England's new three-tier lockdown system

[bramling]

D


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

I wonder whether there’s been some focus work done saying that the shielding groups are fed up with it, and simply won’t do it any more (remembering that shielding was never mandatory).

Whilst of course a “your choice” strategy is entirely reasonable, it still exposes the government to bad publicity.

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

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

There needs to be a defined point at which it’s no longer going to be acceptable to continue down that road. We already heard “vaccine by September”, now it’s all gone very quiet on that front.

The vaccine strategy will I think become particularly unacceptable now we hear that most of the population won’t actually be able to get it.

 

[Yew]

I wonder whether there’s been some focus work done saying that the shielding groups are fed up with it, and simply won’t do it any more (remembering that shielding was never mandatory).

Whilst of course a “your choice” strategy is entirely reasonable, it still exposes the government to bad publicity.

I suppose we did waste a whole load of shielding time trying to get cases down, rather than get it over with as quickly as possible.

 

[MikeWM]

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

The PM didn't sound very optimistic yesterday in the Commons.

(From Hansard)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Alas, I cannot give him a date by which I can promise confidently that we will have a vaccine. There are some very hopeful signs, not least from the Oxford-AstraZeneca trials that are being conducted, but, as he knows, SARS took place 18 years ago and we still do not have a vaccine for SARS. I do not wish to depress him, but we must be realistic about this. There is a good chance of a vaccine, but it cannot be taken for granted.

 

[philosopher]

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.

I would actually rather they just closed pubs and other licensed venues but kept non licensed venues open in exchange for permitting two households to continue to meet each other indoors. That way people can continue to maintain relationships and friendships over the winter months.

The ban on indoor household mixing for tier two effectively removes quite a large chunk of a pub’s market in any case, to the extent I struggle to see how they make enough money to cover their costs.

 

[Crossover]

I would actually rather they just closed pubs and other licensed venues but kept non licensed venues open in exchange for permitting two households to continue to meet each other indoors. That way people can continue to maintain relationships and friendships over the winter months.

The ban on indoor household mixing for tier two effectively removes quite a large chunk of a pub’s market in any case, to the extent I struggle to see how they make enough money to cover their costs.

I would be happy with that, but then again I am biased as I tend not to frequent pubs etc as a general rule. However, you would then also start an underground world for drinking and push the "problem" elsewhere. There is no panacea, but I think after 7 months, tempers will fray among those who can have virtually no human contact outside of a very limited number of people

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would actually rather they just closed pubs and other licensed venues but kept non licensed venues open in exchange for permitting two households to continue to meet each other indoors. That way people can continue to maintain relationships and friendships over the winter months.

If alcohol is really the problem with people behaving, I wonder if we should actually go for full-on prohibition?

 

[Solent&Wessex]

I would actually rather they just closed pubs and other licensed venues but kept non licensed venues open in exchange for permitting two households to continue to meet each other indoors. That way people can continue to maintain relationships and friendships over the winter months.

The ban on indoor household mixing for tier two effectively removes quite a large chunk of a pub’s market in any case, to the extent I struggle to see how they make enough money to cover their costs.

To be honest, although I love going to the pub, I think I agree.

Shut the pubs and all non essential stuff but allow 2 households to meet indoors, legally.

 

[bramling]

I would be happy with that, but then again I am biased as I tend not to frequent pubs etc as a general rule. However, you would then also start an underground world for drinking and push the "problem" elsewhere. There is no panacea, but I think after 7 months, tempers will fray among those who can have virtually no human contact outside of a very limited number of people

I think that’s the problem - if there’s going to be a strategy of minimising interactions (which I don’t think is really viable except as a very short-term measure) it’s probably better to do it in pubs where there’s at least some supervision. But they you run the risk that people will do it in the pubs *and* then covertly meet up indoors, where apart from snitching neighbours there’s little enforcement.

So unless you really can get the buy-in of the population it’s not going to work one way or other. Threats and fines really isn’t the way to get people on board, and there comes a point where it’s gone on long enough. We’re rapidly getting to that point.

 

[Bantamzen]

If alcohol is really the problem with people behaving, I wonder if we should actually go for full-on prohibition?

