When will this shit end?

[Mr.Tease]

1 hour ago, JoeyT said:

I don't think there be any quiet about it.

Our government (if reports are to be believed) will be effectively killing industries causing job losses, taking away the ability to do any sort of recreational activity (pub, dine out or go to the gym) and stop people from seeing their friends or families.

Doing any one of those things has a profound effect on people, doing all 3 is only going to end with things going one way and that will be a resistance.

And if they don’t do that, the virus will kill industries (most don’t have the profit margins to survive the numbers of people staying away from them by choice), taking away the ability to do any sort of recreational activity (who the hell is eating out in a restaurant if the hospitals are full to capacity and there is mass prevalence of the virus) and stop people from seeing their friends or family FOREVER because they are dead. At least with managed lockdowns these business’s and workers get some sort of financial support.

Think more people would be out raging if we didn’t bother with any more restrictions and masses of people died as a result. I know I would be. How is being apart from friends and family for 3-6months is unbearable, yet being apart forever through them (or you!) dying is fine, and indefinite shielding for vulnerable people is fine?

I get the anger and frustration, but the alternative to not locking down isn’t ‘everything is fine and goes back to normal’- it really isn’t.

[Gilgamesh69]

So if they are closing the pubs (in some areas) when do you reckon it'll be? I mean surely if the press conference is this evening, then the closure won't be tonight... right?

[Memory Man]

1 minute ago, Gilgamesh69 said:

So if they are closing the pubs (in some areas) when do you reckon it'll be? I mean surely if the press conference is this evening, then the closure won't be tonight... right?

Its meant to be from wednesday

[Mr.Tease]

7 minutes ago, Memory Man said:

I dont get how they feel they can justify closing hospitality but leave the virus free to roam in schools with kids bringing it home.

if you give working people nothing to look forward to at the weekend what is the point. People will just not comply and continue to gather in homes where well run restaurants and pubs are a lot safer. They need to change this curfew to midnight as well with last orders at 11.30. 

or produce the evidence that proves it is all hospitality’s fault, which they won’t be able to do because it isnt.

They said this back in summer (or at least one of the scientists let it slip)- opening schools may mean you have to close something else to compensate (likely hospitality)- they chose kids going to school as the priority knowing it would likely increase the spread. It’s not an unreasonable argument, but I do think there was a lack of transparency from the government

[Memory Man]

On the other hand if they want to do a full lockdown and put in place the financial measures to do that then that would be fine

what no one should tolerate is restriction after restriction killing business but leaving them just open enough that govt feel they dont need to offer support.

either lock down fully and pay for it, or leave them open. Dont half arse it by leaving schools open and yet closing hospitality

[Billy Corgan's Ego]

12 minutes ago, Memory Man said:

I dont get how they feel they can justify closing hospitality but leave the virus free to roam in schools with kids bringing it home.

if you give working people nothing to look forward to at the weekend what is the point. People will just not comply and continue to gather in homes where well run restaurants and pubs are a lot safer. They need to change this curfew to midnight as well with last orders at 11.30. 

or produce the evidence that proves it is all hospitality’s fault, which they won’t be able to do because it isnt.

You dont have kids, do you? 

This strategy (if you can even call it that) is designed to limit the spread, not eradicate it. The government have deemed children education more important than hospitallity, thankfully but regrettably. 

Its brutal for everyone, esp those who work in the industry, but short of a full lockdown again kids will remain in school. 

Edited October 12, 2020 by Billy Corgan's Ego

[Fuzzy Afro]

Just now, Mr.Tease said:

They said this back in summer (or at least one of the scientists let it slip)- opening schools may mean you have to close something else to compensate (likely hospitality)- they chose kids going to school as the priority knowing it would likely increase the spread. It’s not an unreasonable argument, but I do think there was a lack of transparency from the government

I think they’re pushing the “kids aren’t super spreaders” argument. I’d rather they were just honest and say you can’t have schools open with R below 1 unless literally everything else is closed. 

[Memory Man]

1 minute ago, Mr.Tease said:

They said this back in summer (or at least one of the scientists let it slip)- opening schools may mean you have to close something else to compensate (likely hospitality)- they chose kids going to school as the priority knowing it would likely increase the spread. It’s not an unreasonable argument, but I do think there was a lack of transparency from the government

I recall this. If thats the stance then they need to be open & honest and say that’s what they’re doing.

what they then shouldnt have done is let the students travel to uni....

[Mr.Tease]

2 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

I think they’re pushing the “kids aren’t super spreaders” argument. I’d rather they were just honest and say you can’t have schools open with R below 1 unless literally everything else is closed. 

Agreed! (For the first time in many months!)

[Memory Man]

2 minutes ago, Billy Corgan's Ego said:

You dont have kids, do you? 

This strategy (if you can even call it that) is designed to limit the spread, not eradicate it. The government have deemed children education more important than hospitallity, thankfully but regrettably. 

Its brutal for everyone, esp those who work in the industry, but short of a full lockdown again kids will remain in school. 

No i dont but its clearly the re opening of schools and sending students to uni which has caused the spike. Pubs & restaurants have been open since early july.

lock down fully, for everyone, or dont do it at all. Half arsed will not work.

[Mr.Tease]

1 minute ago, Memory Man said:

I recall this. If thats the stance then they need to be open & honest and say that’s what they’re doing.

what they then shouldnt have done is let the students travel to uni....

