England's new three-tier lockdown system

[Bletchleyite]

Begs the question. If a journey is via a tier-3 area would ticketing allow a normally NOT reasonable route to include a route avoiding the tier-3 area. Most logical via's are via large conurbations. These areas are always going to be candidates for tier-3 restrictions sooner or later (hope I am wrong) so a lot of roundabout routes might start becoming attractive. This post could belong in ticketing I suppose but I have raised it here as another question to do with the tiers.

There aren't going to be many such journeys because of the lie of the land. Ormskirk/Aughton Park/Town Green to/from Little Sutton/Overpool/Ellesmere Port/Capenhurst/Bache/Chester are probably about it.

Indeed, I can't think of a single such journey that doesn't involve Ormskirk, Aughton Park or Town Green (maybe Burscough Jn, Rufford or Croston too, though I suspect there will be a lot of validity via Preston from those stations). And I wouldn't bet on Ormskirk remaining out of tier 3 for very long, the rate there is quite high (probably due to the students).

 

[radamfi]

There aren't going to be many such journeys because of the lie of the land. Ormskirk/Aughton Park/Town Green to/from Little Sutton/Overpool/Ellesmere Port/Capenhurst/Bache/Chester are probably about it.

Indeed, I can't think of a single such journey that doesn't involve Ormskirk, Aughton Park or Town Green (maybe Burscough Jn, Rufford or Croston too, though I suspect there will be a lot of validity via Preston from those stations). And I wouldn't bet on Ormskirk remaining out of tier 3 for very long, the rate there is quite high (probably due to the students).

I thought he was talking about future Tier 3 areas. What if London, Birmingham, Crewe, York etc. become Tier 3?

 

[Peter Sarf]

I thought he was talking about future Tier 3 areas. What if London, Birmingham, Crewe, York etc. become Tier 3?

Both cases really. I was not sure of the lie of land in Merseyside but then I thought of the likelihood of other areas entering tier-3. London (or parts thereof) particularly.

 

[Andyh82]

Many on this forum won’t be happy by the way the wind is blowing across the media this morning

SAGE advised on a full lockdown and the popular opinion seems to be asking why they didn’t follow this

Labour are demanding to know why they didn’t go into a circuit breaker lockdown

(Of course the second story on the news is then interviewing pub owners who may have to lay off staff saying they should be allowed to stay open, so as per usual the news agenda is a complete contradictory mess)

 

[DB]

Many on this forum won’t be happy by the way the wind is blowing across the media this morning

SAGE advised on a full lockdown and the popular opinion seems to be asking why they didn’t follow this

Labour are demanding to know why they didn’t go into a circuit breaker lockdown

(Of course the second story on the news is then interviewing pub owners who may have to lay off staff saying they should be allowed to stay open, so as per usual the news agenda is a complete contradictory mess)

As usual though, there is no explanation of what this 'circuit breaker lockdown' (ridiculous term) is supposed to achieve. Realistically it might cause a blip on the graph - but so what, and why is this sufficiently important as to justify the harm it would cause in other areas?

Of course, we all know that if it happened there would probably be an "emergency" statutory instrument issued at 11.45 on the day it was due to expire extending it for another two weeks. And repeat...

 

[Peter Sarf]

Many on this forum won’t be happy by the way the wind is blowing across the media this morning

SAGE advised on a full lockdown and the popular opinion seems to be asking why they didn’t follow this

Labour are demanding to know why they didn’t go into a circuit breaker lockdown

(Of course the second story on the news is then interviewing pub owners who may have to lay off staff saying they should be allowed to stay open, so as per usual the news agenda is a complete contradictory mess)

I think, well hope, that the tiered system is a measured way of phasing in just enough measures to slow Covid-19 down. I mean getting the R value back below 1. However it does concern me that the medical experts, including SAGE, believe harsher measures are required. But then we have to balance controlling Covid-19 against the costs in terms of lost business/jobs, mental strain etc.

