Should we go back into lockdown at this point?

[island]

I wonder if alcohol rationing might also help. Say for example people are only allowed to have one alcoholic drink per pub, or can only order alcohol with a meal.

Do you seriously think that it would be viable for pubs to open with those sory of rules? Unless almost all their business is food it wouldn't be worth them opening at all.

Ireland had this process (only selling alcohol with a meal) for a couple of months and it has worked well there, save for a small minority of people abusing the system.

 

[DB]

Ireland had this process (only selling alcohol with a meal) for a couple of months and it has worked well there, save for a small minority of people abusing the system.

As I said 'unless almost all their business is food'

For those where most or even a good proportion of their business is drinkers, this would make them non-viable.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Boris had initially floated a "Tier 2" lockdown for 2 weeks in England to coincide with the October half term.

This latest announcement (if true) is literally, the announcement of the grim reaper for the economy, leisure, hospitality and education sectors. And most of the non-emergency NHS sector will shut down to free up space for the "second wave of coronavirus patients" (given that hospitals were empty for the first wave).

I only hope this is the media-fuelled fear propaganda machine on overdrive and none of this ever happens.

I believe there was another protest at Trafalgar Square recently (yesterday?) and another one planned next weekend. I expect other protests too. However, few of these are actively being reported by the media - I wonder why...

I searched out details of the London protest yesterday, curious why it received minimal coverage (no mention on the BBC News - not even the London page, Guardian or Telegraph website when I looked). Apparently / allegedly 10,000 took part, a serious rag-bag of extremists noted among the crowds, waving their anti-vaccine, conspiracy theory, COVID is a fake, and similar banners.

 

[DB]

I searched out details of the London protest yesterday, curious why it it received minimal coverage (no mention of the BBC News - not even the London page, Guardian or Telegraph website when I looked). Apparently / allegedly 10,000 took part, a serious rag-bag of extremists noted among the crowds, waving their anti-vaccine, conspiracy theory, COVID is a fake, and similar banners.

The extremists Will be a minority albeit very visible.

But of course this will allow the government/media to dismiss them all...

 

[adc82140]

I only hope this is the media-fuelled fear propaganda machine on overdrive and none of this ever happens.

It is. See the following from an unusually calm Sky News:

Analysis: Steel-fisted COVID government approach now inevitable

By Rob Powell, political correspondent

Despite headlines of a looming second national lockdown, explicit and implicit noises from government clearly suggest that is not currently on the table.

Matt Hancock went a step further today, downplaying anonymous briefings that Boris Johnson is poised to bring in a two week "circuit break" of tighter restrictions.

The health secretary moved to shift the emphasis onto public adherence to the existing rules.

Within the live feed

Coronavirus news live: Donald Trump announces rollout of 150 million 'rapid' COVID-19 tests

The latest COVID-19 news as millions download the NHS Test and Trace app, the 10pm curfew is enforced and daily cases spike.

news.sky.com

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Firstly, let's account for tabloid fact distortion. Nobody has suggested a lockdown for the whole winter. In fact nobody has suggested a lockdown at all, even on the scale of March which wasn't actually a lockdown. The media are the ones making the hoo ha. What is that "senior government source" actually referring to? It's unlikely to be what'll be happening for the public, but more likely to be the atmosphere round Whitehall, what with this and Brexit. For those in government the next six months will be s**t. Boris is likely to come on the TV and issue a load of threats. "If you don't follow the rule of 6, we could take the action I'm about to outline". The whole thing has been mismanaged, but this is something he should have done ages ago, not relied on some hapless cabinet minister doing the rounds of the Sunday interviews.

Exactly.

Those people who have taken this as gospel need to go and sit down in a darkened room and have a good reflect. This is a tabloid looking for headlines and clicks on a website to drive advertising.

There will be no lockdown. We didn't have one before.

