Remaining Effects of Covid

[adc82140]

I was in a shop earlier that had social distancing posters on the wall held up with zip ties. Obviously nothing was being enforced or anything, they are just left over. But how long would it take to snip these off? A big case of "not my job" I think.

 

[westv]

We have all entered a time machine!

Tour de France anti-COVID protocol to keep riders in hotels

Tour de France organisers have set up an anti-COVID protocol for this year's race, with riders and team staff banned from signing autographs and eating out of their hotels, a source with direct knowledge of the matter told Reuters on Saturday.

www.reuters.com

PARIS, June 3 (Reuters) - Tour de France organisers have set up an anti-COVID protocol for this year's race, with riders and team staff banned from signing autographs and eating out of their hotels, a source with direct knowledge of the matter told Reuters on Saturday.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We have all entered a time machine!

Tour de France anti-COVID protocol to keep riders in hotels

Tour de France organisers have set up an anti-COVID protocol for this year's race, with riders and team staff banned from signing autographs and eating out of their hotels, a source with direct knowledge of the matter told Reuters on Saturday.

www.reuters.com

To be fair while the threat posed by COVID does seem to be fading into the background it is still there, and if you're cycle racing you're not going to be at your best even if you've got a minor case of the sniffles, let alone something a bit more like flu, so given the money that rides (!) on this race I could see the sense of that even without COVID!

Though it could be left up to the riders. If you want to win you don't want to be ill, so there doesn't seem much need for rules on it.

 

[duncanp]

Meanwhile, here is an article from The Telegraph saying that the "..benefits.." of lockdown were minimal (in terms of lives saved) compared to the costs. (which we will be paying off for years to come.)

Would any of Susan Michie, Devi Sridhar, Fake SAGE and all the other locktivist bores care to comment?

I think there is more chance of hearing flatulence from a fly than any of the above admit that they were wrong.

I note the sentence below towards the end of the article

Prof Pantsdown Ferguson did not respond to the points made in the study.

Lockdown benefits ‘a drop in the bucket compared to the costs’, landmark study finds

Researchers say draconian measures taken in spring 2020 had 'negligible impact' on Covid mortality compared with lighter-touch countries

www.telegraph.co.uk

Lockdown benefits ‘a drop in the bucket compared to the costs’, landmark study finds​

Researchers say draconian measures taken in spring 2020 had 'negligible impact' on Covid mortality compared with lighter-touch countries

Lockdown saved as few as 1,700 lives in England and Wales in spring 2020, according to a landmark study which concludes the benefits of the policy were “a drop in the bucket compared to the staggering collateral costs” imposed.

Scientists from Johns Hopkins University and Lund University examined almost 20,000 studies on measures taken to protect populations against Covid across the world.

Their findings suggest that lockdowns in response to the first wave of the pandemic, when compared with less strict policies adopted by the likes of Sweden, prevented as few as 1,700 deaths in England and Wales. In an average week there are around 11,000 deaths in England and Wales.

The report authors said their findings showed that the draconian measures had a “negligible impact” on Covid mortality and were a “policy failure of gigantic proportions”.

Johns Hopkins is one of the most respected medical schools in the world and became known during the pandemic for its Covid dashboard measuring cases and deaths all over the world.

The study’s authors conclude: “The science of lockdowns is clear; the data are in: the deaths saved were a drop in the bucket compared to the staggering collateral costs imposed.”

The detrimental impact of lockdown on children’s health and education, on economic growth and its contribution to large increases in public debt has become increasingly clear since the policy was introduced.

However, The Telegraph recently revealed that a secretive government unit worked with social media companies during the pandemic in an attempt to curtail criticism of controversial lockdown policies.

The Covid Disinformation Unit monitored social media and asked tech companies to remove posts it considered to be “potentially harmful content”.

Britain’s first lockdown, in March 2020, was introduced on the basis of modelling exercises from Prof Neil Ferguson which had predicted there could be more than 500,000 deaths in the UK, without action to stop the spread of the virus.

His research had suggested that even with mitigations such as social distancing, and household quarantines for Covid cases, there could be at least 250,000 deaths, unless further measures were taken.

The new study on the impact of lockdowns is published in a report by the Institute of Economic Affairs out on Monday.

Across Europe, countries which embarked on lockdowns saw 6,000 fewer deaths than if they had embarked on a less draconian approach, while the US could have seen 4,000 fewer deaths, they conclude.