The goal, in my book, is not to eliminate Covid-19 but to keep it at a level where lives are not lost for want of hospital treatment. We cannot eliminate Covid-19 and so we are instead waiting for inoculations, better treatments (which seems to be happening on various fronts) and herd immunity (clinging to hope). The tiered system is to keep Covid-19 under control as cheaply as possible.

The tired tiered system will get tested by the onset of darker and colder weather. This will trigger a resurgence of Covid-19 cases as is the case with most viruses. We are going to be waiting until next March if the tired tiered system does not win before Christmas. Here's hoping that a tier-4 (extremely high) does not become necessary.

 

[yorksrob]

I wonder when they'll introduce the Goombay Dance Band system of classification.

It will have Seven Tiers.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

I wonder when they'll introduce the Goombay Dance Band system of classification.

It will have Seven Tiers.

Greetings, Pop Pickers! And knocking them off the top of the charts are ABC, with ‘Tiers Are Not Enough’

I’ll get my coat

 

[duncanp]

The tired system will get tested by the onset of darker and colder weather. This will trigger a resurgence of Covid-19 cases as is the case with most viruses. We are going to be waiting until next March if the tired system does not win before Christmas. Here's hoping that a tier-4 (extremely high) does not become necessary.

Bit of a freudian slip there.

It will be interesting to see what happens in Liverpool at the 4 week review. No doubt if cases go down the locktivists will say that it is proof that tougher restrictions work, and that they should be extended to the rest of the country. And if cases don't go down, they will say that tougher restrictions are required. (ie Put everyone under house arrest lockdown until a vaccine is found, and 6 months in prison for anyone who breaks the rules, and b*ll***s to the economy and other people's jobs because I'm all right jack with my public sector pension and no mortgage.)

The onset of darker and colder weather will also coincide with the end of the furlough scheme, and increasing unemployment and business failures. As time goes on, this aspect of the COVID-19 pandemic will become more prominent in the public eye, which will hopefully make the government rein in the more enthusiastic locktivists on SAGE.

 

[yorksrob]

Greetings, Pop Pickers! And knocking them off the top of the charts are ABC, with ‘Tiers Are Not Enough’

I’ll get my coat

"Not arf"

 

[Yew]

The latest and so far only welcome death in the c19 pandemic is that of “following the science”, which given the minutes of September’s SAGE meeting the government can no longer claim to be doing

Perhaps they could go for "Following some unverified computer modelling"?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Oct 2020 ==

As usual though, there is no explanation of what this 'circuit breaker lockdown' (ridiculous term) is supposed to achieve. Realistically it might cause a blip on the graph - but so what, and why is this sufficiently important as to justify the harm it would cause in other areas?

Of course, we all know that if it happened there would probably be an "emergency" statutory instrument issued at 11.45 on the day it was due to expire extending it for another two weeks. And repeat...

Indeed, unless there is an actual plan, or a vaccine is exceedingly close, delaying it a few weeks (perhaps so the peak coincides with the flu season) doesn't gain us anything.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Bit of a freudian slip there.

It will be interesting to see what happens in Liverpool at the 4 week review. No doubt if cases go down the locktivists will say that it is proof that tougher restrictions work, and that they should be extended to the rest of the country. And if cases don't go down, they will say that tougher restrictions are required. (ie Put everyone under house arrest lockdown until a vaccine is found, and 6 months in prison for anyone who breaks the rules, and b*ll***s to the economy and other people's jobs because I'm all right jack with my public sector pension and no mortgage.)

The onset of darker and colder weather will also coincide with the end of the furlough scheme, and increasing unemployment and business failures. As time goes on, this aspect of the COVID-19 pandemic will become more prominent in the public eye, which will hopefully make the government rein in the more enthusiastic locktivists on SAGE.

Doh. Well spotted, now corrected thanks.

Lets hope Liverpool gets down to tier-2 otherwise I feel a new tier (-4) coming on.

Locktivists. That is a useful term.

Well I just hope this virus does not thrive on the cold weather otherwise tier-4 is possible and, if so, it will be until spring.