Excellent, if only enough people had done so. But no, twit from Bolton just had to go out on the lash, with all his mates, despite having just come back from holiday probably doing much the same whilst away. Or the Welsh nuggets, just why did they feel it so essential to jump on a coach and travel such a distance, without even going to the races when they got there? Are there no pubs in South Wales? Those celebrity cases are juts the tip of the iceberg. Get real folks, stay away from strangers. "Stranger Danger"(c) .

Again, another spot on post. If we do the sensible things like keeping distance, we won't have to have more draconian measures.

It's not about a total lockdown (and you can bet Boris doesn't want that) but having least measures in order to keep a lid on things as much as possible. Not to eradicate it, but to control the spread as much as possible.

It is sad that the Bolton idiot didn't think about his responsibility to others and instead rather selfishly decided to ignore the rules. Some people will always decide that what they want is essential and will justify it to themselves, irrespective of anything.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

You can manage 2m surely?

In the real world, not the politicians’ world, 2m distancing ceased when face coverings in shops became mandatory. Most people’s behaviour changed, they thought masks overrode or even replaced the need to distance

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Ireland had this process (only selling alcohol with a meal) for a couple of months and it has worked well there, save for a small minority of people abusing the system.

As I said 'unless almost all their business is food'

For those where most or even a good proportion of their business is drinkers, this would make them non-viable.

I read something that 'wet led' pubs were approved for re-opening, can't recall if it was Ireland, Northern Ireland or both. Seemed a sensible, measured, intermediate step in re-opening their economy. Do something, measure the effect, consider something else instead, as well as, or row back, depending upon the impact.

 

[takno]

I searched out details of the London protest yesterday, curious why it received minimal coverage (no mention on the BBC News - not even the London page, Guardian or Telegraph website when I looked). Apparently / allegedly 10,000 took part, a serious rag-bag of extremists noted among the crowds, waving their anti-vaccine, conspiracy theory, COVID is a fake, and similar banners.

The Guardian covered it several times in their daily live feed fairly neutrally, even taking the time to report that what trouble there was was caused by the police attempting to charge the stage without warning. By the time it had been written up as a full article the crowd had been rewritten as exclusively nut-jobs and extremists.

 

[yorksrob]

Exactly.

Those people who have taken this as gospel need to go and sit down in a darkened room and have a good reflect. This is a tabloid looking for headlines and clicks on a website to drive advertising.

There will be no lockdown. We didn't have one before.



Again, another spot on post. If we do the sensible things like keeping distance, we won't have to have more draconian measures.

It's not about a total lockdown (and you can bet Boris doesn't want that) but having least measures in order to keep a lid on things as much as possible. Not to eradicate it, but to control the spread as much as possible.

It is sad that the Bolton idiot didn't think about his responsibility to others and instead rather selfishly decided to ignore the rules. Some people will always decide that what they want is essential and will justify it to themselves, irrespective of anything.

"We didn't have one before" !?

What planet are you living on ?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

"We didn't have one before" !?

What planet are you living on ?

I'm sorry.... were you able to leave the house? Were you able to get groceries in without having a permit? Weren't able to walk or cycle? I wasn't aware that you were barricaded into your house by the authorities?

Compared to other countries, we weren't in lockdown. So.... what planet were you on?

 

[Acfb]

The Conservatives do love a disproprtionate punishment.

I don't think there is an actual strategy but the uncertainty and fear etc is helping the Conservatives keep their over 65 vote together combined with Hancock's nebulous blaming of 'the young' (at least in England) and a similar phenomenon is also helping Sturgeon's approval ratings (although I don't see over 65s voting for her when the push comes to the shove).

 

[yorkie]

"We didn't have one before" !?

What planet are you living on ?

It's just a play on semantics.

The term 'lockdown' was probably unhelpful but no-one really came up with a better term, so it stuck.

I don't care what word is used, but whatever anyone wants to call it, we can't afford to have another one. It's not viable and it's not wanted.

Any argument over semantics is an irrelevance.

Those who want it are misguided and lack understanding of the facts. I've seen many interviews with people who have made arguments from both sides and the pro lockdown people tend to make many incorrect assumptions and misleading statements. Those who can see the bigger picture are the ones whose views I respect.

