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

[Alex C.]

I've reached that sad point where I look forward to my trip to the supermarket, as its something to do and is a decent walk (the one I go to anyway). It's about the only variation I get in my week now beyond my usual exercise walks.

If I have to queue again like last summer, but this time in the cold and rain, and am barked at by overzealous staff and herded by black and yellow tape, then even that becomes an activity to dread.

I often go to the supermarket at around 9-10pm when it's quieter and you're generally outnumbered by staff. Often the background music is a bit louder at that time (or seems to be) and it's the closest I've felt to being in a bar in well over a year - if I remember correctly even pubs were limiting how loud music was during the summer when they were open.

 

[typefish]

So what is the actual law with regards to exercise? I could happily walk 20 miles in a day, but would the police really take umbrage if they caught me 10 miles away from home on a round trip?

They may huff, puff and attempt to blow a FPN your way out of ignorance of the legislation but there's no limits on what distance may be travelled to perform exercise, or the distance you do whilst performing exercise.

This has been the case since... the first of these lockdowns?

I wonder if this is what Sir Bojo of the county of New York wishes to add in? Then again, I've been involved in researching the lockdown legislation since day one for an organisation I run and what has been muttered by government and the police* rarely matches up with legislation

* College of Policing has been a notable exception

 

[yorkie]

There is no legal limit on exercise; it's morally wrong for any authoritarian dimwit to attempt to impose one with their I'll judged guidance.

The sort of low life individuals who come up with such "limits" are unhealthy and lack intelligence; they should be ignored in my opinion.

I won't be restricted by unhealthy dim-witted authoritarians. They can stuff it.

 

[duncanp]

There is no legal limit on exercise; it's morally wrong for any authoritarian dimwit to attempt to impose one with their I'll judged guidance.

The sort of low life individuals who come up with such "limits" are unhealthy and lack intelligence; they should be ignored in my opinion.

I won't be restricted by unhealthy dim-witted authoritarians. They can stuff it.

What annoys me is that some people think you are breaking or bending the rules if you just go out for exercise, even if it is just to the nearest park once per day for one hour on your own.

You then get hysterical posts on social media saying STAY HOME, or something along the lines of "...I went for a walk in the park, and there were all these people there. Isn't is disgusting? No wonder the virus is spreading. TOTAL LOCKDOWN NOW!!!..."

Other people have just as much right to be in the park as you, and it is as much your responsibility to keep your distance from other people, as it is their responsibility to keep their distance from you.

 

[birchesgreen]

Other people have just as much right to be in the park as you, and it is as much your responsibility to keep your distance from other people, as it is their responsibility to keep their distance from you.

I expect a lot of these people vote yes for harder lockdowns, though what they mean is a harder lockdown for everyone else

 

[Bayum]

Amidst all the speculation about toughening up rules, the Telegraph's front page is speculating if they are tightened they'd be going for the following:

- Stopping exercise with one other person (i.e. has to be alone or within one's household/support bubble only, like in March)
- Masks in workplaces and possibly some outdoor settings like Supermarket queues, but no mention of blanket outdoor wearing (yet)
- Their primary focus at the moment though is to try and better enforce current rules, especially around workplaces and supermarkets potentially being rather lax about them.


View attachment 88468

I could probably just about manage with most of that, given I almost always cycle alone, work from home at the moment and masks when queuing for shops will either be only a short addition or already happening when in a shopping mall, although I accept there will be others who won't like this, especially those who still have to physically go to work.

Given as I've said earlier up thread that the latest ONS survey is suggesting infections are have just peaked in London and the South-East and among school ages, if we can hold off maybe another week for more data, combined with increasing numbers of vaccine immunity kicking in, I believe what's already in place will be enough. Anything they do introduce though from here also needs to go no later than when schools return, otherwise intolerance will accelerate.

DailyFail suggesting only allowed to leave the house once a week.

 

[Bantamzen]

What annoys me is that some people think you are breaking or bending the rules if you just go out for exercise, even if it is just to the nearest park once per day for one hour on your own.

You then get hysterical posts on social media saying STAY HOME, or something along the lines of "...I went for a walk in the park, and there were all these people there. Isn't is disgusting? No wonder the virus is spreading. TOTAL LOCKDOWN NOW!!!..."

Other people have just as much right to be in the park as you, and it is as much your responsibility to keep your distance from other people, as it is their responsibility to keep their distance from you.

I've a friend who lives on a country lane doing exactly this, lamenting the fact that people are walking down "their" road. They even went as far as to count them, citing x number over a number of hours which worked out at an average of about one person every 5 minutes! Better still later in the day they had posted pictures of themselves walking the dogs. I chose not to say anything to them as it would doubtless end in an argument, but this seems to be a theme that was a thing last April and has reared its ugly head again.

