When will this shit end?

[Fuzzy Afro]

Drakeford saying a full on u-turn is unlikely.

 

I think it’s going to be a fudge. 

[zahidf]

On Sky News Sam Coates, its deputy political editor, produced a useful list of the options available to Michael Gove, the Cabinet Office minister, as they consider whether or not to rethink the rules for mixing over Christmas. He suggested there were five options.

1) Sticking with the rules as they are, but toughening up the advice that people should exercise restraint - and do less mixing than is allowed if they can.

2) Shortening the window during which mixing is allowed from its current five days.

3) Reducing the number of households allowed to mix from three to two.

4) Maintaining the mixing rules, but telling people not to travel outside their region.

5) Moving the holiday entirely to a different time of the year.

The final idea seems the most unlikely, although it has been floated on social media.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, zahidf said:

A harsher lockdown may make more sense, but if people ignore it anyway, a looser one with scary warnings is probably better. I simply dont think people are going to cancel their plans at the last minute. They may modify their plans though

It still doesn’t change the fact that it won’t be enough. They should take further action and explain it to the public to get them on board. I think the majority would follow tougher restrictions at Christmas and besides we shouldn’t have looser rules just because a few will ignore them anyway. 
 

The bottom line is we currently have 20k cases a day in tiered restrictions with no household mixing. They want to relax that for 3-5 days to allow some houses to mix. 20k cases a day is too high for those of relaxations if anything we should be going the other way as much as it might pain all of us. 

[zero000]

4 minutes ago, zahidf said:

A harsher lockdown may make more sense, but if people ignore it anyway, a looser one with scary warnings is probably better. I simply dont think people are going to cancel their plans at the last minute. They may modify their plans though

100% this.  It’s harm reduction rather than risk elimination. I think the parallels with “abstinence only” messaging around sex education is an interesting comparison. Both sex and social interaction are fundamental human needs, which are never going to be adequately managed by a “just say no” approach. The government messaging should be stronger on what we can all do to reduce the risk before Christmas if we’re seeing loved ones. For some people that will be not seeing them at all, for others that might be a very different approach. 

[incident]

I fail to understand what good cutting down the number of days does. If I'm going to infect someone (or vica versa), then 2 extra days in the company of the same people isn't going to change anything.

Plus there's the fact that you'd be reducing the number of travel days - so for example instead of having outward travel split between the 23rd and 24th, you'd have everyone travelling on the 24th which will make public transport, service stations, etc busier and therefore riskier.

[zahidf]

2 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

It still doesn’t change the fact that it won’t be enough. They should take further action and explain it to the public to get them on board. I think the majority would follow tougher restrictions at Christmas and besides we shouldn’t have looser rules just because a few will ignore them anyway. 
 

Yeah no, not a chance. If 45% or so don't follow the no mixing rules, then its pointless having a lockdown over Xmas. And you do have to have rules people follow to an extent. We arent China!

[zahidf]

1 minute ago, incident said:

I fail to understand what good cutting down the number of days does. If I'm going to infect someone (or vica versa), then 2 extra days in the company of the same people isn't going to change anything.

Plus there's the fact that you'd be reducing the number of travel days - so for example instead of having outward travel split between the 23rd and 24th, you'd have everyone travelling on the 24th which will make public transport, service stations, etc busier and therefore riskier.

You could be staying around over that period and meeting friends in that area/going out to any pubs still in tier 2 e.t.c

[Mr.Tease]

52 minutes ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

I used to work in the same office as that bloke. He used to talk really loudly on his phone and come over to our side of the office to do it, which really annoyed me.

For some reason it's extra annoying when someone you've had dealings with and who's annoyed you in day to day life suddenly appears on TV or in a magazine! I end up shaking my head and muttering to myself - My thoughts are with you! 😂

[Guest]

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

Yeah no, not a chance. If 45% or so don't follow the no mixing rules, then its pointless having a lockdown over Xmas. And you do have to have rules people follow to an extent. We arent China!

I have more faith in people than you obviously do it seems.

45% won’t not follow the rules, just because they might like them doesn’t mean they won’t follow them. It’s not like we are asking people to never go outside we’d be asking them to not mix household for one Christmas. I believe that if the government explained clearly why this needs to happen then the majority would understand and follow the rules. I believe that people would see the need to act. 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, incident said:

I fail to understand what good cutting down the number of days does. If I'm going to infect someone (or vica versa), then 2 extra days in the company of the same people isn't going to change anything.

Plus there's the fact that you'd be reducing the number of travel days - so for example instead of having outward travel split between the 23rd and 24th, you'd have everyone travelling on the 24th which will make public transport, service stations, etc busier and therefore riskier.

The cutting down of days doesn’t really do anything. If you are in a different household with people then it’ll spread. 

[zahidf]

Just now, Ozanne said:

I have more faith in people than you obviously do it seems.

45% won’t not follow the rules, just because they might like them doesn’t mean they won’t follow them. It’s not like we are asking people to never go outside we’d be asking them to not mix household for one Christmas. I believe that if the government explained clearly why this needs to happen then the majority would understand and follow the rules. I believe that people would see the need to act. 

Its not about faith in people. A few months ago we were told that a second lockdown would mean looser restrictions over Xmas. If the govt go back on that, would you really blame people for not going along with it?

Youre asking people to cancel Xmas plans theyve already planned for with a weeks notice. 

When the govt cancelled Eid a few months ago, what percentage of people with plans cancelled them do you think? Im thinking its a very low amount. Telling people Xmas is cancelled now is a waste of time

[steviewevie]

christmas is fucking shit.

QED

[st dan]

3 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

I have more faith in people than you obviously do it seems.