Yep, instead they’ve tried to manipulate everyone, but all it does is undermine trust in them and make people question the in consistencies .

Think having students go back to uni was a huge disaster, and one they bizarrely didn’t seem to anticipate at all.

[Punksnotdead]

Has anyone just watched the incredibly moving interview with the author Michael Rosen about living with long covid on BBC news 24? Amazing stuff?

[steviewevie]

Be funny if Liverpool has to shut its pubs but Manchester doesn't.

[RobertProsineckisLighter]

20 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

And if they don’t do that, the virus will kill industries (most don’t have the profit margins to survive the numbers of people staying away from them by choice), taking away the ability to do any sort of recreational activity (who the hell is eating out in a restaurant if the hospitals are full to capacity and there is mass prevalence of the virus) and stop people from seeing their friends or family FOREVER because they are dead. At least with managed lockdowns these business’s and workers get some sort of financial support.

Think more people would be out raging if we didn’t bother with any more restrictions and masses of people died as a result. I know I would be. How is being apart from friends and family for 3-6months is unbearable, yet being apart forever through them (or you!) dying is fine, and indefinite shielding for vulnerable people is fine?

I get the anger and frustration, but the alternative to not locking down isn’t ‘everything is fine and goes back to normal’- it really isn’t.

Well it isn't going to just stop either so we're just expected to live like this forever?

[Mr.Tease]

13 minutes ago, RobertProsineckisLighter said:

Well it isn't going to just stop either so we're just expected to live like this forever?

No, we wait until the vaccine results in a few weeks and then decide how to proceed (either way you have to push the surge out of winter) 

[st dan]

So they have quantified the number of cases per 100,000 of population to be classed as level 1/2 but they haven’t done this for level 3, and have instead gone with the extremely vague choice of ‘significantly higher rates of transmission’. 
So they can essential keep places in level 3 lockdown until they deem fit. 

Edited October 12, 2020 by st dan

[ace56blaa]

4 minutes ago, st dan said:

So they have quantified the number of cases per 100,000 of population to be classed as level 1/2 but they haven’t done this for level 3, and have instead gone with the extremely vague choice of ‘significantly higher rates of transmission’. 
So they can essential keep places in level 3 lockdown until they deem fit. 

So level 1 is the one I have the most problem with, because without adding any new restrictions to places say between 50 - 100 per hundred thousand, all of those places will be in tier 2 in weeks

[st dan]

1 minute ago, ace56blaa said:

So level 1 is the one I have the most problem with, because without adding any new restrictions to places say between 50 - 100 per hundred thousand, all of those places will be in tier 2 in weeks

Yep, good point - think it’s clear that this is just a ploy to bring in another national lockdown, without it being seen as Boris and co just ‘deciding’ to do so. 

[RobertProsineckisLighter]

11 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

No, we wait until the vaccine results in a few weeks and then decide how to proceed (either way you have to push the surge out of winter) 

That doesn't make it go away though... That doesn't make it go back to how it used to be. 

[JoeyT]

3 minutes ago, ace56blaa said:

So level 1 is the one I have the most problem with, because without adding any new restrictions to places say between 50 - 100 per hundred thousand, all of those places will be in tier 2 in weeks

Clear as mud but to me where it says level 2 is triggered when a rise in transmission cannot be contained through local responses I've taken that to mean they are going to leave it to local authorities to put things in place to try and stop having to go to level 2?

What sort of measures those are I'd hope will be announced today? I won't hold my breath though...

[ace56blaa]

1 minute ago, JoeyT said:

Clear as mud but to me where it says level 2 is triggered when a rise in transmission cannot be contained through local responses I've taken that to mean they are going to leave it to local authorities to put things in place to try and stop having to go to level 2?

What sort of measures those are I'd hope will be announced today? I won't hold my breath though...

Yeah I hope there's something. Obviously hopefully nothing closed. But if some extra measure can stop the less hit places stay out of harsher measures ill take it

[JoeyT]

12 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

No, we wait until the vaccine results in a few weeks and then decide how to proceed (either way you have to push the surge out of winter) 

It feels like this "results in a few weeks" thing never feels like it's getting any closer...

 

[RobertProsineckisLighter]

4 minutes ago, JoeyT said:

Clear as mud but to me where it says level 2 is triggered when a rise in transmission cannot be contained through local responses I've taken that to mean they are going to leave it to local authorities to put things in place to try and stop having to go to level 2?

What sort of measures those are I'd hope will be announced today? I won't hold my breath though...

Never mind that 50 - 100 out of 100k people is fuck all. 

How many dickheads are you in close proximity to during a packed pyramid set? I'd guess not many. 

And there are way more than 50 - 100 dickheads I that crowd.

[squirrelarmy]

Metro posted a chart earlier showing rates of all areas. Most of London seems to be under 100 so I'm not surprised at the limit being set a that level.

Sorry that is a bit fuzzy, blame the source not me. 

[ace56blaa]

3 minutes ago, RobertProsineckisLighter said:

Never mind that 50 - 100 out of 100k people is fuck all. 

How many dickheads are you in close proximity to during a packed pyramid set? I'd guess not many. 

And there are way more than 50 - 100 dickheads I that crowd.

A month ago places were getting locked down for over 30 per 100,000, you had to quarantine from countries with rates of 20 per 100,000. Those measures aren't working if they don't something small, everywhere will end up in tier 2 or 3 anyway. (except very sparse population places)