"Not arf"

Oh hell, why not, maybe Manchester etc is heading for slightly stricter but not level four so level "two and a arf". Seriously though I can see some sort of intermediate level(s). That is the beauty of numbers - means more than terms like "very high", "extremely high", "alarmingly high", etc etc.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Oh hell, why not, maybe Manchester etc is heading for slightly stricter but not level four so level "two and a arf". Seriously though i can see some sort of intermediate level(s). That is the beauty of numbers - means more than terms like very, extremeley, alarmingly, etc etc.

The local discretion totally negates the point. It should be a single national set of levels, with defined trigger and de-trigger points, and there should be no discretion at all.

NZ got this spot-on.

 

[duncanp]

The local discretion totally negates the point. It should be a single national set of levels, with defined trigger and de-trigger points, and there should be no discretion at all.

NZ got this spot-on.

The problem with that approach is that the cause of an increase in infection rates may not be the same in every area.

In some areas, the increase is clearly caused by the return of schools and universities, and actions such as closing pubs and gyms are going to have little or no effect.

 

[Yew]

The problem with that approach is that the cause of an increase in infection rates may not be the same in every area.

In some areas, the increase is clearly caused by the return of schools and universities, and actions such as closing pubs and gyms are going to have little or no effect.

To the spread, maybe, however to morale and compliance with regulations, the effect is marked.

Looking on a few community groups near me, there's lots of "I can work with people all day, but not go to the pub with them" etc.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem with that approach is that the cause of an increase in infection rates may not be the same in every area.

In some areas, the increase is clearly caused by the return of schools and universities, and actions such as closing pubs and gyms are going to have little or no effect.

This is true, but simplicity (and measures being "logical" to the layman) brings higher compliance.

 

[Peter Sarf]

The local discretion totally negates the point. It should be a single national set of levels, with defined trigger and de-trigger points, and there should be no discretion at all.

NZ got this spot-on.

The problem with that approach is that the cause of an increase in infection rates may not be the same in every area.

In some areas, the increase is clearly caused by the return of schools and universities, and actions such as closing pubs and gyms are going to have little or no effect.

Its a two edged sword. Tailoring to local conditions is good BUT a simple set of national rules (ideally covering all of the UK) is easier to comprehend. That, I believe, is what the tiered system is aiming to achieve.

Did I say easier .

 

[DelayRepay]

I think, well hope, that the tiered system is a measured way of phasing in just enough measures to slow Covid-19 down. I mean getting the R value back below 1. However it does concern me that the medical experts, including SAGE, believe harsher measures are required. But then we have to balance controlling Covid-19 against the costs in terms of lost business/jobs, mental strain etc.

The goal, in my book, is not to eliminate Covid-19 but to keep it at a level where lives are not lost for want of hospital treatment.

I agree that should be the goal (also taking into account other demands on the NHS - i.e. we must not have people dying of cancer because the hospitals are full of Covid patients).

Whilst I don't think the actual restrictions are necessarily the most effective, I am pleased to see that the government do at least now seem to be considering the wider risks to the economy. It would have been easy for them to follow the Sage advice, but I think they haven't because they are trying to balance different types of risk.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree that should be the goal (also taking into account other demands on the NHS - i.e. we must not have people dying of cancer because the hospitals are full of Covid patients).

Whilst I don't think the actual restrictions are necessarily the most effective, I am pleased to see that the government do at least now seem to be considering the wider risks to the economy. It would have been easy for them to follow the Sage advice, but I think they haven't because they are trying to balance different types of risk.

It would help if they actually made that analysis and discussion public.

I can't help but have the impression that the only bad thing Governments really know what to deal with is wars, which breeds the "secret squirreling".

 

[DB]

It would have been easy for them to follow the Sage advice, but I think they haven't because they are trying to balance different types of risk.

I suspect it's more a case that they are afraid of a back-bench revolt if they go any further than they have!