By contrast, modelling by Prof Ferguson and his colleagues from Imperial College London in March 2020 had predicted that, without action, the UK could see 510,000 deaths from Covid, with 2.2 million in the United States.

After lockdown was imposed, the scientist suggested that “intense social distancing and other interventions now in place” could reduce that figure to 20,000 in the UK.

The Covid Inquiry is set to examine the Government’s decision making during the pandemic but it has already been the subject of significant criticism relating to its speed, scope and transparency.

Researchers for the Johns Hopkins study said the findings showed that lockdowns had been “a global policy failure of gigantic proportions”.

Lockdowns ‘a failed promise’​

Co-author Dr Lars Jonung, professor emeritus at the Knut Wicksell Centre for Financial Studies at Sweden’s Lund University, said the study was the first to fully evaluate the impact of mandatory restrictions.

He said: “It demonstrates that lockdowns were a failed promise. They had negligible health effects but disastrous economic, social and political costs to society. Most likely lockdowns represent the biggest policy mistake in modern times.”

Prof Steve H. Hanke, co-author and professor of applied economics and co-director of the Institute for Applied Economics, Global Health, and the Study of Business Enterprise at Johns Hopkins University: said: “When it comes to Covid, epidemiological models have many things in common: dubious assumptions, hair-raising predictions of disaster that miss the mark, and few lessons learned.”

The researchers examined 19,646 potentially relevant studies, selecting 22 with standardised measures for meta analysis.

They used two approaches to examine the impact of lockdown.

The first, described as “stringency index studies”, examined the difference between harsher lockdowns and more voluntary measures.

This found the difference in mortality amounted to just 3.2 per cent – or 1,700 deaths in England and Wales – compared with countries such as Sweden which relied more on voluntary social changes.

Even when a broader definition of lockdown was used – combining the impact of specific interventions, to allow for the fact countries embarked on different measures – the estimates suggest that it only reduced Covid deaths by 10.7 per cent.

This amounts to 6,000 deaths in England and Wales, 23,000 deaths in Europe and 16,000 deaths in the United States during the first wave. Over this period there were 74,000 Covid deaths in England and Wales.

Some measures linked to increase in deaths​

While business closures were associated with a 7.5 per cent fall in Covid mortality, gathering limits – such as “the rule of six” – were linked to an increase in Covid death rates of 5.9 per cent.

Other interventions, such as the use of face coverings, which were not pushed in Britain until the end of the first wave, were found to be “relatively effective” where they were used, cutting deaths by 18.7 per cent.

Researchers said more research was needed – including to examine the impact of masks on welfare – to answer the question of whether mask mandates were a desirable policy.

The report’s authors said their estimate of 1,700 deaths prevented by the first lockdown was far less than those of a typical flu season, which has between 18,500 and 24,800 deaths.

Jonas Herby, co-author of the study and special adviser at the Centre for Political Studies (CEPOS), an independent classical liberal think tank based in Copenhagen, Denmark, said: “Numerous misleading studies, driven by subjective models and overlooking significant factors like voluntary behaviour changes, heavily influenced the initial perception of lockdowns as highly effective measures.

“Our meta-analysis suggests that when researchers account for additional variables, such as voluntary behaviour, the impact of lockdowns becomes negligible.”

Swedish model suggests voluntary change​

Researchers said studies showed that voluntary behavioural change was more important than mandatory restrictions in combating Covid.

While Sweden had few compulsory restrictions, changes in consumer activity showed that older people stayed away from shops and restaurants at times as infections spread.

Prof Ferguson did not respond to the points made in the study.

In response to an earlier version of the paper, which did not include UK data, he said: “Disentangling the precise impact of individual NPIs [non pharmaceutical interventions] remains extremely challenging, not least because the most socially and economically disruptive measures (closing all non-essential businesses, stay at home orders) were generally used in combination and as last resorts on top of longer-term measures such as mask wearing.

“Analysis has been further complicated by the accumulation of immunity (from infection and vaccination) in populations together with the emergence of new Covid-19 variants. Distinguishing the relative effectiveness of mandates versus government recommendations – while clearly of political interest – is even more challenging, given the large between- (and even within-) country differences in population responses to both types of measures.”

A government spokesman said: “We are committed to learning from the Covid Inquiry’s findings, which will play a key role in informing the Government’s planning and preparations for the future.”

 

[dangie]

We have all entered a time machine!

