Local Lockdown - North East England

[Mag_seven]

I note that public transport has been advised as 'essential only', does this mean they are willingly discriminating against non car owners?

Seems a bit poor

My argument would be that if you don't have a car then public transport is essential!

 

[Huntergreed]

My argument would be that if you don't have a car then public transport is essential!

My argument will be that I've never done the LNER diverts between Edinburgh and Newcastle via Carlisle before. Seems pretty essential to me!

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Clearly, there would be a judgment call as to what is considered essential public transport. If it's that you have to go to work, then you'll be fine. If you just fancy a jolly (with the attendant justification that not travelling on a class 143 would be a massive assault on your mental health), then that will probably be viewed as non-essential.

As regards the legalities (and I'm no barrack-room lawyer so it's just my interpretation rather than me stating this as fact), we are still covered by the Health Protection Regulations legislation so should the government wish to lock down travel again, they have the legal right to do so. That this may indirectly discriminate against a particular demographic is irrelevant.

 

[High Dyke]

I asume that the club is only used at weekends? Do these people not get the point that the virus lasts 3-4 days max, so by the following weekend will be gone (in the unlikely event it was even there) without any intervention?

It does make you wonder.

 

[yorksrob]

My argument would be that if you don't have a car then public transport is essential!

Clearly, there would be a judgment call as to what is considered essential public transport. If it's that you have to go to work, then you'll be fine. If you just fancy a jolly (with the attendant justification that not travelling on a class 143 would be a massive assault on your mental health), then that will probably be viewed as non-essential.

As regards the legalities (and I'm no barrack-room lawyer so it's just my interpretation rather than me stating this as fact), we are still covered by the Health Protection Regulations legislation so should the government wish to lock down travel again, they have the legal right to do so. That this may indirectly discriminate against a particular demographic is irrelevant.

My interpretation would be that since I have no alternative means by which to go about my lawful business, public transport is indeed essential.

 

[ChrisC]

But why should people in (for example) Sussex or Devon be locked down because of high case rates in the North West, North East, and West Midlands?

The same could be said even within the North East with today’s local measures. Why should people in Upper Teesdale, Weardale, or remoter sparsely populated parts of Northumberland suffer because of high rates in Sunderland, Newcastle, Gateshead etc.

I’m on holiday this week staying in a hotel in a rural part of County Durham. I chose here because it was quiet and rural and now I find myself in an area with restrictions. I don’t think it will affect me though as I go home to Nottinghamshire on Saturday. It will be just my luck to find the East Midlands in a local lockdown.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

The leader of Newcastle City Council is calling for further restrictions to limit people's movements: https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1306646759372926978

"If we don't act now we'll find ourselves in another crisis situation."

Leader of Newcastle City Council welcomes the decision to place new restrictions on northeast England, and says he's asked for further restrictions to "limit people's movements".

 

[Domh245]

The same could be said even within the North East with today’s local measures. Why should people in Upper Teesdale, Weardale, or remoter sparsely populated parts of Northumberland suffer because of high rates in Sunderland, Newcastle, Gateshead etc.

Because they're unfortunate enough to share a council with those hotspot locations. Doing things at a council level means that it is easily understandable who it applies to whilst retaining a degree of granularity - in urban areas this works well, but it does fall down a bit when it comes to the large county sized councils by which Northumberland is far and away the largest.

With Co Durham and Northumberland there probably is a separate argument to be had whether the whole county should be subject to the restrictions or just the problem towns/areas which the gov website seems to suggest are the areas with the increase in cases, but is dependant on how those towns interact with the rest of the county. "2 wronging" by placing the whole country under the restrictions definitely isn't the answer

 

[route101]

My argument will be that I've never done the LNER diverts between Edinburgh and Newcastle via Carlisle before. Seems pretty essential to me!

I think it should be fine. Im thinking of doing them too.

 

[AdamWW]

I think it should be fine. Im thinking of doing them too.

I'd recommend it.

Though if you do it the way I did - on the way from London to Aberdeen - it's quite a long day...

