davidson said "most people understand" the need for tighter curbs, but said "in return they are demanding as much clarity from government as conceivably possible".

She said people were tired of "supposedly time-limited firebreaks stretching into months", asking whether parents should start "preparing now for a long haul of blended learning at home".

Ms Sturgeon hinted that tighter measures might be introduced in a bid to see schools open again full time, saying that "continues to be a priority" for the government.

She said the intention was to reopen schools fully on 18 January "if it is at all possible", adding: "If that means the rest of us living under more severe restrictions we will not shy away from that."

Whilst I am overwhelmingly supportive of education being as near to normal as possible, I am not going to tolerate the public being used a scapegoat when schools are a breeding ground for infections. It is ludicrous to think that the general population will be succumbed to strict restrictions whilst school children can roam free without physical distancing, socialise with friends, etc.

There was also this quote...

Lib Dem leader Willie Rennie voiced concerns about NHS boards cancelling "ever greater numbers" of non-urgent procedures, with the first minister saying the return of elective treatment relied on suppressing the virus as far as possible.

...which implies that elective treatment is stopped during level 4 restrictions? I didn't think that was the case.

 

[bramling]

There isn't any info on whether or not takeaways can remain open, just speculating on what further restrictions she may introduce. No idea why she can't keep garden centres open either. Again, more companies going out of business and people being out of jobs.

And, of course, more people crowding into the remaining open places.

The politicians need to get into their heads that people are no longer prepared to sit at home looking at four walls like they were last March. They are going to go out, and there aren’t enough police resources to stop them even if they wanted to.

The focus therefore needs to be to keep as much open as possible, which has the added benefit of keeping as many businesses going as possible.

We’re very much into cure being worse than disease territory.

 

[Richard Scott]

If she keeps a single restriction once a good chunk have been vaccinated, then the power has gone to her head big time.

I'm convinced she's enjoying the power and have said that for a while. She now can make decisions that affect the population of Scotland in an instant under the heading that she's protecting them. She speaks like she's a complete authority on everything virus and knows all there is to know.
Don't trust her one bit, but then not trusting any of the politicians at the moment.

 

[bramling]

The BBC link I posted above (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-55414617) has been updated, with hints that the general public may be put under stricter restrictions to facilitate the full-time return of schools.



Whilst I am overwhelmingly supportive of education being as near to normal as possible, I am not going to tolerate the public being used a scapegoat when schools are a breeding ground for infections. It is ludicrous to think that the general population will be succumbed to strict restrictions whilst school children can roam free without physical distancing, socialise with friends, etc.

There was also this quote...

...which implies that elective treatment is stopped during level 4 restrictions? I didn't think that was the case.

The trouble is that even if a decision were taken to close schools, this then introduces the massive logistical problem that all of a sudden half the working population have childcare problems and then can’t attend work.

We also need to be extremely mindful of a generation of children growing up with their development stifled by all this. Last year’s fiasco over exams was bad enough.