 

[duncanp]

DailyFail suggesting only allowed to leave the house once a week.

I thought it was January 11th today, not April 1st!

(Although come to think of it, I wonder how many lockdown related April fool headlines there will be in the papers on April 1st, which happens to be Good Friday. I can think of a few, such as "..All lockdown restrictions to be lifted from12 noon today.." or "New super mutant "frail loop" strain of the virus discovered last week. 200% more infectious. SAGE advise total lockdown until Christmas. Boris Johnson to make statement at 12 noon today")

How on earth would they monitor that, or decide who can leave the house when? Because they couldn't have everyone leaving the house on the same day, as the supermarkets would be so crowded it would be self defeating.

In reality, the sub headline in the Mail is "..Whitehall source said potential changes included introducing ban on people leaving their homes more than once a week.."

In reality, this is just a thinly disguised threat to try and scare people into complying with the existing rules.

If such a rule was introduced, I would predict mass non compliance and civil disobedience.

 

[kristiang85]

The leaving your house once a week rule sounds similar to what the Italians did in spring I think? I might be wrong though. But if so, it worked then for them because there was a genuine fear of an unknown virus.

It just wouldnt work now as it is absolutely disproportionate and totalitarian. Even in the darkest days of war in history such a dictat hasn't been implemented, and if it was tried here I fully expect people to completely ignore it.

 

[philosopher]

I thought it was January 11th today, not April 1st!

(Although come to think of it, I wonder how many lockdown related April fool headlines there will be in the papers on April 1st, which happens to be Good Friday. I can think of a few, such as "..All lockdown restrictions to be lifted from12 noon today.." or "New super mutant "frail loop" strain of the virus discovered last week. 200% more infectious. SAGE advise total lockdown until Christmas. Boris Johnson to make statement at 12 noon today")

How on earth would they monitor that, or decide who can leave the house when? Because they couldn't have everyone leaving the house on the same day, as the supermarkets would be so crowded it would be self defeating.

In reality, the sub headline in the Mail is "..Whitehall source said potential changes included introducing ban on people leaving their homes more than once a week.."

In reality, this is just a thinly disguised threat to try and scare people into complying with the existing rules.

If such a rule was introduced, I would predict mass non compliance and civil disobedience.

No doubt there will be a poll on YouGov within the next few days with a headline of something like “80% support a tougher lockdown“.

 

[kevin_roche]

I think some of the rules/guidance are self-defeating. I was planning to drive a short distance to walk for exercise in open countryside where it would have been very unlikely I would meet anyone. After the news of the two women being harassed by police I did my daily walk around the busy housing estate where I live instead.

 

[duncanp]

I think some of the rules/guidance are self-defeating. I was planning to drive a short distance to walk for exercise in open countryside where it would have been very unlikely I would meet anyone. After the news of the two women being harassed by police I did my daily walk around the busy housing estate where I live instead.

So you walked around a busy housing estate where you would have been much more likely to meet someone, rather than drive (on your own) into open countryside where there would be far fewer people.

Which of those two scenarios would make you more likely to be infected with the virus, or to inadvertently pass it on to someone else?

 

[Smidster]

While I was broadly in favour of what they did last week I think we need to be really careful about what else we do at this stage

I read the list of what might be coming and find it really concerning

By all means if there is clear and concrete evidence that it will help reduce the spread, by a material amount, then fine (and that is why, however regretful, mass gatherings in schools probably weren't viable) but some of what is being suggested will have no impact on anything other than punish people trying to do the right thing as well as broader impacts on health.

Let's take outdoor exercise - The risk is practically zero...you are in an open space on your own / with your household. What are we going to gain by criminalizing people like me who want to stay active?

It seems that we still don't have any idea what is causing transmission to continue - taking away what little freedom we have left really isn't going to do any good if we don't know that.

 

[kevin_roche]

The leaving your house once a week rule sounds similar to what the Italians did in spring I think? I might be wrong though. But if so, it worked then for them because there was a genuine fear of an unknown virus.

It just wouldnt work now as it is absolutely disproportionate and totalitarian. Even in the darkest days of war in history such a dictat hasn't been implemented, and if it was tried here I fully expect people to completely ignore it.

I think the Italians had to register online every time they left the house. Having just been through the process of filling out my self-assessment Tax return, I doubt that our government knows how to do that.

 

[HLE]

Transmission is still happening indoors. Be it in the home, workplace, hospital, supermarket or any other indoor setting. That is where the restrictions need to get tighter, if need be.

