When will this shit end?

[JoeyT]

As a Husband and Father I believe it is my responsibility to ensure the financial safety of the family. If I was to lose my job in the middle of a pandemic it’s unlikely I’d be able to do that.

I perceive lockdowns as a likely pre cursor to this and therefore can’t find it in myself to support one.

[Fuzzy Afro]

2 minutes ago, JoeyT said:

As a Husband and Father I believe it is my responsibility to ensure the financial safety of the family. If I was to lose my job in the middle of a pandemic it’s unlikely I’d be able to do that.

I perceive lockdowns as a likely pre cursor to this and therefore can’t find it in myself to support one.

Out of interest what field do you work in? 

[JoeyT]

Just now, Fuzzy Afro said:

Out of interest what field do you work in? 

Legal. Solicitors.

[Ozanne]

1 minute ago, JoeyT said:

As a Husband and Father I believe it is my responsibility to ensure the financial safety of the family. If I was to lose my job in the middle of a pandemic it’s unlikely I’d be able to do that.

I perceive lockdowns as a likely pre cursor to this and therefore can’t find it in myself to support one.

A lockdown is partly needed now due to the Christmas relaxations which I think you wanted. You can’t say a month ago you really want to mix at Christmas and now say we shouldn’t have a lockdown. I respect the decision for your family and your work but this was said at the time too. 

[steviewevie]

Lockdown isn't that much different to what we have now...right? Just means closing primary schools outside london and shops in Tier3 areas?

[Crazyfool01]

7 minutes ago, JoeyT said:

As a Husband and Father I believe it is my responsibility to ensure the financial safety of the family. If I was to lose my job in the middle of a pandemic it’s unlikely I’d be able to do that.

I perceive lockdowns as a likely pre cursor to this and therefore can’t find it in myself to support one.

Absolutely sympathise .... would that change if you and your family were unable to access the National Health service in an emergency because of them being overwhelmed ? 

Edited January 3, 2021 by crazyfool1

[Ozanne]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Lockdown isn't that much different to what we have now...right? Just means closing primary schools outside london and shops in Tier3 areas?

No meeting outside anyone not in your households too, strict stay at home order with possible limitations on exercise too.

[steviewevie]

Starmer not calling for schools to close tomorrow...

 

[stephos83]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Lockdown isn't that much different to what we have now...right? Just means closing primary schools outside london and shops in Tier3 areas?

If you want to go back to March type rules, there'd possibly be a ban on meeting anyone, anywhere (unless in a support bubble). And maybe, a distance from home travel ban, much like in Scotland and Wales? 

[Ryan1984]

Just now, Ozanne said:

Then that’s a problem Boris will have to deal with whether it’s now or the effects of that down the line. 

We all know how this will go - Johnson will accuse Starmer of being bullied by the unions/having no other ideas except lockdowns and the Tory press will lap it up with plenty of talk (lies) of teachers being lazy and unprofessional. Then in two or three weeks’ time, Spaffer will be forced into action putting on his ‘apologetic’/‘caring’ face following leaks. And it will be too late.

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

No meeting outside anyone not in your households too, strict stay at home order with possible limitations on exercise too.

ok - but is that what Starmer is saying in any national lockdown? Can't imagine limiting exercise having much of an effect. Surely they should just have Tier4 plus all schools closed till end of month or something?

[efcfanwirral]

It's a huge huge problem in our supposed "democracy" - the opposition speaking out generally means something that needs to happen, won't happen in a timely manner. Essentially he has guaranteed that further measures are at least a week away, when they should be now. Not his fault, but it makes having an opposition pointless when this will always be the outcome. 

[zahidf]

14 minutes ago, JoeyT said:

As a Husband and Father I believe it is my responsibility to ensure the financial safety of the family. If I was to lose my job in the middle of a pandemic it’s unlikely I’d be able to do that.

I perceive lockdowns as a likely pre cursor to this and therefore can’t find it in myself to support one.

Isn't a solicitor easily done remotely?