 

[CaptainHaddock]

Many on this forum won’t be happy by the way the wind is blowing across the media this morning

SAGE advised on a full lockdown and the popular opinion seems to be asking why they didn’t follow this

Labour are demanding to know why they didn’t go into a circuit breaker lockdown

(Of course the second story on the news is then interviewing pub owners who may have to lay off staff saying they should be allowed to stay open, so as per usual the news agenda is a complete contradictory mess)

It's time the incompetent buffoons that form the SAGE committee were told in no uncertain terms that they are unelected advisors and should be giving advise to ministers in private rather than speaking directly to the press, giving tv conferences and leaking minutes of meetings. It seems some of them - particularly Whitty, Vallance and Ferguson - are enjoying the limelight too much and seem to think they're running the country.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's time the incompetent buffoons that form the SAGE committee were told in no uncertain terms that they are unelected advisors and should be giving advise to ministers in private rather than speaking directly to the press, giving tv conferences and leaking minutes of meetings. It seems some of them - particularly Whitty, Vallance and Ferguson - are enjoying the limelight too much and seem to think they're running the country.

Absolutely not. Everything should be public - all of it. There is no justification for any "secret squirrelling".

 

[Solent&Wessex]

Tier 2, whilst keeping business and hospitality open, is actually surprisingly strict on individual freedoms and, for me, they might as well close hospitality!

As a single person, living alone, in a Tier 2 area:

I cannot meet, socialise or mingle with any other person (apart from a support bubble) in any indoor setting anywhere in England.

I can travel to somewhere else on holiday or for a weekend break, but cannot meet or mingle with any other person indoors (apart from a support bubble) when I get there.

If I am not already in one, I cannot start a new relationship.

If I am in a non-cohabiting relationship unless that person is my support bubble I can not meet my partner indoors.

I can go to the pub but only on my own or with my support bubble, and cannot talk to / mingle with any other person when I get there.

Of course in some of those scenarios it is even worse for those that don't live alone - a 20 year old living with his parents can not form a support bubble with his girlfriend who lives with her parents, as neither is a single person household, and thus they can no longer meet together apart from outside.

This is full lockdown in all but name as, essentially, the only time I can now meet any other person is at work!

With the season of cold, dark wet winter weather upon us, meeting outside in the garden or park is hardly going to be fun, and being fairly certain that "intimate rumpy pumpy" (which couples, as described above, might like to have) is not allowed outdoors, then the next 6 months or so (because, be under no illusion, that is how long it will almost certainly last, at least) will be VERY long and VERY boring for a great many people. The prospect of celibacy and loneliness caused by living like a hermit for that time will no doubt drive many people to break the rules, and to be honest, I wouldn't blame them.

 

[ainsworth74]

It's time the incompetent buffoons that form the SAGE committee were told in no uncertain terms that they are unelected advisors and should be giving advise to ministers in private rather than speaking directly to the press, giving tv conferences and leaking minutes of meetings. It seems some of them - particularly Whitty, Vallance and Ferguson - are enjoying the limelight too much and seem to think they're running the country.

If the Government were unhappy with the current arrangements I'd assume that they'd dismiss the relevant people from their posts for either a "difference of opinion" or even misconduct. I'm not aware that SAGE and it's members are outwith the Government's control?

 

[yorksrob]

Tier 2, whilst keeping business and hospitality open, is actually surprisingly strict on individual freedoms and, for me, they might as well close hospitality!

As a single person, living alone, in a Tier 2 area:

I cannot meet, socialise or mingle with any other person (apart from a support bubble) in any indoor setting anywhere in England.

I can travel to somewhere else on holiday or for a weekend break, but cannot meet or mingle with any other person indoors (apart from a support bubble) when I get there.

If I am not already in one, I cannot start a new relationship.

If I am in a non-cohabiting relationship unless that person is my support bubble I can not meet my partner indoors.

I can go to the pub but only on my own or with my support bubble, and cannot talk to / mingle with any other person when I get there.