It really does show the lack of intelligence in Whitehall when 'sources' say they are considering limits on outdoor exercise. Sage have said for weeks they consider outdoor settings to be virtually zero in risk, even the CMO just said the same on the BBC just now.

About time these civil service clowns were brought to book, to account for their lack of action on where they are being told transmission is happening the most.

Bit like being told Golf carries little risk of transition .....okay let's shut the golf courses. What a bunch of clowns

 

[Mojo]

Transmission is still happening indoors. Be it in the home, workplace, hospital, supermarket or any other indoor setting. That is where the restrictions need to get tighter, if need be.

It really does show the lack of intelligence in Whitehall when 'sources' say they are considering limits on outdoor exercise. Sage have said for weeks they consider outdoor settings to be virtually zero in risk, even the CMO just said the same on the BBC just now

Public relations - extremists see others out and about and making the best of the awful situation - and then assume that those outside are doing something wrong - leading them to either think government hasn’t got any control or grip on the situation or that the people that aren’t hiding away at home are being selfish.

 

[hwl]

Transmission is still happening indoors. Be it in the home, workplace, hospital, supermarket or any other indoor setting. That is where the restrictions need to get tighter, if need be.

It really does show the lack of intelligence in Whitehall when 'sources' say they are considering limits on outdoor exercise. Sage have said for weeks they consider outdoor settings to be virtually zero in risk, even the CMO just said the same on the BBC just now.

About time these civil service clowns were brought to book, to account for their lack of action on where they are being told transmission is happening the most.

Bit like being told Golf carries little risk of transition .....okay let's shut the golf courses. What a bunch of clowns

It actually looks like they are suggesting better enforcement at supermarkets and indoor locations from this mornings comments.

Golf courses - the issue is presumably the club house and 19th hole? It also look elitist as they have restricted virtually all amateur sport.

 

[Mojo]

Golf courses - the issue is presumably the club house and 19th hole? It also look elitist as they have restricted virtually all amateur sport.

Although fishing is allowed under the exercise exemption.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm not massively convinced that Super Markets are a major source of infections.

Given that likelihood is a combination of proximity and duration, even when busy, one would rarely be in proximity with someone long enough to catch it.

Talking of settings, there used to be statistics published about settings where infection is more likely to have taken place. Where have all these gone ?

 

[HLE]

It actually looks like they are suggesting better enforcement at supermarkets and indoor locations from this mornings comments.

Golf courses - the issue is presumably the club house and 19th hole? It also look elitist as they have restricted virtually all amateur sport.

Golf - on that note both have been closed for months. In tier 4 we were restricted to 2 balls as per the current excersise regs.

But I understand to a degree why they're closed.

 

[Domh245]

Talking of settings, there used to be statistics published about settings where infection is more likely to have taken place. Where have all these gone ?

Presume you are talking about the Acute Respiratory Infection incidents that PHE do as part of their flu (& covid) surveillance. The reports are still there (pg21 onwards)

 

[yorksrob]

Presume you are talking about the Acute Respiratory Infection incidents that PHE do as part of their flu (& covid) surveillance. The reports are still there (pg21 onwards)

Cheers. Care homes still appear to be quite an issue at present.

 

[ChrisC]

Transmission is still happening indoors. Be it in the home, workplace, hospital, supermarket or any other indoor setting. That is where the restrictions need to get tighter, if need be.

It really does show the lack of intelligence in Whitehall when 'sources' say they are considering limits on outdoor exercise. Sage have said for weeks they consider outdoor settings to be virtually zero in risk, even the CMO just said the same on the BBC just now.

About time these civil service clowns were brought to book, to account for their lack of action on where they are being told transmission is happening the most.

Bit like being told Golf carries little risk of transition .....okay let's shut the golf courses. What a bunch of clowns.

I also think that the risk of spreading infection outdoors is very low especially if some degree of social distancing is taking place. For example you are are not going to catch the virus just by walking past someone for a few seconds on a public footpath. I don’t see any problem with going for a walk with someone from another household if you keep some distance and don’t hold hands or hug each other! Walking, fishing, golf, cycling and many other outdoor activities should all be encouraged as healthy activities both for our body and mental state during this pandemic. All far more healthy than locking yourself away indoors on your own.

Unfortunately a small minority of people are putting themselves in situations which is not helping those who are arguing the case that the transmission level outdoors is minimal. All those photographs in the news of crowds of football fans on Merseyside lining the streets and crowding around the Spurs team coach doesn’t help. Incidentally, I have not yet read anything about any plans stopping Professional football from taking place. Why do people have to flock to already busy places like the sea front for a walk rather than finding somewhere a little quieter? I went for a walk along footpaths over the the fields near my village on Saturday and hardly met anyone, yet when I returned home the centre of the village was crowded. The tables outside the village pub were full of people having picnics so it’s a good thing this wasn’t in neighbouring Derbyshire. When people crowd into busy places, although the risk of infection outdoors is still low, it gives the media and ultimately certain politicians excuses for wanting to impose even more over the top restrictions which could very well happen this week.

