• 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!

Covid restrictions to end on 19th July

Status
Not open for further replies.

notlob.divad

Established Member
Joined
19 Jan 2016
Messages
1,609
If I am reading this correctly it says 19% of people surveyed think the UK a should have a permanent 10pm curfew and 26% think nightclubs and casinos should never reopen.

Who fills out these polls? This one was Ipsos MORI which I would have thought more reliable than Yougov.
And if in 2019 you had done a survey of who thinks there should be a 10pm curfew, and nightclubs and casinos should be shutdown, I would hypothesis that you would have had very similar results.

Not everyone lives the same life as you.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
10,511
Location
Cheshire
If I am reading this correctly it says 19% of people surveyed think the UK a should have a permanent 10pm curfew and 26% think nightclubs and casinos should never reopen.

Who fills out these polls? This one was Ipsos MORI which I would have thought more reliable than Yougov.

Judging by by the results, a combination of Mumsnet & Curtain Twitchers Inc.... ;)

And if in 2019 you had done a survey of who thinks there should be a 10pm curfew, and nightclubs and casinos should be shutdown, I would hypothesis that you would have had very similar results.

Not everyone lives the same life as you.

No, but does that mean that this (or indeed any other poll) is actually representative of public opinion, or just those of the people actually bothering to complete them? Ask yourself, do you really believe that nearly 20% of people want an actual curfew for example? It only takes a few moments of brain engagement to work out why that is a daft idea.
 

DelayRepay

Established Member
Joined
21 May 2011
Messages
2,929
No, but does that mean that this (or indeed any other poll) is actually representative of public opinion, or just those of the people actually bothering to complete them? Ask yourself, do you really believe that nearly 20% of people want an actual curfew for example? It only takes a few moments of brain engagement to work out why that is a daft idea.
I certainly don't believe that 20% of people want a curfew. In all my life I've never heard anyone suggest we should have a curfew, except in very specific circumstances such as the 2011 riots and, of course, during global pandemics (and even during the pandemic, I've not really heard many people calling for actual curfews, although the matter does seem to have become rather mixed up with pub closing times)

If one in five people really thought we ought to have a curfew, it would have appeared in some political manifesto by now.
 

NorthKent1989

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2017
Messages
2,172
People who have had their youth and are perfectly happy for nobody else to be able to experience fun...

I’ve found this, and it has made me somewhat resentful of a certain generation who stuck two fingers up to the government and the establishment as a whole in the 1960s & 1970s and did as they pleased, only for them to turn around and want a trail run at being a communist or fascist state all for a respiratory illness, that they’re grandchildren will be the ones to deal with this mess.
 

birchesgreen

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2015
Messages
7,692
Location
Solihull
I can imagine some people who live where its rowdy at night might give a knee jerk assent for curfews though if they thought about the practicality they would recant. Nothing like 20% of the population though, maybe more like 0.02%.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
10,511
Location
Cheshire
I certainly don't believe that 20% of people want a curfew. In all my life I've never heard anyone suggest we should have a curfew, except in very specific circumstances such as the 2011 riots and, of course, during global pandemics (and even during the pandemic, I've not really heard many people calling for actual curfews, although the matter does seem to have become rather mixed up with pub closing times)
I thought that it might be a misunderstanding, however I've just checked and this is the option offered:

"Having a curfew against leaving home after 10pm without good reason". o_O


So yeah, according to IPSOS 19% of British people want a 10pm curfew.....
 

DelayRepay

Established Member
Joined
21 May 2011
Messages
2,929
I thought that it might be a misunderstanding, however I've just checked and this is the option offered:

"Having a curfew against leaving home after 10pm without good reason". o_O


So yeah, according to IPSOS 19% of British people want a 10pm curfew.....

I wonder how they'd have responded to the suggestion of a French style lockdown (the original one), where you can only leave your home at any time for specific reasons, and have to complete a form in advance to give yourself permission.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
The drop in take up as the vaccine rolled out to younger age bands was forecast by the government/their supporting experts some time ago. I read it in a backing paper following a press article. No I don't have a copy - these things crop up, I have a glance then I move on to something else.