 

[DB]

I'm sorry.... were you able to leave the house? Were you able to get groceries in without having a permit? Weren't able to walk or cycle? I wasn't aware that you were barricaded into your house by the authorities?

Compared to other countries, we weren't in lockdown. So.... what planet were you on?

So because some countries went even further than this one, that means that it didn't happen at all in this country? Afraid I don't follow your logic.

 

[najaB]

If you take the naïve measure of lost lives, then perhaps, however if we consider the loss of quality-adjusted life years, then it's obvious that age has a factor.

That is a measure of the impact of the disease on society, but it's not a measure of how dangerous it is. You're conflating a pure statistical measure with a social science measure.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I don't think there is an actual strategy but the uncertainty and fear etc is helping the Conservatives keep their over 65 vote together combined with Hancock's nebulous blaming of 'the young' (at least in England) and a similar phenomenon is also helping Sturgeon's approval ratings (although I don't see over 65s voting for her when the push comes the shove).

Think you're giving the Tories too much credit.

There is no strategy. It's been a raft of catchy names "whack a mole" or "moonshot" to explain a terrible absence of leadership. That and the various dead cat strategies, Hancock having a go a footballers, sacrificing Ferguson, and of course, the failure to act decisively and rewrite history in the Barnard Castle episode.

 

[DB]

That is a measure of the impact of the disease on society, but it's not a measure of how dangerous it is. You're conflating a pure statistical measure with a social science measure.

It's impact on society really is the measure of how dangerous it is. A virus which mostly kills people with only months to live anyway is not as dangerous as one which kills indiscriminately.

Plus a virus which mostly only kills a specific demographic should be easier to mitigate against (which incidentally this country has proved totally incompetent at doing)

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

So because some countries went even further than this one, that means that it didn't happen at all in this country? Afraid I don't follow your logic.

Sorry, I'll go slower for you....

Were you locked into your house for weeks at end with NO ability to leave?

No need to answer - you weren't. What we all had were wide ranging and massively frustrating restrictions on our liberties that has massively impacted our social, physical, mental and financial wellbeing but a lockdown it was not.

 

[Howardh]

Reading the press this morning, it appears there are numerous strategies, from do nothing to absolute and full lockdown. Suggestions that Mr. Invisible The PM will address the nation on Tuesday, I think it will be to announce a full lockdown less that the schools will remain open. And I bet he won't give a finish date to the lockdown either. The only good news I have seen is that there could be a vaccine early next year.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Reading the press this morning, it appears there are numerous strategies, from do nothing to absolute and full lockdown. Suggestions that Mr. Invisible The PM will address the nation on Tuesday, I think it will be to announce a full lockdown less that the schools will remain open. And I bet he won't give a finish date to the lockdown either. The only good news I have seen is that there could be a vaccine early next year.

I suspect that there's a bit of kite flying as well in the press and the government are keeping a close eye on public opinion.

FWIW, I suspect that the commercial and educational aspect will have to proceed - most businesses, shops and schools/colleges will remain open.

However, the hospitality sector.... that might be in more trouble. Also, the restrictions on meeting in homes will be tightened again.

 

[Richard Scott]

Sorry, I'll go slower for you....

Were you locked into your house for weeks at end with NO ability to leave?

No need to answer - you weren't. What we all had were wide ranging and massively frustrating restrictions on our liberties that has massively impacted our social, physical, mental and financial wellbeing but a lockdown it was not.

Don't think the sarcasm is necessary. I'm sure we all understood you first time but whatever limited freedom we did have was not conducive to good mental health especially if living alone and unable to meet with friends and family.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm sorry.... were you able to leave the house? Were you able to get groceries in without having a permit? Weren't able to walk or cycle? I wasn't aware that you were barricaded into your house by the authorities?

Compared to other countries, we weren't in lockdown. So.... what planet were you on?

I effectively wasn't allowed to visit any friends or family for two months in any setting. That's a lockdown in my book.

It's just a play on semantics.

The term 'lockdown' was probably unhelpful but no-one really came up with a better term, so it stuck.