 

[brick60000]

A thought that’s just occurred to me whilst looking at the daily death graphs.

We are testing a LOT more people for coronavirus than we were in April. Surely, therefore, it is inevitable that
a) people were dying within 28 days of contracting covid in the first peak without us knowing anything about it, perhaps if something else and being asymptomatic - pushing the figures for this peak down
b) that the numbers would be expected to appear relatively higher this time around, now that we have (relatively) mass testing compared to the first peak.

Would this not suggest that the slightly higher death figures than the first peak are not reason to be massively concerned - at least not more so than the first peak?

This seems really obvious, so I’m wondering if I’ve missed something even more glaringly obvious. If there is, please enlighten me!

(by the way I’m not suggesting the NHS isn’t under more pressure this time, it clearly is - but again, probably to be expected given its winter?)

 

[roversfan2001]

A thought that’s just occurred to me whilst looking at the daily death graphs.

We are testing a LOT more people for coronavirus than we were in April. Surely, therefore, it is inevitable that
a) people were dying within 28 days of contracting covid in the first peak without us knowing anything about it, perhaps if something else and being asymptomatic - pushing the figures for this peak down
b) that the numbers would be expected to appear relatively higher this time around, now that we have (relatively) mass testing compared to the first peak.

Would this not suggest that the slightly higher death figures than the first peak are not reason to be massively concerned - at least not more so than the first peak?

This seems really obvious, so I’m wondering if I’ve missed something even more glaringly obvious. If there is, please enlighten me!

(by the way I’m not suggesting the NHS isn’t under more pressure this time, it clearly is - but again, probably to be expected given its winter?)

I've thought for a while that deaths for the first wave are understated (perhaps significantly, looking at excess deaths for that period), while deaths since September have been overstated thanks to the 28-day rule.

The NHS is under pressure every winter, this winter is no exception.

 

[Yew]

The leaving your house once a week rule sounds similar to what the Italians did in spring I think? I might be wrong though. But if so, it worked then for them because there was a genuine fear of an unknown virus.

It just wouldnt work now as it is absolutely disproportionate and totalitarian. Even in the darkest days of war in history such a dictat hasn't been implemented, and if it was tried here I fully expect people to completely ignore it.

I honestly believe that the current measures are the strictest that we've seen in history, including wartime.

 

[kevin_roche]

Cheers. Care homes still appear to be quite an issue at present.

As I understand it most care homes are still unvaccinated. The problems of keeping the first vaccine below -70C and delivering it in large packs mean that it was mostly used in hospitals.

 

[JamesT]

I've thought for a while that deaths for the first wave are understated (perhaps significantly, looking at excess deaths for that period), while deaths since September have been overstated thanks to the 28-day rule.

The NHS is under pressure every winter, this winter is no exception.

The 28 day rule was actually an improvement. Before that was brought in, a death at any time after a positive covid test would have counted as a covid death. (In England).

 

[RuralRambler]

I think some of the rules/guidance are self-defeating. I was planning to drive a short distance to walk for exercise in open countryside where it would have been very unlikely I would meet anyone. After the news of the two women being harassed by police I did my daily walk around the busy housing estate where I live instead.

I think you're missing the point there. The rules are designed to limit the spread of a deadly virus. Why would you deliberately do something you don't need to do, and risk catching/spreading the virus, when you could do something else and reduce such risks??

 

[roversfan2001]

The 28 day rule was actually an improvement. Before that was brought in, a death at any time after a positive covid test would have counted as a covid death. (In England).

Indeed, and the death count was revised downwards by ~5,000 (more than 10% at the time) when they changed it. However now testing has been ramped up, there will be a not-insignificant number people who died from another cause but happened to test positive in the 4 weeks before their death.

It's an absolute shambles that we're nearly a year into this crisis and the government still aren't reporting deaths correctly.

I think you're missing the point there. The rules are designed to limit the spread of a deadly virus. Why would you deliberately do something you don't need to do, and risk catching/spreading the virus, when you could do something else and reduce such risks??

I think you've completely missed his point that because the guidance is utterly bonkers (and certain members of the police force are enjoying their new found authority a little bit too much), he had to risk coming into contact with more people than otherwise because he didn't want to risk coming across an overzealous police officer instead.