Of course in some of those scenarios it is even worse for those that don't live alone - a 20 year old living with his parents can not form a support bubble with his girlfriend who lives with her parents, as neither is a single person household, and thus they can no longer meet together apart from outside.

This is full lockdown in all but name as, essentially, the only time I can now meet any other person is at work!

With the season of cold, dark wet winter weather upon us, meeting outside in the garden or park is hardly going to be fun, and being fairly certain that "intimate rumpy pumpy" (which couples, as described above, might like to have) is not allowed outdoors, then the next 6 months or so (because, be under no illusion, that is how long it will almost certainly last, at least) will be VERY long and VERY boring for a great many people. The prospect of celibacy and loneliness caused by living like a hermit for that time will no doubt drive many people to break the rules, and to be honest, I wouldn't blame them.

It is an extremely draconian tier in terms of not allowing any household mixing indoors.

As it happens, I'm happy a lot of the time to do things on my own, however Van Tam, Whitty and chums had better have a plan of getting out of this, other than hoping that numbers go down, and soon.

 

[big_rig]

New guidance for shielding the 'clinically extremely vulnerable' has been released to take into account the tier systems.

One thing which immediately jumped out at me was that the clinically extremely vulnerable in very high alert level areas are advised to"generally stay at home as much as possible, and avoid all but essential travel. You should also significantly reduce shopping trips, and if possible use online delivery or ask people in your household, support bubble or volunteers to collect food and medicines."

They are also however advised to continue to go to work if they cannot work from home, as workplaces will be Covid secure. So you can work as a cashier at Sainsbury's as you will be behind a plastic screen, but you shouldn't go and shop there yourself.

Surely we are at the stage where these endless rules and guidance collapse upon the weight of their own contradictions and nonsense? We have of course been well past that stage for a long time but oh well.

This guidance is for everyone who has been identified as clinically extremely vulnerable. If you are in this group, you will previously have received a letter from the NHS or from your GP telling you this. You may have been advised to shield in the past./

COVID-19: guidance for people whose immune system means they are at higher risk

Guidance for people aged 12 and over whose immune system means they are at higher risk of serious illness if they become infected with COVID-19.

www.gov.uk

 

[Bantamzen]

The local discretion totally negates the point. It should be a single national set of levels, with defined trigger and de-trigger points, and there should be no discretion at all.

NZ got this spot-on.

Did they though, din't they start on a strategy of elimination. Because the numbers show the virus still bubbling away under the surface there. I'd say they have simply kicked the first wave down the road, they will still have to potentially face a lot more infections if they ever choose to open back up.

 

[bramling]

If the Government were unhappy with the current arrangements I'd assume that they'd dismiss the relevant people from their posts for either a "difference of opinion" or even misconduct. I'm not aware that SAGE and it's members are outwith the Government's control?

The trouble is that’s just not going to happen, as if they do anything with the advisers and then there are deaths, no matter how few, the relevant politicians would be crucified. At least by “following the science” there’s an audit trail back which deflects culpability away from themselves.

There’s already a “blame game” going on. Elements of the north are allegedly claiming restrictions were eased too early which means they never got their infections down, yet shouldn’t that mean they would have greater herd immunity?

Unfortunately all this points to is that cans are being kicked down the road.

I think at the moment we just have to hope this naturally burns away, as there’s not going to be a change of strategy from the current cohort of politicians any time soon.

 

[Yew]

D

The trouble is that’s just not going to happen, as if they do anything with the advisers and then there are deaths, no matter how few, the relevant politicians would be crucified. At least by “following the science” there’s an audit trail back which deflects culpability away from themselves.

Didn't Prof Woodhouse recommend moving over to a shielding approach? And Nicola roundly ignored him in favour a Sridhar's elimination delusion?

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is an extremely draconian tier in terms of not allowing any household mixing indoors.

As it happens, I'm happy a lot of the time to do things on my own, however Van Tam, Whitty and chums had better have a plan of getting out of this, other than hoping that numbers go down, and soon.

The way out is a vaccine. It has not been said otherwise at any point.