Tour de France anti-COVID protocol to keep riders in hotels

Tour de France organisers have set up an anti-COVID protocol for this year's race, with riders and team staff banned from signing autographs and eating out of their hotels, a source with direct knowledge of the matter told Reuters on Saturday.

www.reuters.com

At least 16 riders had to leave last months Giro d’Italia cycle race with Covid. The race favourite Remco Evenpoel was one of them.

 

[MikeWM]

At least 16 riders had to leave last months Giro d’Italia cycle race with Covid. The race favourite Remco Evenpoel was one of them.

'Had to' because they were ill and so couldn't physically compete, or 'had to' because of testing protocol even though they were otherwise fine? All I can see is that on the day he got a positive test, Evenpoel came first in a time trial, and then said he had a blocked nose. Oh the humanity!

--

Meanwhile, here is an article from The Telegraph saying that the "..benefits.." of lockdown were minimal (in terms of lives saved) compared to the costs. (which we will be paying off for years to come.)

Thanks for posting this, I was about to It would be nice if we could now all agree *at the very least* that lockdown was a total disaster and we'll never do it again.

 

[duncanp]

Thanks for posting this, I was about to It would be nice if we could now all agree *at the very least* that lockdown was a total disaster and we'll never do it again.

I wouldn't hold your breath.

The World Health Organisation wants to agree an international treaty whereby it gives itself the power to impose a lockdown or other restrictions on all countries which are signatories to the treaty.

 

[MikeWM]

I wouldn't hold your breath.

The World Health Organisation wants to agree an international treaty whereby it gives itself the power to impose a lockdown or other restrictions on all countries which are signatories to the treaty.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I am aware of such. Of course - as on all important issues - all the major UK parties are in total agreement on enthusiastically signing us up to such a treaty. The ballot box is no longer a way of effecting change, it seems.

 

[Mag_seven]

We have all entered a time machine!

Tour de France anti-COVID protocol to keep riders in hotels

Tour de France organisers have set up an anti-COVID protocol for this year's race, with riders and team staff banned from signing autographs and eating out of their hotels, a source with direct knowledge of the matter told Reuters on Saturday.

www.reuters.com

Were there Protocols for other endemic respiratory viruses in previous years?

 

[duncanp]

Perhaps unsurprisingly, I am aware of such. Of course - as on all important issues - all the major UK parties are in total agreement on enthusiastically signing us up to such a treaty. The ballot box is no longer a way of effecting change, it seems.

If there was another lockdown, or even lesser restrictions such as social nuisancing or compulsory face nappies on the bus, I think a lot of people would stick two figures up at the government and tell them to <insert expletive of your choice> off.

Whilst Labour were/are in favour of more restrictions, I think even they would be aware of the effect of such restrictions on the economy, the NHS and the public finances.

So if there is another pandemic, or even just a bad flu season next winter, the most that we can expect is light touch restrictions as happened in Sweden, or general advice to stay at home if you have any symptoms (ie. what we used to call, er, "...common sense...")

 

[MikeWM]

If there was another lockdown, or even lesser restrictions such as social nuisancing or compulsory face nappies on the bus, I think a lot of people would stick two figures up at the government and tell them to <insert expletive of your choice> off.

Whilst Labour were/are in favour of more restrictions, I think even they would be aware of the effect of such restrictions on the economy, the NHS and the public finances.

So if there is another pandemic, or even just a bad flu season next winter, the most that we can expect is light touch restrictions as happened in Sweden, or general advice to stay at home if you have any symptoms (ie. what we used to call, er, "...common sense...")

I'd agree that a lot of people would resist, but whether that would be a critical mass, I'm not sure. Hopefully we won't need to find out.

I'd also argue that digital ID/cashless society etc. will soon leave us in a position where enforcement by the authorities would be a lot easier than what we faced in 2020-2021, however reluctant the population may be to do it all again - but by this point I think people have either worked that out and are deeply concerned about it, or for whatever reason haven't worked it out or don't care, so I don't expect pointing this out again will help much.

 

[yorkie]

We have all entered a time machine!

Tour de France anti-COVID protocol to keep riders in hotels

Tour de France organisers have set up an anti-COVID protocol for this year's race, with riders and team staff banned from signing autographs and eating out of their hotels, a source with direct knowledge of the matter told Reuters on Saturday.

www.reuters.com

Wow; this is insane. This demonstrates we need to be vigilant against those who seek to impose masks; they must be opposed every step of the way. That said, I am confident nothing like this would happen in the UK.