Indeed, the various models produced by SPI-M all factored in decreasing uptake amongst younger age groups. The assumptions around what the ceiling is may prove to be optimistic though - figures of around 80% were still hoped for amongst the under 40s, but was in the mid-30%s at the latest vaccine surveillance report

I think we'll see an uplift in first doses over the next few days. They government's 'bribes' allowing vaccinated people to avoid isolation following a contact, and removing quarantine requirements for the amber countries, will encourage a lot more people to go for their jab. I can imagine the vaccine centres being busy at the weekend, I hope they've got plenty of stock.

I think it'll remain rocky. One of the limiting factors at the moment is supposedly that people who want a vaccine are being unable to get one as they've had covid within the last 28 days. This is a problem that if anything will only get worse.

Ask yourself, do you really believe that nearly 20% of people want an actual curfew for example? It only takes a few moments of brain engagement to work out why that is a daft idea.

It's (sadly )entirely possible, just that those 20% are people who seldom interact with anyone else and are therefore unlikely to come to mind when you think of the population at-large. Given their (apparent) desire for a curfew, it's quite likely that they don't get out much
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
10,511
Location
Cheshire
I wonder how they'd have responded to the suggestion of a French style lockdown (the original one), where you can only leave your home at any time for specific reasons, and have to complete a form in advance to give yourself permission.
They would probably love it, some might even have '999' on speed dial to make sure they can call in 5-0 the moment they spot a miscreant walking around outside at 22:01.
 

DelayRepay

Established Member
Joined
21 May 2011
Messages
2,929
It's (sadly )entirely possible, just that those 20% are people who seldom interact with anyone else and are therefore unlikely to come to mind when you think of the population at-large. Given their (apparent) desire for a curfew, it's quite likely that they don't get out much
I'd say it's probable. Because they don't really interact with people, they spend their days at home filling in surveys online, so are over-represented compared to those who have active social lives.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
10,511
Location
Cheshire
It's (sadly )entirely possible, just that those 20% are people who seldom interact with anyone else and are therefore unlikely to come to mind when you think of the population at-large. Given their (apparent) desire for a curfew, it's quite likely that they don't get out much

I'd say it's probable. Because they don't really interact with people, they spend their days at home filling in surveys online, so are over-represented compared to those who have active social lives.
I'd honestly hope you were both wrong, but if there really are that many people not only never going out but determined to stop everyone else I'd say we have an impending mental health crisis.
 

DelayRepay

Established Member
Joined
21 May 2011
Messages
2,929
I'd honestly hope you were both wrong, but if there really are that many people not only never going out but determined to stop everyone else I'd say we have an impending mental health crisis.
It doesn't need to be a lot to distort the results. The point is the 20% is 20% of people who had the time and inclination to fill in the survey, not 20% of the population.

I know they try to adjust the results for geography, age etc but not sure they can adjust for people who have too much time on their hands.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
10,511
Location
Cheshire
It doesn't need to be a lot to distort the results. The point is the 20% is 20% of people who had the time and inclination to fill in the survey, not 20% of the population.

I know they try to adjust the results for geography, age etc but not sure they can adjust for people who have too much time on their hands.
Ah yeah I see what you're saying, and kind of goes to show that sometimes these polls have to be taken with a pinch of salt.
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
6,202
It's (sadly )entirely possible, just that those 20% are people who seldom interact with anyone else and are therefore unlikely to come to mind when you think of the population at-large. Given their (apparent) desire for a curfew, it's quite likely that they don't get out much
I rarely interact with anyone outside work but the last thing I want is to be stuck in the house. I like to get out and about whether that be walking, cycling or riding on trains. Admittedly only the latter will happen late in the evening.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
I rarely interact with anyone outside work but the last thing I want is to be stuck in the house. I like to get out and about whether that be walking, cycling or riding on trains. Admittedly only the latter will happen late in the evening.

You're you though. Imagine if you will, you're a pensioner who gets food delivered (by family) and doesn't have much reason to go out the house - a 10pm curfew wouldn't affect you in the slightest. Even better, it might stop some of that (perceived) antisocial behaviour you read so much about.