To be honest, although I love going to the pub, I think I agree.

Shut the pubs and all non essential stuff but allow 2 households to meet indoors, legally.

And about all the jobs you'd be canning? Its not just the pubs, its the breweries, the catering companies, other suppliers, cleaners.....??

 

[ainsworth74]

I suppose we did waste a whole load of shielding time trying to get cases down, rather than get it over with as quickly as possible.

I think the "waste" of time earlier in the year was not setting up an actually effective test, and in particular, trace system. Instead of following the model of countries which have ruthless systems where they both track forwards (who did you possibly spread it too) and backwards (where did you possible catch it and can we trace more people from there) alongside significant financial support to make sure those who are on low incomes can afford to self-isolate and lose their usual income for two weeks if they cannot work from home. Instead the Government gave into their usual instict of immediately throwing money at the private sector so we spent £12bn on Serco to provide us with a utterly useless tracing system which cannot even track all the positive tests that they're supposed to be tracing! Then to compound the error they put Dido Harding in charge who is themselves utterly unqualified for the post that they now hold.

So rather than spending the time we bought with the heaviest restrictions back in March/April/May to get a highly effective contact tracing system set up. We wasted it on spending billions on the private sector and got utter rubbish out the other side. If they spent £12bn on local authority and local public health teams and on financial support for those who cannot work during their self-isolation period we might now not be in the mess we're in.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What's your solution, then? Let it rip? Not happening.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

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

The PM didn't sound very optimistic yesterday in the Commons.

(From Hansard)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Alas, I cannot give him a date by which I can promise confidently that we will have a vaccine. There are some very hopeful signs, not least from the Oxford-AstraZeneca trials that are being conducted, but, as he knows, SARS took place 18 years ago and we still do not have a vaccine for SARS. I do not wish to depress him, but we must be realistic about this. There is a good chance of a vaccine, but it cannot be taken for granted.

So, if there is no vaccine anytime soon, or if there is, it is not one that is sufficiently effective or distributed as widely as necessary then what?

What is the next step?

We stay locked up forever?

At what point does a change of plan become necessary?

At what point can grandparents see their grandchildren again?

At what point can non cohabiting couples or single people enjoy intimate activities?

 

[Crossover]

We’re rapidly getting to that point.

I am certainly feeling that way now, I have to be honest. I'm not suggesting I would want to go out in massive groups and things like that but it would be nice to be able to meet the odd few people on a cautious basis without the background worry of whether it is now against whatever guidelines are the latest thing to be put in place (that will probably have changed again by tomorrow)

I know comparisons are drawn all over to the World Wars, which I think are, at best, unhelpful, given togetherness was the one thing that was encouraged (even though I am under no doubt that it was a stressful time for those involved)

And about all the jobs you'd be canning? Its not just the pubs, its the breweries, the catering companies, other suppliers, cleaners.....??

Agreed that this is another issue, which I had thought of but hadn't explicitly mentioned. It is a bit of a vicious circle

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

What's your solution, then? Let it rip? Not happening.

Is that your rebuttal to everything at the moment?

 

[Solent&Wessex]

And about all the jobs you'd be canning? Its not just the pubs, its the breweries, the catering companies, other suppliers, cleaners.....??

I should have said - only as long as suitable support scheme was in place.

But as that will never happen it's pointless even thinking about it!

 

[Andyh82]

Just seen a clip on the news where shadow health secretary Jonathan Ashworth, says the government should have gone further with the restrictions announced yesterday

 

[Solent&Wessex]

There was a point in the evening press conference where the Chancellor all but said "we can't afford to do more". Will see if I can find the exact slot somewhere.

 

[bramling]

There was a point in the evening press conference where the Chancellor all but said "we can't afford to do more". Will see if I can find the exact slot somewhere.

That’s actually probably the biggest thing to come out of yesterday.

 

[MikeWM]

So, if there is no vaccine anytime soon, or if there is, it is not one that is sufficiently effective or distributed as widely as necessary then what?

What is the next step?

We stay locked up forever?

At what point does a change of plan become necessary?

At what point can grandparents see their grandchildren again?