 

[route101]

I'd recommend it.

Though if you do it the way I did - on the way from London to Aberdeen - it's quite a long day...

Ive done it most of the last few years. Not quite as interesting with the 800s though. I live in Glasgow .

 

[yorkie]

Think I would rather have a fortnight's full UK wide lockdown....

For what purpose?

What would that achieve?!

I note that public transport has been advised as 'essential only', does this mean they are willingly discriminating against non car owners?

This would be unlawful.

Even TfW were not actually restricting people at any point, as they divulged in a response to an FOI request. It's just something that some people say to deter people from travelling.

 

[AdamWW]

Ive done it most of the last few years. Not quite as interesting with the 800s though. I live in Glasgow .

At least they have windows not portholes.

 

[Bikeman78]

Think I would rather have a fortnight's full UK wide lockdown than all these local lockdowns which seem random and mystifying, especially to non locals.

What would that achieve? The first lockdown did not eliminate the virus. A second will be no different. We can't go in and out of lockdown for the rest of time.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

My interpretation would be that since I have no alternative means by which to go about my lawful business, public transport is indeed essential.

We don't make the judgement on what is our lawful business. The regulations are such that travel can be constrained.

We may feel that it's lawful to have a jolly to see Caerphilly Castle - we can't.

Because they're unfortunate enough to share a council with those hotspot locations. Doing things at a council level means that it is easily understandable who it applies to whilst retaining a degree of granularity - in urban areas this works well, but it does fall down a bit when it comes to the large county sized councils by which Northumberland is far and away the largest.

With Co Durham and Northumberland there probably is a separate argument to be had whether the whole county should be subject to the restrictions or just the problem towns/areas which the gov website seems to suggest are the areas with the increase in cases, but is dependant on how those towns interact with the rest of the county. "2 wronging" by placing the whole country under the restrictions definitely isn't the answer

I'd presume that you're right and that the cases in Northumberland will be mainly in the South East (e.g. Cramlington, Blyth, Bedlington, Ashington) whilst the rest of the county is mainly sheep and seagulls anyway. It is for ease of administration (as its a unitary authority) and wherever the line is drawn, there will be people pleased or displeased on the divide.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Sep 2020 ==

What would that achieve? The first lockdown did not eliminate the virus. A second will be no different. We can't go in and out of lockdown for the rest of time.

No but it did stop the exponential growth of the virus and the overwhelming of critical care capacity.

 

[yorksrob]

We don't make the judgement on what is our lawful business. The regulations are such that travel can be constrained.

We may feel that it's lawful to have a jolly to see Caerphilly Castle - we can't.

I certainly won't be requiring your interpretation.

 

[NorthOxonian]

I'd presume that you're right and that the cases in Northumberland will be mainly in the South East (e.g. Cramlington, Blyth, Bedlington, Ashington) whilst the rest of the county is mainly sheep and seagulls anyway. It is for ease of administration (as its a unitary authority) and wherever the line is drawn, there will be people pleased or displeased on the divide.

Cramlington seems to be the main culprit - Bedlington and Blyth were bad a week or two ago, but cases there are now very low. Ashington has a few cases as well, but not really very many. Morpeth, Berwick, Alnwick, and Hexham (all of which are reasonably substantial places) don't show up at all, though there may be one or two cases in each.

 

[Howardh]

For what purpose?

What would that achieve?!

Probably absolutely nothing (see under "current restrictions") but the only positive is we all know where we stand. Question; those living on the Fylde are to be restricted to essential travel only according to the Sky news item above. So if I lived on the Fylde could I travel to Brighton next week for a pre-booked holiday? And don't you think most will ignore them anyway?
I think, as long as the death toll remains low, we should be trying to open up places, such as football grounds for fans. But if we are gonna have these petty pointless restrictions where people like myself don't know where we're up to - then wouldn't it be better to go the whole hog and lockdown again for two or three weeks? Do it properly if the government thinks it will do any good - or not at all. I prefer the latter.