To be fair while the threat posed by COVID does seem to be fading into the background it is still there...

Sars-Cov-2 is now the 5th endemic HCoV; it will always be here, along with hundreds of other commonly circulating respiatory viruses. Everyone has been exposed and everyone will continue to be exposed, many times, throughout our lives.

and if you're cycle racing you're not going to be at your best even if you've got a minor case of the sniffles, let alone something a bit more like flu, so given the money that rides (!) on this race I could see the sense of that even without COVID!

It isn't possible to eliminate exposure to commonly circulating viruses; in order to do that for (say) a week before an event, you'd have to isolate yourself and remain alone, and not go near anyone else, not even friends or family. While the wearing of an FFP2/3 mask may avoid exposure at that moment, you'd have to take it off, and each time such masks are handled the risk of exposure increases. It's just absurd.

Though it could be left up to the riders. If you want to win you don't want to be ill, so there doesn't seem much need for rules on it.

Indeed there should absolutely be no "rules" on this; it's absurd. We need to call this nonsense out and not comply with any attempt to mandate masks.

 

[duncanp]

Wow; this is insane. This demonstrates we need to be vigilant against those who seek to impose masks; they must be opposed every step of the way. That said, I am confident nothing like this would happen in the UK.

So they are imposing stricter protocols this year compared to last when, according to the article COVID cases in France have fallen by getting on for 90%.

On Friday, France reported 3,204 COVID-19 cases in the country. At this time last year, there were about 25,000 reported daily cases in France.

Perhaps it is just as well that The Queen died after all the restrictions were lifted, because otherwise the locktivists would have demanded that her funeral was held behind closed doors, like that for the Duke of Edinburgh, and the maskivists would have insisted that King Charles wear a face nappy whilst he was being crowned, with absolutely no crowds allowed for either occasion.

 

[ainsworth74]

Who is talking about masks? I can't say I've seen anyone suggesting that people will be required wearing masks again other than on one leaked briefing for one sporting event (i.e. not by a government or health department) and members posting on this thread! Perhaps we need to not go off the deep end immediately that one stupid sporting body does something stupid? I fear we'll all need to develop gills if we were to do so every time such a thing happened

 

[yorkie]

Who is talking about masks?....

Ah, I see the confusion; the article upthread didn't mention masks, however I was sent a separate article, also about the Tour de France, as follows, which refers to the same protocol and did mention masks:

Face masks to return at Tour de France to limit COVID-19 cases in the peloton

“We have to remain vigilant, I prefer that to missing the Tour de France” says Alaphilippe

www.cyclingnews.com

The Tour de France organisers have drawn up a new COVID-19 protocol for this year's race to try to limit the risk of infection inside the peloton, with riders, team staff and officials set to wearing face masks at sign-on and in the team paddock, while riders will be banned from signing autographs...

To answer the question, the idiots talking about masks are David Gaudu and Juilian Alaphilippe; the article continues:

"I don't mind, as long as we protect our health," Groupama-FDJ leader David Gaudu said. "I'd rather wear a face mask than have everyone panic again due to the epidemic and see riders are out of action due to COVID-19."

Julian Alaphilippe (Soudal-QuickStep) is also in favour of the protocol. He revealed to l’Equipe that he was the only person wearing a face mask on his flight to central France for the Criterium du Dauphine.

"I'm still being careful: it may be too much but we have to remain vigilant, I prefer that to missing the Tour de France,” Alaphilippe told the French sports newspaper.

These arguments are absolutely absurd and are based on a completely false premise. The fact that this attention-seeker was the "only person" wearing a mask says it all; they need to accept they are in an absolutely tiny minority.

These people need to accept that Sars-CoV-2 is the 5th endemic HCoV and that wearing a mask is not going to make any difference to the fact that they will inevitably be exposed to the virus multiple times during their lives.

The people pushing it tend to be far-left extremists who are completely unrepresentative of the vast majority of the population; the fact they even recognise they are a tiny minority should be enough of a wake-up call for them to stop crying to the media that no-one else will indulge in their mask obsession.

 

[duncanp]

Who is talking about masks? I can't say I've seen anyone suggesting that people will be required wearing masks again other than on one leaked briefing for one sporting event (i.e. not by a government or health department) and members posting on this thread! Perhaps we need to not go off the deep end immediately that one stupid sporting body does something stupid? I fear we'll all need to develop gills if we were to do so every time such a thing happened

Eurostar are continuing to pretend that masks are compulsory on their services by displaying messages to this effect on all their services, despite it being several months since the mask requirement was removed, which is plenty of time to change the messaging on the screens.