45% won’t not follow the rules, just because they might like them doesn’t mean they won’t follow them. It’s not like we are asking people to never go outside we’d be asking them to not mix household for one Christmas. I believe that if the government explained clearly why this needs to happen then the majority would understand and follow the rules. I believe that people would see the need to act. 

Maybe, but we’re now less than 8 days away and millions of people have made plans. People are going to be very pissed off at any changes now - especially as it’s not like the rise in figures after a lockdown is a shock. 

 

[zahidf]

 

[Crazyfool01]

The restriction changes need to be ones that are acceptable to people at  this late stage.... otherwise there is no point ... they need people onside and this means for the January ( likely ) lockdown .....which needs to be a harder lockdown than the last one in my opinion .... something akin to lockdown 1 ... There are plenty of people that will be more than compliant with current restrictions over Christmas but changing them I can see people just going F.. em ...... 

[incident]

1 minute ago, st dan said:

Maybe, but we’re now less than 8 days away and millions of people have made plans. People are going to be very pissed off at any changes now - especially as it’s not like the rise in figures after a lockdown is a shock.

Made plans and spent money. Probably a lot of money in some cases.

I've just spoken to my mother on the phone, and she's insistent that now that she's put everything in place, we're going ahead regardless of what the government say. I've tried to think of an analogy to emphasise how out of character disregarding rules like that is for her, but can't come up with anything strong enough.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Its not about faith in people. A few months ago we were told that a second lockdown would mean looser restrictions over Xmas. If the govt go back on that, would you really blame people for not going along with it?

Youre asking people to cancel Xmas plans theyve already planned for with a weeks notice. 

When the govt cancelled Eid a few months ago, what percentage of people with plans cancelled them do you think? Im thinking its a very low amount. Telling people Xmas is cancelled now is a waste of time

We are in the middle of a global pandemic and the situation will be very fluid. Which means that things can change with very little notice. As you say it happened with Eid so another religious holiday shouldn’t be exempt from that. I wouldn’t blame people not going along with it but I would strongly recommend that they do follow the rules, unfortunately in a pandemic there will be plans that get cancelled, holidays, festivals etc. But we are so close to the end now that we just have to push for a little bit more to get this over with  

This whole thing has been a mess from the summer, I’ve been saying since then that the government needed to come out in September with the message that Christmas will have to be very different with no mixing this year. Spend the next 3 months delivering that message and trying to get people to understand. They didn’t do that and we are now in the position we are in where they will have to make a very difficult decision. If they had taken those steps then you could’ve had public by in by now.

It is about having faith in people you believe that if the government cancelled these arrangements now 45% wouldn’t adhere to the rules. I’m saying that I believe if the government cancelled these plans now that the vast majority of people will follow those rules because of how important it is. I don’t think just because some will break the rules we shouldn’t take certain actions.

[Euphoricape]

I hope they go down the path of restricting travel to your own region. The fact people are currently able to travel all over the UK at will has seemed crazy to me during this whole pandemic. Living in Cornwall I would feel much safer with just the south west area visiting.

[zahidf]

Mark Drakeford seemed to still be backing the four-nations arrangement. He said:

Modestly increased amount of freedom for people is preferable to a free-for-all in which we see a situation in which people aren’t willing to go along with what is proposed.

Whichever way the governments of the UK resolve this issue it will be a very finely balanced set of judgements between different sets of harms.

[sjseabass]

7 minutes ago, Euphoricape said:

I hope they go down the path of restricting travel to your own region. The fact people are currently able to travel all over the UK at will has seemed crazy to me during this whole pandemic. Living in Cornwall I would feel much safer with just the south west area visiting.

Very harsh on Uni students though, particularly first years who are in halls with people they’ve only known for 3 months. Can’t see them telling 18 year olds who’ve already endured a shitty first term away from home that they can’t go back.

[st dan]

11 minutes ago, Euphoricape said:

I hope they go down the path of restricting travel to your own region. The fact people are currently able to travel all over the UK at will has seemed crazy to me during this whole pandemic. Living in Cornwall I would feel much safer with just the south west area visiting.

I somewhat agree with you, however it is difficult to penalise people who’s families (particularly children/parents) live away though.
For example, we are supposed to be visiting my wife’s parents for Christmas and spending 23rd - 27th with them and her sister’s family as a bubble of 3 households. She’s worked hard all year on the Covid wards and hasn’t seen any of them since March. She’s been looking forward to this Christmas period ever since the announcement, and to take it away a week before would be incredibly harsh and would cause a lot of upset for her. And I know we’re not alone in this situation - far from from in fact. 
This is all just such a mess. 

Edited December 15, 2020 by st dan

[incident]

Just now, theevilfridge said:

Very harsh on Uni students though, particularly first years who are in halls with people they’ve only known for 3 months. Can’t see them telling 18 year olds who’ve already endured a shitty first term away from home that they can’t go back.

Thing is - most of them already have gone back, and at this point the ones that haven't are probably because they're waiting out isolation after a contact or a positive test.

[Euphoricape]

Just now, incident said:

Thing is - most of them already have gone back, and at this point the ones that haven't are probably because they're waiting out isolation after a contact or a positive test.

I thought students were all back home a while ago tbh.

[incident]

Just now, Euphoricape said:

I thought students were all back home a while ago tbh.

Can only speak for ours - but they were allocated staggered departures over the past 11 days or so, finishing up on Sunday, to try and avoid putting too many people on the transport system at once.

[Fuzzy Afro]

5 minutes ago, theevilfridge said:

Very harsh on Uni students though, particularly first years who are in halls with people they’ve only known for 3 months. Can’t see them telling 18 year olds who’ve already endured a shitty first term away from home that they can’t go back.

Students are already home and are considered part of the household - they DO NOT count separately towards the 3 household limit because their home is still their permanent address