 

[yorkie]

....wouldn't it be better to go the whole hog and lockdown again for two or three weeks? Do it properly if the government thinks it will do any good...

It won't.

See: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...sible-second-wave.208012/page-26#post-4776650

 

[MikeWM]

The appropriate regulations for this have been published, as usual a few hours before they come into force.

Nothing about restricting use of public transport in there.

Rather embarassingly, the regulations were defective as published, so they've already had to publish further regulations to make 5 (!) modifications to those published only hours beforehand, to rectify the errors. At least one of those was a major (and obvious) problem. We are truly being led by fools.

 

[Class 33]

Probably absolutely nothing (see under "current restrictions") but the only positive is we all know where we stand. Question; those living on the Fylde are to be restricted to essential travel only according to the Sky news item above. So if I lived on the Fylde could I travel to Brighton next week for a pre-booked holiday? And don't you think most will ignore them anyway?
I think, as long as the death toll remains low, we should be trying to open up places, such as football grounds for fans. But if we are gonna have these petty pointless restrictions where people like myself don't know where we're up to - then wouldn't it be better to go the whole hog and lockdown again for two or three weeks? Do it properly if the government thinks it will do any good - or not at all. I prefer the latter.

We definitely DON'T need another full national lockdown! If indeed that happens, Boris will say that it's to be reviewed in 2 or 3 weeks. And then come 2 or 3 weeks, he'll probably decide to extend it again for another 2 or 3 weeks again, like what happened in April. And then this will all then drag out for at least several months again with gradual easing of the lockdown measures, non-essential shops and the hospitality industry will be shut again for months, and social distancing and mask wearing laws still dragging on with no end in sight of being scrapped. It will be DREADFUL. We'll basically be RESETTING back to the first lockdown of 23rd March again! Really hoping like mad this does not happen. But it seems Chris Whitty is pressuring Boris for a 2 or 3 week full national lockdown. Hope Boris sees some sense and refuses to implement such destructive action.

 

[Freightmaster]

No but (national lockdown) did stop the exponential growth of the virus and the overwhelming of critical care capacity.

No it didn't!!

The incidence of new infections was already beginning to plateau in the days preceding the commencement of
the lockdown (due to people voluntarily washing hands more, social distancing, avoiding large gatherings, etc)

Just because there was an 'effect' (growth of the virus slowed during April) doesn't mean that
the lockdown was the 'cause' - there is no proof whatsoever that the two are linked:

Correlation does not imply causation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

For some reason that I am unable to fully understand, people in this country, including the vast majority
of politicians/council leaders, have become convinced (brainwashed?) that lockdowns are the only viable
method of controlling the spread of the virus, even though other Europeans countries, such as France
have vowed never to go into lockdown again, irrespective of how rapidly their daily case figures rise.





MARK

 

[Bantamzen]

The leader of Newcastle City Council is calling for further restrictions to limit people's movements: https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1306646759372926978

This is another escalation in the "Local Council Being Seen To Be Doing More Than The Next Council" war. I hope the good people of Newcastle tell him exactly where he can stick his ideas.

Probably absolutely nothing (see under "current restrictions") but the only positive is we all know where we stand. Question; those living on the Fylde are to be restricted to essential travel only according to the Sky news item above. So if I lived on the Fylde could I travel to Brighton next week for a pre-booked holiday? And don't you think most will ignore them anyway?
I think, as long as the death toll remains low, we should be trying to open up places, such as football grounds for fans. But if we are gonna have these petty pointless restrictions where people like myself don't know where we're up to - then wouldn't it be better to go the whole hog and lockdown again for two or three weeks? Do it properly if the government thinks it will do any good - or not at all. I prefer the latter.

Why would another lockdown have any effect, we've already seen quite clearly that lockdowns have precious little effect save delaying the spread. We are now entering the start of "flu season" where respiratory illnesses increase in the population & we are still trying to kick the covid can down the road. Frankly the first lockdown caused enough issues not to mention pushing the spike closer to winter, another one would just double that problem.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

No it didn't!!