There are also plenty of people who would reimpose compulsory face nappies and other measures if they thought they could get away with it.

What worries me is what could happen if Labour were to win the next general election, either with an overall majority or as part of a coalition.

They were in favour of more restrictions last time, and if Sir Keir Starmer does become the next Prime Minister no doubt some people will try and convince of the need for restrictions in order to, you've guessed it, "..protect the NHS.." from being "..overwhelmed.." during the next "..winter crisis..".

 

[ainsworth74]

To answer the question, the idiots talking about masks are David Gaudu and Juilian Alaphilippe; the article continues:

Good grief! Yes they do seem very silly don't they? I still see some people out and about wearing face masks but thankfully they do their own thing and everyone else gets on with their thing. But then most of those still persisting for whatever reason don't have a platform that gives them a bit of coverage like this pair presumably do in the cycling world.

There are also plenty of people who would reimpose compulsory face nappies and other measures if they thought they could get away with it.

Yes yes and there's plenty of people who would do-away with all sorts of other laws or requirements or who would want to introduce all sorts of restrictions on personal liberty (I well remember that poll that found an alarming number of people thought a 10pm curfew should exist permanently!). Etc etc. People have opinions! Many of them are different from other peoples! Shock! Horror!

What worries me is what could happen if Labour were to win the next general election, either with an overall majority or as part of a coalition.

They were in favour of more restrictions last time, and if Sir Keir Starmer does become the next Prime Minister no doubt some people will try and convince of the need for restrictions in order to, you've guessed it, "..protect the NHS.." from being "..overwhelmed.." during the next "..winter crisis..".

Yes yes, you've mentioned this several times before. Still doesn't make it true of course but whatever floats your boat!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes yes and there's plenty of people who would do-away with all sorts of other laws or requirements or who would want to introduce all sorts of restrictions on personal liberty (I well remember that poll that found an alarming number of people thought a 10pm curfew should exist permanently!).

I seem to recall this came from a feminist campaigner or two, and it wasn't intended to be realistic but to highlight how, by how ridiculous it was, many women already have a de-facto curfew because the actions of some men make them feel unsafe to be out alone late at night.

Nobody was really suggesting that (other than possibly a few nutters) but it did make a valid and important point which results, at least in part, from the utter lack of on-the-ground law enforcement in the UK, but also from attitudes among a lot of men.

 

[ainsworth74]

I seem to recall this came from a feminist campaigner or two, and it wasn't intended to be realistic but to highlight how, by how ridiculous it was, many women already have a de-facto curfew because the actions of some men make them feel unsafe to be out alone late at night.

Nobody was really suggesting that (other than possibly a few nutters) but it did make a valid and important point which results, at least in part, from the utter lack of on-the-ground law enforcement in the UK, but also from attitudes among a lot of men.

I know the one you mean and that was a stunt (she suggested a 6pm curfew for men) but I'm referring to this Ipsos poll from July 2021 for The Economist which included the finding that 19% of Britions would want to keep a 10pm curfew even post-Covid (which got widely panned by everyone as I recall at the time):

And even fewer are in support of having a curfew against leaving home after 10pm without good reason. Less than a third (29%) would be happy to see this stay in place for the month beyond 19th July, 54% oppose. Just over a quarter (27%) would be happy to see it in place until the pandemic was under control worldwide. Two-thirds (65%) oppose this becoming a permanent regulation, only 1 in 5 (19%) support.

As an aside I bet that poll re-run now would find very very different responses as some of the "would like to keep even post pandemic" seem startlingly high when you look at what's actually going on now (and compared to what happened not long afterwards)!

 

[takno]

As an aside I bet that poll re-run now would find very very different responses as some of the "would like to keep even post pandemic" seem startlingly high when you look at what's actually going on now (and compared to what happened not long afterwards)!

I dunno. We're at that happy time of year when it's light by 3.30am and I need the windows open at night. I'd happily bring back hanging for people making noise outside my windows for the brief period of darkness. Ask me again in August and I might be a bit less reactionary.

 

[Chrysalis]

Meanwhile, here is an article from The Telegraph saying that the "..benefits.." of lockdown were minimal (in terms of lives saved) compared to the costs. (which we will be paying off for years to come.)

Would any of Susan Michie, Devi Sridhar, Fake SAGE and all the other locktivist bores care to comment?

