• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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.

kristiang85

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2018
Messages
2,745
It'll almost certainly just be holiday period disruption. The reports come out on about a 2 week delay to the week they cover - the subsequent weeks (11th and 18th) came out on Christmas day and New Years respectively so it's perhaps not surprising that they aren't complete. I'm expecting normal service to resume this week/week after as they work through it all

Yeah good point, let's see in a couple of weeks where it is at.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
8,298
It'll almost certainly just be holiday period disruption. The reports come out on about a 2 week delay to the week they cover - the subsequent weeks (11th and 18th) came out on Christmas day and New Years respectively so it's perhaps not surprising that they aren't complete. I'm expecting normal service to resume this week/week after as they work through it all
They advised in advance that there would be some longer gaps and delays for reports covering the Xmas/NY period partly to improve data quality a bit.
 

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
5,636
Here East in the Olympic Park was, ahem, rather popular for "takeaway" beers during the first two lockdowns. Same with The Crabtree round the back of Craven Cottage (who also managed to have their toilets open for punters as well). Sure there were shed loads more doing the same!
Very interesting, especially the almost perfect correlation seen in the "second wave".

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==



To be fair, there was a bit of an issue especially in the latter stages of the last lockdown where people were buying alcohol and simply gathering on the streets or in other nearby suitable places. Borough High Street was at one point littered with cans and smashed bottles.

I'm not sure this is so likely at this time of year though.
The Watermans Arms in Barnes was doing strong business in early November with the pavements rammed... until they served trading standards.

Having already got themselves in trouble before:

Same story in Bristol city centre on the harbourside too - so I can certainly understand why a catch all rule about it has been put in place.
Whilst I understand the points about businesses and customers who have behaved sensibly, it is much simplier to have a blanket policy than required local licensing officials and police deal with such issues. Though I am still sad - especially as it means I won't be able to get local beer or lovely cocktails from the bar around the corner from me!
 

Solent&Wessex

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2009
Messages
2,749
Same story in Bristol city centre on the harbourside too - so I can certainly understand why a catch all rule about it has been put in place.
Whilst I understand the points about businesses and customers who have behaved sensibly, it is much simplier to have a blanket policy than required local licensing officials and police deal with such issues. Though I am still sad - especially as it means I won't be able to get local beer or lovely cocktails from the bar around the corner from me!
The same logic applies to why pubs had to close in the first place.

It is probably the case that the pictures on TV of large groups of people all mingling in city centres, hugging, and wandering around drunk side by side, would be responsible for a good bit of virus spreading. The scenes of these large groups and the scenes inside and outside busy venues would make some think that all pubs were super spreaders.

So the pubs and restaurants were closed.

But of course this is a catch all policy which means that the small local pubs in the villages which never get anywhere near as busy and don't have marauding gangs of drunks queuing outside the doors or propping each other in the streets also get closed, as do small local restaurants which may only have a handful of tables. In reality these smaller local venues out away from city and town centres would never be a problem - many visitors are locals and regulars and perhaps of a more responsible disposition, or just walkers having a quick pint by the fire on the way home after coming down off the moors.

Very difficult, nigh on impossible, to make rules which allow some venues to open and some to close.
 

RuralRambler

Member
Joined
7 Aug 2020
Messages
152
Location
Brentford
But of course this is a catch all policy which means that the small local pubs in the villages which never get anywhere near as busy and don't have marauding gangs of drunks queuing outside the doors or propping each other in the streets also get closed

Back mid March when Boris was telling people to social distance and there was the threat of closing pubs, our village pub was heaving with loads of people having "one last night out" before the potential closure, so bad that they were blocking half the road outside drinking. The police had to come and tell the landlord to close it. That was our usually quiet village pub that had never seen anything like that kind of number of customers before.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
5,661
The same logic applies to why pubs had to close in the first place.

It is probably the case that the pictures on TV of large groups of people all mingling in city centres, hugging, and wandering around drunk side by side, would be responsible for a good bit of virus spreading. The scenes of these large groups and the scenes inside and outside busy venues would make some think that all pubs were super spreaders.