I don't care what word is used, but whatever anyone wants to call it, we can't afford to have another one. It's not viable and it's not wanted.

Any argument over semantics is an irrelevance.

Those who want it are misguided and lack understanding of the facts. I've seen many interviews with people who have made arguments from both sides and the pro lockdown people tend to make many incorrect assumptions and misleading statements. Those who can see the bigger picture are the ones whose views I respect.

Whatever it was, I agree that we don't need another one.

 

[317 forever]

Could you try telling that to Ms Sturgeon up here? I’ve tried emailing them and I just get “our priority is to keep Scotland safe and by eliminating the virus we will allow Scotland to live in a safer, more sustainable society“

The lonelier life with more unemployment and less socialising allowed means that we might be in a safer society (though less safe than before Covid) but certainly not a more sustainable society.

 

[DB]

Sorry, I'll go slower for you....

Were you locked into your house for weeks at end with NO ability to leave?

No need to answer - you weren't. What we all had were wide ranging and massively frustrating restrictions on our liberties that has massively impacted our social, physical, mental and financial wellbeing but a lockdown it was not.

So basically you are saying that your definition of lockdown is the only correct one. Rather arrogant, perhaps?

And like it or not, your definition does not fit how it has been generally used for many months.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Sep 2020 ==

The lonelier life with more unemployment and less socialising allowed means that we might be in a safer society (though less safe than before Covid) but certainly not a more sustainable society.

Depends how you define safe - it certainly won't be more safe for those facing destitution or with mental health difficulties which are serverely exacerbated by the ongoing restrictions. Or for people with other dangerous illnesses for which treatment is suspended or unavailable.

 

[birchesgreen]

One of my friends might raise an eyebrow that he was not in "lockdown". He was made redundant in Feb so had no job to be furloughed from, his family were in Wales so he couldn't see them and couldn't see me or any other friends for months. Literally the only person he spoke to for months was the checkout operator in Asda!

But not a lockdown eh?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

One of my friends might raise an eyebrow that he was not in "lockdown". He was made redundant in Feb so had no job to be furloughed from, his family were in Wales so he couldn't see them and couldn't see me or any other friends for months. Literally the only person he spoke to for months was the checkout operator in Asda!

But not a lockdown eh?

Well no.

Admittedly, it was and is bloody awful. I had my fiancee to spend time with; all my family are in the North and I live in Somerset. Didn't see friends except shouting at the neighbours, and had to cancel our wedding.

What we did have was the ability to leave our house.

 

[317 forever]

Yes, Independent SAGE at least have a plan, and it didn't take them long to come up with it either!

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



Labour.

I think we have reached the point where it will have to go national - the only major conurbation with no measures is now Greater London, and that's on the watchlist.

I think that as Covid was rampant earlier on in London, there is a greater type of herd immunity there, meaning proportionately fewer people catching it now given how many people many come into close contact with there.

 

[Cheshire Rover]

if it was in January, then it's unlikely unless you have been near someone who had travelled through an infected area recently. The rate of community transmission at that point would have been vanishingly small. Much more likely to have been seasonal flu, unless you had Covid specific symptoms?

I had a temperature and a cough with difficulty breathing at night. No sniffles, sneezes, aches or pains. Having had flu I know it puts you to bed for a week. I was able to carry on working. I was in Spain mid December so it might have Covid or might not.

 

[317 forever]

A second lockdown would cause civil unrest and we could see scenes of riots like we had in 1981 and 2011.

Many people (myself included) have simply had enough of all this now. The economy would go into meltdown and the winter months will certainly have a greater impact on people's mental health than the spring months of the original lockdown.

CJ

Indeed, yesterday there were protests in central London against these renewed lockdown measures. Ironically, the spread of the virus among protesters could have negated the spared spread by those who did co-operate.

If there are enough such protests, these lockdown measures will on balance prove counter-productive.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

I suspect that there's a bit of kite flying as well in the press and the government are keeping a close eye on public opinion.

How, exactly? By looking at Facebook Karen’s reaction?