[Crazyfool01]

Just now, efcfanwirral said:

It's a huge huge problem in our supposed "democracy" - the opposition speaking out generally means something that needs to happen, won't happen in a timely manner. Essentially he has guaranteed that further measures are at least a week away, when they should be now. Not his fault, but it makes having an opposition pointless when this will always be the outcome. 

they quite possibly might have been that far away anyway .... 

[Ozanne]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

ok - but is that what Starmer is saying in any national lockdown? Can't imagine limiting exercise having much of an effect. Surely they should just have Tier4 plus all schools closed till end of month or something?

You need to prevent any form of household mixing especially if the new variant is more transmissible therefore a strict national lockdown would need to stop people meeting even 1 on 1 for a walk and if that means having limits on exercise again then they might look at that.

[zahidf]

 

[stephos83]

Just now, Ozanne said:

You need to prevent any form of household mixing especially if the new variant is more transmissible therefore a strict national lockdown would need to stop people meeting even 1 on 1 for a walk and if that means having limits on exercise again then they might look at that.

I suspect you could ban meeting anyone, without affecting exercise. It largely seemed to work in March I think. Back then remember you basically couldn't even stop and sit on a bench!

[Fuzzy Afro]

13 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

A lockdown is partly needed now due to the Christmas relaxations which I think you wanted. You can’t say a month ago you really want to mix at Christmas and now say we shouldn’t have a lockdown. I respect the decision for your family and your work but this was said at the time too. 

You can support Christmas mixing and oppose lockdown now. They aren’t mutually exclusive positions. 

[steviewevie]

Anyway, Johnson definitely won't do a national lockdown now, will wait for a couple of weeks until too late.

[Ozanne]

Just now, stephos83 said:

I suspect you could ban meeting anyone, without affecting exercise. It largely seemed to work in March I think. Back then remember you basically couldn't even stop and sit on a bench!

Yeah you could do something like that, basically you want to try to have people stay inside as much as possible whilst still giving them scope to exercise.

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, stephos83 said:

I suspect you could ban meeting anyone, without affecting exercise. It largely seemed to work in March I think. Back then remember you basically couldn't even stop and sit on a bench!

I really don't think they should limit exercise outside...people going for walks, or bike rides or for a run.

[Brownie30]

I like Keir Starmer. Not quite as much as @Ozanne perhaps, but enough to think he has done a good job of calling out government failings in a way that makes him harder to smear than previous Labour leaders. 

However, calling for a national lockdown in the next 24 hours WITHOUT calling for the closures of schools, particularly when the trade unions are increasingly in favour of closures, is a very weird hill to die on. If we're calling for a lockdown for January (which I agree with), this should include schools - the suggestion from Boris and Williamson that schools are safe is quite frankly insane. A friend of mine is a teacher, he engages with students from over 30 different households every day in school, and that's the absolute minimum amount IF he is able to stick within the managed year group "bubble". His partner is a radiographer in a hospital with soaring Covid cases and engages with patients regularly. They both clearly then return home to eachother, passing whatever they may have engaged with between themselves, before heading back into school and hospital the following day. How anyone can call that a "safe" situation is beyond me. 

Seems like Starmer is favouring preserving the optics of not going back on his previous comments that schools should be open rather than following the scientific advice, the trade unions and supporting teachers. I think he's wrong here.

Edited January 3, 2021 by Brownie30

[stuartbert two hats]

20 minutes ago, JoeyT said:

As a Husband and Father I believe it is my responsibility to ensure the financial safety of the family. If I was to lose my job in the middle of a pandemic it’s unlikely I’d be able to do that.

I perceive lockdowns as a likely pre cursor to this and therefore can’t find it in myself to support one.

As a husband and father I believe it is my responsibility to keep my mother-in-law safe.

[tigger123]

Sadly I don't think we will ever get to a position where lockdowns are adhered to as much as they were in March's lockdown, there is too much fatigue in the wider population and with the vaccines on the horizon, this will give people another reason to feel they can be more relaxed. 

Even if the rules are really strict, there is no way for the police to ensure the whole population is complying. People will always find ways to bend the rules.

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, stuartbert two hats said:

As a husband and father I believe it is my responsibility to keep my mother-in-law safe.

I'm not married so I don't give a fuck.