So the pubs and restaurants were closed.

But of course this is a catch all policy which means that the small local pubs in the villages which never get anywhere near as busy and don't have marauding gangs of drunks queuing outside the doors or propping each other in the streets also get closed, as do small local restaurants which may only have a handful of tables. In reality these smaller local venues out away from city and town centres would never be a problem - many visitors are locals and regulars and perhaps of a more responsible disposition, or just walkers having a quick pint by the fire on the way home after coming down off the moors.

Very difficult, nigh on impossible, to make rules which allow some venues to open and some to close.
And if what you are trying to do in a lockdown is to prevent people mixing? I think we’re forgetting the stated purpose of the current restrictions, where that kind of mixing is precisely what the policy is intended to avoid.
 

Richard Scott

Established Member
Associate Staff
International Transport
Railtours & Preservation
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
4,588
And if what you are trying to do in a lockdown is to prevent people mixing? I think we’re forgetting the stated purpose of the current restrictions, where that kind of mixing is precisely what the policy is intended to avoid.
Well it obviously hasn't worked very well as pubs been closed for a while in many parts and number of infections still on the rise.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
5,661
Well it obviously hasn't worked very well as pubs been closed for a while in many parts and number of infections still on the rise.
With respect, that is a different question. And if the science is moving towards a view that schools are important for the spread despite not having many cases, I’d be equally interested to see the role in the transmission chain of other places where people mix for sustained periods.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,214
With respect, that is a different question. And if the science is moving towards a view that schools are important for the spread despite not having many cases, I’d be equally interested to see the role in the transmission chain of other places where people mix for sustained periods.

There was an obvious dip in cases in November lockdown, even with schools remaining open throughout.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
5,661
There was an obvious dip in cases in November lockdown, even with schools remaining open throughout.
Indeed. Which begs a variety of questions about whether the dip could have been deeper had other things been done, and our understanding of the mechanisms of transmission.
 

Wychwood93

Member
Joined
25 Jan 2018
Messages
694
Location
Burton. Dorset.
Indeed. Which begs a variety of questions about whether the dip could have been deeper had other things been done, and our understanding of the mechanisms of transmission.
There was a fall in cases after the 16th November - having risen by ~3000 from the start of the lockdown - the fall lasted until the 5th December and the trend became upward again. My figures based on the 7 day rolling averages.
 

Carlisle

Established Member
Joined
26 Aug 2012
Messages
4,518
With respect, that is a different question.
How’s it a different question?, if a large proportion of the UK population who all endured the lengthy March lockdown, have now been banned from visiting their local pubs, clubs, bars & restaurants etc for an additional 2- 3 months already & for an indefinite future period, it’d be good to know if the science behind all that is actually extremely flimsy at best .
 
Last edited:

3141

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2012
Messages
2,136
Location
Whitchurch, Hampshire
How’s it a different question?, if a large proportion of the UK population who all endured the lengthy March lockdown, have now been banned from visiting their local pubs, clubs, bars & restaurants etc for an additional 2- 3 months already & for an indefinite future period, it’d be good to know if the science behind all this is actually extremely flimsy at best .
An important factor in addressing that question is people. Did they follow the rules or not? If everyone did, and still infections went up, you might conclude that the policy was not an effective way of achieving its objective. If a lot of people didn't follow the rules, in ways described in some of the posts further up this page, the answer may be that the policy was sound but the people weren't.
 

Richard Scott

Established Member
Associate Staff
International Transport
Railtours & Preservation
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
4,588
With respect, that is a different question. And if the science is moving towards a view that schools are important for the spread despite not having many cases, I’d be equally interested to see the role in the transmission chain of other places where people mix for sustained periods.
Been through the schools discussion, from my experience there is limited transmission in schools and, to be honest, we really shouldn't be too bothered if there was. Not really going to be an issue for a teenager and, realistically, nor for their parents. Before we start going on about older members of the family, that us up to them whether they want to see grandchildren or not.
 