The last few years has taught me that I can't overestimate the British public enough. No matter how low an opinion of them I might have, they'll usually find a way to drop my expectations even further. I think that 20% is probably a high-side estimate, but there is a small minority who relish the opportunity for an authoritarian state with 10pm curfews (which naturally wouldn't apply to them on the rare occasion they do venture out to do things)
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
6,202
You're you though. Imagine if you will, you're a pensioner who gets food delivered (by family) and doesn't have much reason to go out the house - a 10pm curfew wouldn't affect you in the slightest. Even better, it might stop some of that (perceived) antisocial behaviour you read so much about.
Yes I can see what you're saying. I intend to be active as long as I can but I can see that many people are not like that.
 

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,919
A timely reminder of the definition of authoritarianism may help remind you why mask mandates are authoritarian. It's not the most authoritarian thing in the world, but trying to argue it isn't authoritarian is to deny the obvious.

"favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom"
The state mandates all sorts of restrictions on personal freedom for reasons of public health and safety.

I'm not allowed to burn certain types of fuel to heat my home
I have to wear a seat belt when driving
I'm not allowed to smoke in the pub
I'm not allowed to ride my bicycle on a motorway
I'm not allowed to drive without insurance and a driving licence

These mandates fit your definition of authoritarianism. In which case 'authoritarianism' is not a particularly useful term. How do you distinguish between the state imposing restrictions on personal freedom which are acceptable and sensible, and those which are not? Presumably there needs to be some sense that the restrictions are proportionate. In which case we're into a discussion about how bad Covid is and whether masks are a useful measure. I suspect that's what drives people's differing views on mask wearing.
 

Cdd89

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2017
Messages
1,794
  1. I'm not allowed to burn certain types of fuel to heat my home
  2. I have to wear a seat belt when driving
  3. I'm not allowed to smoke in the pub
  4. I'm not allowed to ride my bicycle on a motorway
  5. I'm not allowed to drive without insurance and a driving licence
I don’t know about others, but one impact of Covid restrictions is that I have rapidly had my views changed on points (2) and (3) - as well as things like the sugar tax.

I still believe in seatbelts, detest smoking, and think people should be encouraged to reduce sugar intake, but I am not sure I ever had a stronger reason for supporting laws mandating these things than because I don’t like them.

(1, 4 and 5 pose the potential for serious harm to others; arguably Covid restrictions come under the same banner, which is why I am not absolute in saying there should be no restrictions, though I don’t think it ever met the requirements for “stay at home” laws and at this stage I believe the calculus has changed on the justifiability of any remaining restrictions).
 

Richard Scott

Established Member
Associate Staff
International Transport
Railtours & Preservation
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
4,584
The state mandates all sorts of restrictions on personal freedom for reasons of public health and safety.

I'm not allowed to burn certain types of fuel to heat my home
I have to wear a seat belt when driving
I'm not allowed to smoke in the pub
I'm not allowed to ride my bicycle on a motorway
I'm not allowed to drive without insurance and a driving licence

These mandates fit your definition of authoritarianism. In which case 'authoritarianism' is not a particularly useful term. How do you distinguish between the state imposing restrictions on personal freedom which are acceptable and sensible, and those which are not? Presumably there needs to be some sense that the restrictions are proportionate. In which case we're into a discussion about how bad Covid is and whether masks are a useful measure. I suspect that's what drives people's differing views on mask wearing.
Difference is these have obvious reasons behind them with plenty of scientific evidence for most of them or financial implications for others in case of number 5. Many of these current restrictions don't as for every so call expert claiming one thing there's another giving the opposite view.
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
6,202
The state mandates all sorts of restrictions on personal freedom for reasons of public health and safety.

I'm not allowed to burn certain types of fuel to heat my home
I have to wear a seat belt when driving
I'm not allowed to smoke in the pub
I'm not allowed to ride my bicycle on a motorway
I'm not allowed to drive without insurance and a driving licence

These mandates fit your definition of authoritarianism. In which case 'authoritarianism' is not a particularly useful term. How do you distinguish between the state imposing restrictions on personal freedom which are acceptable and sensible, and those which are not? Presumably there needs to be some sense that the restrictions are proportionate. In which case we're into a discussion about how bad Covid is and whether masks are a useful measure. I suspect that's what drives people's differing views on mask wearing.
You've reminded of the "The Crash detectives" TV series. Stupid boy racer didn't wear his seat belt and even replaced the airbag steering wheel with one that had a few pointless buttons on it. He hit a stationary lorry at 50 mph and killed himself! I'll always wear a seatbelt but I don't care if other people do, unless they're sitting behind me of course.
 

jumble

Established Member
Joined
1 Jul 2011
Messages
1,502
I just don't get the mask wearing = authoritarianism thing. Personally I find it the least intrusive thing I've had to put up with over the last 16 months. Appreciate you have a very different view. We'll never agree so I'll not push the point any further.
Do you really not?