At what point can non cohabiting couples or single people enjoy intimate activities?

Well, indeed. I thought that was an unusually honest statement by the PM, but it does rather pose a large problem for what is now apparently official Government strategy which (according to Hancock) is 'suppression until the vaccine'.

 

[DB]

That’s actually probably the biggest thing to come out of yesterday.

I suppose we should be grateful that at least one senior cabinet minister appears not have have completely lost sight of reality!

 

[Mag_seven]

Just seen a clip on the news where shadow health secretary Jonathan Ashworth, says the government should have gone further with the restrictions announced yesterday

That's the problem with the current official opposition - rather than wanting less restrictions they actually want more! So the question "if there was a general election tomorrow" doesn't give those who want less restrictions much of a choice.

 

[Darandio]

If alcohol is really the problem with people behaving, I wonder if we should actually go for full-on prohibition?

Yeah let's stop people relaxing at home with a drink as well, that will really help the situation.

 

[Bantamzen]

What's your solution, then? Let it rip? Not happening.

I've going to have to break it to you, it will let rip. Be that this year, next year or ten from now. That's what viruses do, what they have always have done, its what lots are doing right now. All this hiding behind couches is just delaying what is almost certainly inevitable. So its coming whether you like it or not, and banning booze is your silliest, yet disturbingly authoritarian idea to date! Our choice is becoming rapidly stark, deal with the consequences of months of kicking cans, or shut down the economy & hope someone comes along to help us pay for our essential services.

We already know a lot more about how to look after the more vulnerable without full on locking them down, we have better methods to look after them if they do fall ill, and so it is hear where the focus should be. Not fart-arsing about throwing useless method after useless method at the problem and wondering why they don't stick.

Agreed that this is another issue, which I had thought of but hadn't explicitly mentioned. It is a bit of a vicious circle

Sadly its one that damages the very systems it seeks to save. Kill off hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of jobs and you create more problems than you solve.

I should have said - only as long as suitable support scheme was in place.

But as that will never happen it's pointless even thinking about it!

We had a system, and the Chancellor hasn't looked well ever since see the full cost! Why do you think he takes a different line from much of the rest of the cabinet? Because he knows what comes next.

 

[bramling]

I suppose we should be grateful that at least one senior cabinet minister appears not have have completely lost sight of reality!

I suppose when you’re essentially putting billions on a credit card a few hundred times it does focus the mind just a bit!

 

[duncanp]

If alcohol is really the problem with people behaving, I wonder if we should actually go for full-on prohibition?

I don't think alcohol is the problem with people behaving, but it suits some people to pretend that it is, so that they can avoid having to deal with the real issues, which seem to be universities and schools.

Prohibition didn't work in the United States anyway, as there were more illegal drinking dens in Chicago in the 1920s then there were legal bars beforehand.

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.

I agree with this 100%. It is one thing for SAGE minutes to be published in an orderly and controlled manner, but it is quite unacceptable for these minutes to be leaked to the press, and for SAGE members to throw their toys out of the pram and whine to whoever will listen about how the government is not following their advice.

If the government chooses not to follow the advice given by SAGE, or not to follow the advice 100%, then the Prime Minister should take responsibility for that, and be accountable to the people and parliament accordingly.

 

[kristiang85]

So, if there is no vaccine anytime soon, or if there is, it is not one that is sufficiently effective or distributed as widely as necessary then what?

What is the next step?

We stay locked up forever?

At what point does a change of plan become necessary?

At what point can grandparents see their grandchildren again?

At what point can non cohabiting couples or single people enjoy intimate activities?

This is the worrying thing. Heaven knows what countries like New Zealand are planning to do if there is no vaccine soon; they can't lock away their economies forever from the outside world. Everyone will suffer hugely. But now if they relax, the virus will spread through quickly, as there will be a larger section of population without any immunity.

Here, I just can't fathom why the government are doing this to us; yesterday the deaths were 0.4% of the cases. The estimated IFR is actually nearer 0.2% right now. That means 1 in 500 people who get it dies, and most of those that do are already above the average life expectancy without a co-morbidity. In Italy only 3% of COVID deaths were without a co-morbidity, according to data I saw the other day.