3141

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2012
Messages
2,136
Location
Whitchurch, Hampshire
Been through the schools discussion, from my experience there is limited transmission in schools and, to be honest, we really shouldn't be too bothered if there was. Not really going to be an issue for a teenager and, realistically, nor for their parents. Before we start going on about older members of the family, that us up to them whether they want to see grandchildren or not.
What about the people who work at the school?
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,465
Location
Yorks
An important factor in addressing that question is people. Did they follow the rules or not? If everyone did, and still infections went up, you might conclude that the policy was not an effective way of achieving its objective. If a lot of people didn't follow the rules, in ways described in some of the posts further up this page, the answer may be that the policy was sound but the people weren't.

It's also about numbers.

If the majority of infections were taking place in settings where mixing was permitted, such as homes, care homes, work, shops, university, schools etc, tinkering with the take out beer in pubs is not going to achieve the objective, regardless of people following the rules.
 

initiation

Member
Joined
10 Nov 2014
Messages
432
An important factor in addressing that question is people. Did they follow the rules or not? If everyone did, and still infections went up, you might conclude that the policy was not an effective way of achieving its objective. If a lot of people didn't follow the rules, in ways described in some of the posts further up this page, the answer may be that the policy was sound but the people weren't.

That assumes the 'rules' actually reduce infections (e.g. 10pm curfee).

But assuming they do if people are not following the rules then why are the likes of influenza and norovirus cases through the floor? Or does covid-19 need a different type of social distancing to influenza or hand-washing to norovirus?

Secondly, as per the poster above, many places remain open. The number of positive test results let alone hospitalisations for those drinking in the street is going to pale in significance to those nosocomial or school derived cases.

Thirdly, if your policy relies on absolute 100% compliance and any less renders it utterly useless then the policy is flawed.
 

RomeoCharlie71

Established Member
Joined
18 Sep 2017
Messages
1,862
Location
Scotland
What about the people who work at the school?
There is evidence to suggest that primary school aged children do not transmit the virus as easily, and secondary-school teachers should be 2m from pupils at all times. It's up to them if they are not.
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
6,212
Is that 10% of people who have serious symptoms though? Or those hospitalised? I really can’t believe it’s 10% of people infected, that just isn’t plausible....
Feeling rubbish after being ill is nothing new. I once caught a stomach bug. I spent the best part of 36 hours being sick. I had no idea my stomach could hold so much liquid but even after there was nothing left to come out it kept trying. It felt like the life was draining out of me. After the vomiting stopped, it took over a week for my appetite to come back properly.
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
4,925
Are there any stats that show teachers have been affected to a greater degree?

I’ve seen an excerpt from a SAGE report which stated COVID prevalence amongst teachers is no higher than amongst other key workers.
However there are also recent news reports using figures from NASUWT for particular areas where the rates of infection amongst teachers is several times the local population.
 

farleigh

Member
Joined
1 Nov 2016
Messages
1,156
I’ve seen an excerpt from a SAGE report which stated COVID prevalence amongst teachers is no higher than amongst other key workers.
However there are also recent news reports using figures from NASUWT for particular areas where the rates of infection amongst teachers is several times the local population.
Sage or NASUWT?


AAAAAaaaaargh
 

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
5,636
But assuming they do if people are not following the rules then why are the likes of influenza and norovirus cases through the floor? Or does covid-19 need a different type of social distancing to influenza or hand-washing to norovirus?

In terms of flu at least, COVID is more easily transmitted than flu so the various measures thay have been in place would have been even more effective for flu. Plus uptake of the flu jab this winter has been higher than previous years.
 

3141

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2012
Messages
2,136
Location
Whitchurch, Hampshire
Are there any stats that show teachers have been affected to a greater degree?

That's not the point I was making. In post #404 Richard Scott said dismissively:

"Been through the schools discussion, from my experience there is limited transmission in schools and, to be honest, we really shouldn't be too bothered if there was. Not really going to be an issue for a teenager and, realistically, nor for their parents. Before we start going on about older members of the family, that us up to them whether they want to see grandchildren or not."