I think there is more chance of hearing flatulence from a fly than any of the above admit that they were wrong.

I note the sentence below towards the end of the article

Lockdown benefits ‘a drop in the bucket compared to the costs’, landmark study finds

Researchers say draconian measures taken in spring 2020 had 'negligible impact' on Covid mortality compared with lighter-touch countries

www.telegraph.co.uk

I believe The Telegraph is referring to this study, in case anyone actually wants to read it (just download the PDF to read the full version).

A Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Lock

This systematic review and meta-analysis are designed to determine whether there is empirical evidence to support the belief that “lockdowns” reduce COVID-19 mortality. Lockdowns are defined as the im

ideas.repec.org

 

[Blindtraveler]

I hope that the lockdown supporters both Covington future find this study easily accessible when considering future such measures, not necessarily against covid but other things that might be deemed as or indeed more deadly. Anyone with half a brain knew that lockdown didn't work and was never going to and this lesson needs to be learned and remembered

 

[nw1]

I know the one you mean and that was a stunt (she suggested a 6pm curfew for men) but I'm referring to this Ipsos poll from July 2021 for The Economist which included the finding that 19% of Britions would want to keep a 10pm curfew even post-Covid (which got widely panned by everyone as I recall at the time):

Did the UK ever have a curfew during Covid?

I know that some countries did, but it really was a monumentally illogical, irrational, imbecilic decision made by people with, it seems, almost zero intelligence. It appears to make the assumption that Sars-Cov-2 increases its rate of spread after 2200 hours, local time, which is clearly utter codswallop.

In fact if you really had to have a curfew, you'd be better off doing it in the midday hours when people were likely to be out and about (but, just to reassure, I definitely would not support such a policy!)

 

[ainsworth74]

Did the UK ever have a curfew during Covid?

I know that some countries did, but it really was a monumentally illogical, irrational, imbecilic decision made by people with, it seems, almost zero intelligence. It appears to make the assumption that Sars-Cov-2 increases its rate of spread after 2200 hours, local time, which is clearly utter codswallop.

Didn't we have some sort farcical "hospitality must close by 2200" type thing?

 

[yorkie]

Did the UK ever have a curfew during Covid?

I know that some countries did, but it really was a monumentally illogical, irrational, imbecilic decision. It appears to make the assumption that Sars-Cov-2 increases its rate of spread after some arbitrary time in the evening, which is clearly utter codswallop.

In fact if you really had to have a curfew, you'd be better off doing it in the midday hours when people were likely to be out and about (but, just to reassure, I definitely would not support such a policy!)

No; some people moaned that we didn't have a "proper" lockdown because anyone could go out, at any time, to any place, to exercise.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Jun 2023 ==

Didn't we have some sort farcical "hospitality must close by 2200" type thing?

Yes there were effectively 'curfews' on business operations but no 'curfew' on freedom of movement.

 

[nw1]

Didn't we have some sort farcical "hospitality must close by 2200" type thing?

I suppose that, at least, had maybe a little bit of rationality - in the sense that, perhaps, people are more likely to get drunk late in the evening. (But an early close would probably just make people get drunk earlier!)

However, just being out in the streets after 2200, having not even touched a drop of alcohol, is clearly not going to have any significant effect on the spread of Covid.

Rather like limiting outdoor exercise to one hour once a day. What harm would you have done if, starting from home and not using public transport, you had wandered round some empty countryside, with no-one else around, for 6 hours? Just about zero, but you'd have had a big psychological boost from not being locked up at home all day.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Jun 2023 ==

No; some people moaned that we didn't have a "proper" lockdown because anyone could go out, at any time, to any place, to exercise.

Such people would clearly have found the Soviet Union too permissive.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Yep there was 10pm. Yuck out time for everyone. I was in Nottingham and I’ve not seen busier streets for years

 

[yorksrob]

Yep there was 10pm. Yuck out time for everyone. I was in Nottingham and I’ve not seen busier streets for years

I suppose it was better than them closing the pubs altogether, which they seemed enthusiastic to do most of the time.

 

[87electric]

I think there is more chance of hearing flatulence from a fly than any of the above admit that they were wrong.

That's all we need, fly flatulence contributing to the climate.

 

[duncanp]

I suppose it was better than them closing the pubs altogether, which they seemed enthusiastic to do most of the time.

But that is exactly what they did do a few weeks later (November 5th 2020 to be exact )