If the stats now don't show we can go back to the kind of life we had in early March - i.e. less big gatherings, lots of virus awareness, good hygiene, no handshaking, etc. but none of the harmful restrictions we now have - then when do we go back to any kind of normal life if there isn't a vaccine? The signs are this virus will just join the other coronaviruses in circulation that make up normal 'common colds' (which are still responsible for 8% of deaths in nursing homes per year, not that anybody ever talked about that before). So it will never disappear. Are we going to live like this forever then?

It's extremely worrying that the bottom tier of the restrictions is still restrictive - i.e. there is no 'No restrictions' tier.

 

[Smidster]

[Q

What's your solution, then? Let it rip? Not happening.

That we find a middle way - There must be a path between a version of life that we had in February and where we are today. Somewhere where people can actually have a life that is somewhat worth existing for while also recognising that there is a virus out there. A model that is sustainable in the medium to long-term while we work on other things like vaccines or treatments.

So for me that might be:
- Probably not wise to have your traditional "mass gatherings" lie having 70,000 at a football stadium or 20,000 at a concert venue.
- No restrictions on business opening provided they adhere to capacity limits
- Small groups of individuals permitted to meet in any setting - Let's start at 10 and see how it goes.
- More action to protect the most clinically vulnerable
- Use of Masks in those places where they may be most effective - Enclosed spaces with poor ventilation
- Reinforcement of personal hygiene messages & general focus on personal responsibility

It is all well and good to say "Suppress until we have a vaccine" but at a point we have to switch horses as we can't live like this long term.

 

[duncanp]

Surprise, surprise.

Look who's thrown his toys out of the pram and is stamping his feet up and down because London is in the lowest tier when it comes to restrictions.

You would have thought that he would be pleased at London being in the lowest tier, but it seems that he doesn't care for the effect on London's economy of harsher restrictions, probably because he won't be directly affected.

As someone who was born 95 years ago today once said "..the trouble with Socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money..."

Replace the word Socialism with Locktivism and you have the situation were are in today.

Coronavirus: Tougher restrictions for London 'inevitable' in 'next few days', Sadiq Khan says

Mayor Sadiq Khan tells Sky News the capital will pass a "trigger point" for stricter measures soon.

news.sky.com

It is "inevitable" that London will pass a "trigger point" to enter tougher coronavirus restrictions in the "next few days", Sadiq Khan has told Sky News.

"All the indicators I have, hospital admissions, ICU occupancy, the numbers of older people with cases, the prevalence of the disease, the positivity are all going the wrong direction," the London mayor said.ger point to be in the second tier."

The capital is currently in Tier 1 of the government's three-tier system of coronavirus restrictions, which means an alert level of "medium".


But the mayor's office has put Londoners on alert for the capital to be moved into Tier 2, with a spokesperson saying on Monday that the situation "could change very quickly - potentially even this week".


Tier 1, "medium", will cover a significant part of England and includes the current national restrictions such as the "rule of six" and the 10pm curfew for pubs, bars and restaurants.

 

[kristiang85]

What is Khan on about? London has been pretty stable for the last month if you look at the actual figures.

 

[big_rig]

What is Khan on about? London has been pretty stable for the last month if you look at the actual figures.

He has lost the plot on this I’m afraid. He’s been saying for months that London is ‘at a tipping point’ and needs more restrictions. He wants a lockdown to show people how much he cares about the vulnerable and that he’s better than Boris the baddie. Move over the boy who cried wolf, we have the mayor who cried tipping point and lockdown!

Of course, he also bemoans the effect of the current restrictions on London’s economy and workers, and wants money for that too (let alone the other dire effects of a lockdown but he doesn’t care about those, they’re worth it to pause/delay the ‘skyrocketing’ cases, admissions and deaths in London!)

The image illustrates how incoherent he is - he wanted the 10PM curfew urgently, then when it came in he wanted it to go away!

 

[FQ]

What's the status on overnight stays in each of the tiers? As far as I know they're not mentioned so there's nothing to stop anyone from travelling into or out of the area for a few days?