He was ignoring the people who work in schools, some of whom will be older and more likely to experience more serious symptom if they get the virus.

There is evidence to suggest that primary school aged children do not transmit the virus as easily, and secondary-school teachers should be 2m from pupils at all times. It's up to them if they are not.

How do you suppose they manage that? Classroom between 50 and 54 sq. m. 30 pupils plus teacher. Corridors. It isn't simply "up to them".
 

RomeoCharlie71

Established Member
Joined
18 Sep 2017
Messages
1,862
Location
Scotland
How do you suppose they manage that? Classroom between 50 and 54 sq. m. 30 pupils plus teacher. Corridors. It isn't simply "up to them".
The teacher teaches at the front of the class, the pupils are then sat in rows. I know classrooms in two of my local secondary schools have "safe zones" i.e. tape on the floor where the teacher is supposed to stand/sit and the kids aren't.

Teachers should avoid corridors at class changeover times... just like they normally did (or at least did when I was at school) because they are chaos covid or not!
 

3141

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2012
Messages
2,136
Location
Whitchurch, Hampshire
It's also about numbers.

If the majority of infections were taking place in settings where mixing was permitted, such as homes, care homes, work, shops, university, schools etc, tinkering with the take out beer in pubs is not going to achieve the objective, regardless of people following the rules.
I thought we were discussing whether closing pubs was effective in reducing the spread of infections, and not what you choose to call "tinkering" with take-out beer.
 

sjpowermac

Established Member
Joined
26 May 2018
Messages
2,079
Been through the schools discussion, from my experience there is limited transmission in schools and, to be honest, we really shouldn't be too bothered if there was. Not really going to be an issue for a teenager and, realistically, nor for their parents. Before we start going on about older members of the family, that us up to them whether they want to see grandchildren or not.
Errr, no such thing was proven, other than the fact that your local school has an invisible shield that repels any form of virus.
 

farleigh

Member
Joined
1 Nov 2016
Messages
1,156
I thought we were discussing whether closing pubs was effective in reducing the spread of infections, and not what you choose to call "tinkering" with take-out beer.
Pubs have been closed for some time.

Have infections gone down?
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
20,492
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
I’ve seen an excerpt from a SAGE report which stated COVID prevalence amongst teachers is no higher than amongst other key workers.
However there are also recent news reports using figures from NASUWT for particular areas where the rates of infection amongst teachers is several times the local population.

That’s chalk and cheese though, as key workers would be expected to be higher than someone who has walled themselves up indoors for months on end (which some people have, my neighbour has barely left the house).
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
78,637
Location
Yorkshire
What about the people who work at the school?
You are always going to get exposed to viruses when working at a school. If you have a compromised immune system and/or don't keep yourself healthy and fit, don't work in a school would be my advice. I must get exposed to many viruses and yet I don't get ill because I have built up immunity. I would be very surprised if I don't have immunity to one of the endemic Cornaviruses which confers good immunity against Sars-Cov-2. Unfortunately the current restrictions may make me ill as they affect my mental health, and the workload placed on me could also affect my stress levels. In summary, I am at increased risk due to the actions taken to limit the spread of the virus, NOT due to the circulation of the virus. Others may differ, but that's the situation with me.
Are there any stats that show teachers have been affected to a greater degree?
No

That's not the point I was making. In post #404 Richard Scott said dismissively:

"Been through the schools discussion, from my experience there is limited transmission in schools and, to be honest, we really shouldn't be too bothered if there was. Not really going to be an issue for a teenager and, realistically, nor for their parents. Before we start going on about older members of the family, that us up to them whether they want to see grandchildren or not."
What a good post you quoted.

He was ignoring the people who work in schools, some of whom will be older and more likely to experience more serious symptom if they get the virus
The reality is most school staff are relatively young, at least in my experience. I am aware of some staff who were deemed at increased risk and arranged to work from home.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top