Regarding TFL Sadiq Kahn has been pretty clear that the reason for carrying on the mask mandate is to placate the frightened and not for any actual health reason
He is using a yougov poll which states they 71% of respondents want it to be compulsory
Either this is true in which case 71% plus those who will wear even if it is not mandatory of people travelling will wear them and there is no need to be mandate it or it is as Yorkie has suggested and I agree, nonsense in which case it is no basis on which to make a decision about mandating mask wearing.
The issue is that I believe that if Sadiq Kahn is going to stamp his authority for no good reason then Mask wearing on TFL will stay for ever.
He might bear in mind that as a London Council tax payer and income tax payer I have to contribute to TFL services whether I use them or not and in a democracy I should be allowed to have a say
 

87electric

Established Member
Joined
27 Jan 2010
Messages
1,243
So 200 people in an online poll of 1025 want a curfew. Just 200 people. Well if that is the basis for a curfew then god help the human race. Is everyone devoid of critical thinking? Does this manipulation of statistics actual fool people?
 

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,919
So 200 people in an online poll of 1025 want a curfew. Just 200 people. Well if that is the basis for a curfew then god help the human race. Is everyone devoid of critical thinking? Does this manipulation of statistics actual fool people?
It's not the basis for anything other than clickbait.
 

philosopher

Established Member
Joined
23 Sep 2015
Messages
1,513
Difference is these have obvious reasons behind them with plenty of scientific evidence for most of them or financial implications for others in case of number 5. Many of these current restrictions don't as for every so call expert claiming one thing there's another giving the opposite view.
With seat belts there are decades of research that pretty much unambiguously shows they save lives. There is a huge upside and extremely little downside to seat belts.

With Covid measures, the evidence that they save lives is not as strong and the costs of such measures are obvious, for example the financial cost of the furlough scheme. Face masks for example have an uncertain benefit, it seems that they do reduce transmission, however estimates of how much vary considerably and they have obvious downsides such as the cost of the masks, increased waste and hindering tackling crime.
 

Bikeman78

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2018
Messages
6,202
The issue is that I believe that if Sadiq Kahn is going to stamp his authority for no good reason then Mask wearing on TFL will stay for ever.
I think it will last until enough people don't bother. It's basically unenforcable on driver only trains. They'd have to employ hundreds of extra people to enforce it and they cannot afford that because they're living on handouts. The government won't fund it.
 

DelayRepay

Established Member
Joined
21 May 2011
Messages
2,929
Difference is these have obvious reasons behind them with plenty of scientific evidence for most of them or financial implications for others in case of number 5. Many of these current restrictions don't as for every so call expert claiming one thing there's another giving the opposite view.

Exactly.

I think if there was scientific proof that by wearing a mask would save someone else's life, then of course I would wear a mask.

But there is no scientific proof. None. Originally our scientists said we should not wear them, and since then the evidence I have seen has been theoretical and weak at best.

The fact they do it in other countries is not proof that it's effective.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
20,460
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
I think it will last until enough people don't bother. It's basically unenforcable on driver only trains. They'd have to employ hundreds of extra people to enforce it and they cannot afford that because they're living on handouts. The government won't fund it.

The mood already seems to be turning against masks. Notwithstanding the high-profile bleating from certain quarters, reality is an increasing number of people aren’t wearing them, and increasingly fewer people seem to care. London in particular.
 

Mag_seven

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
1 Sep 2014
Messages
12,025
Location
here to eternity
The mood already seems to be turning against masks. Notwithstanding the high-profile bleating from certain quarters, reality is an increasing number of people aren’t wearing them, and increasingly fewer people seem to care. London in particular.

Yes my observation is (in London at least) that non mask wearers are not being shouted or "tut tutted" at like they were a few months back
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top