The incidence of new infections was already beginning to plateau in the days preceding the commencement of
the lockdown (due to people voluntarily washing hands more, social distancing, avoiding large gatherings, etc)

Just because there was an 'effect' (growth of the virus slowed during April) doesn't mean that
the lockdown was the 'cause' - there is no proof whatsoever that the two are linked:

Correlation does not imply causation - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

For some reason that I am unable to fully understand, people in this country, including the vast majority
of politicians/council leaders, have become convinced (brainwashed?) that lockdowns are the only viable
method of controlling the spread of the virus, even though other Europeans countries, such as France
have vowed never to go into lockdown again, irrespective of how rapidly their daily case figures rise.





MARK

I know the difference between correlation and causation. I can also read the statistics https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

Plateauing didn't begin until late April.

As for the comparison with France, it's broadly the same. Neither the UK nor France want a full lockdown because of the impact on the economy. Marseilles and Bordeaux have local lockdowns as intensive care beds are now beginning to fill up. In Bordeaux, they have limited public gatherings to 10 people or fewer including in parks, outlawed standing at bars, and reduced the attendances at sports events whilst employees are to work from home where possible, public transport providers have been asked to reorganise their services to prevent overcrowding during rush hours, and care homes visits are drastically restricted.

Brainwashing? You'll be saying >40k haven't died next.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Sep 2020 ==

I certainly won't be requiring your interpretation.

It's not up to either of us to make that interpretation unless, of course, you're a political advisor and then can make a judgement call and drive from one end of the country to the other, or go to test your eyes on a trip out (on a day that is coincidentally your wife's birthday).

Otherwise, for us plebs, we are subject to the Public Health Regs 2020 that allow the Secretary of State to take whatever steps are allowed and that includes restrictions on travel.

 

[Smidster]

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Sep 2020 ==

Otherwise, for us plebs, we are subject to the Public Health Regs 2020 that allow the Secretary of State to take whatever steps are allowed and that includes restrictions on travel.

There is not, and never has been, anything in the regulations about restrictions to who can, and can not, use public transport.

Also the current round of restrictions do not limit your ability to be outside of your house, or the reason for being outside of your house, but rather who you meet when you do leave your home.

One of my main complaints with how all this has been managed is people, including those in positions of power, insisting that guidance is law.

 

[DB]

Brainwashing? You'll be saying >40k haven't died next.

Where is the evidence that the numbers wouldn't have been pretty much the same with only light-touch restrictions?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Where is the evidence that the numbers wouldn't have been pretty much the same with only light-touch restrictions?

Oh I don't know.... New Zealand, Australia, South Kores, Singapore....

 

[Bletchleyite]

One of my main complaints with how all this has been managed is people, including those in positions of power, insisting that guidance is law.

And one of mine is that there even is guidance. If you need people to do it, make it law. Don't even have the guidance.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

There is not, and never has been, anything in the regulations about restrictions to who can, and can not, use public transport.

Also the current round of restrictions do not limit your ability to be outside of your house, or the reason for being outside of your house, but rather who you meet when you do leave your home.

One of my main complaints with how all this has been managed is people, including those in positions of power, insisting that guidance is law.

Correct but that is not what I said.

Section 6 of the legislation details the rules on restrictions on movement. It is travel that is restricted, not the means.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Sep 2020 ==

And one of mine is that there even is guidance. If you need people to do it, make it law. Don't even have the guidance.

Depending on your view, that's because either Boris is a libertarian or simply wants wiggle room to justify the various failures of his approach!

 

[Bantamzen]

Oh I don't know.... New Zealand, Australia, South Kores, Singapore....

New Zealand? Oh yes the lockdown masters that killed off the virus... Execpt they didn't, it just bubbled along under the surface before starting to re-emerge again. And then they've got the little quandary on how to ever open up their country to the rest of the world.

Australia? Yeah, about that. You might want to catch up with the news in some territories....

Rinse... Repeat...