What is a “circuit breaker lockdown”

[HSTEd]

I remember when the lockdown started ironically the majority of people who were out and about were older people and a lot of them did seem to be cavalier about the situation. One of my neighbors a elderly woman who had two heart attacks and suffered from COPD still continued to go out and about despite being advised to shield. I also wonder if the elderly are more likely to be sick and tired of the restrictions than the younger population.

Well from her perspective, every day is precious as it could be her last.
She could end up spending the rest of her life stuck at home, waiting to die.

 

[kez19]

It also fits the Sturgeon agenda, as if cases continue to rise she can blame that on Westminster not extending furlough as the reason that she couldn’t go further. I can just hear it now “I’m going to be frank with you, I wanted a fuller lockdown, but I couldn’t do it without causing widespread ruin to all your livelihoods, as Boris Johnson refused to extend furlough despite my requests”. That then quite happily leads to the I word.

Yet what is she doing to help? Rather than grandstanding on a podium everyday actually do things to help than basically whinge all the time, she has devolved powers she runs Scotland but would rather blame Westminster or better yet than whinge about it grow some balls and do things for change!

 

[Tetchytyke]

I think that shows how some decision makers such as Truss are totally cut off from reality.

Truss is an imbecile. But pub owners in Newcastle have said that they make most of their money after 10pm and that the restrictions will ruin their business.

So if a pub makes most of its money after 10pm, it figures that they get busier after 10pm. And we know that social distancing goes out the window when people are drunk.

I'm not sure we can simultaneously argue that the 10pm cutoff is both hugely destructive to business and that it won't make any difference. After all, if everyone just starts two hours earlier it won't make any difference to takings.

That's not to say I would agree with the UK's rules...

 

[DB]

Truss is an imbecile. But pub owners in Newcastle have said that they make most of their money after 10pm and that the restrictions will ruin their business.

So if a pub makes most of its money after 10pm, it figures that they get busier after 10pm. And we know that social distancing goes out the window when people are drunk.

I'm not sure we can simultaneously argue that the 10pm cutoff is both hugely destructive to business and that it won't make any difference. After all, if everyone just starts two hours earlier it won't make any difference to takings.

That's not to say I would agree with the UK's rules...

It's perfectly possible that those who are likely to get drunk will start earlier, whereas those who just go out for a pint or two later won't bother.

As regards when a pub makes most of its money, that is surely going to depend on what type of pub it is, and where it is?

 

[ValleyLines142]

Truss is an imbecile. But pub owners in Newcastle have said that they make most of their money after 10pm and that the restrictions will ruin their business.

So if a pub makes most of its money after 10pm, it figures that they get busier after 10pm. And we know that social distancing goes out the window when people are drunk.

I'm not sure we can simultaneously argue that the 10pm cutoff is both hugely destructive to business and that it won't make any difference. After all, if everyone just starts two hours earlier it won't make any difference to takings.

That's not to say I would agree with the UK's rules...

Believe me it isn't working. Three very popular bars in the centre of Cardiff have had to close for the foreseeable because we are in a local lockdown (and this 10pm curfew).

A very close mate of mine who manages a bar has told me that he is on the verge of taking the same footsteps. On Saturday he made £7. It's absolutely devastating.

 

[island]

Also the Irish government has rejected calls from its advisors to go to level 5 restrictions, instead only going for level 3. That must have taken the wind out of Sturgeon's sails. She can no longer say "well if Ireland is doing it, so can we"

Well, level 3 in Ireland closes pubs to indoor service and they can only have 15 customers outside. In Irish weather at this time of year there will not be many takers of outdoor seating.

 

[Bikeman78]

Well, level 3 in Ireland closes pubs to indoor service and they can only have 15 customers outside. In Irish weather at this time of year there will not be many takers of outdoor seating.

I met up with a mate yesterday and had a cup of tea. The weather was pleasant enough, overcast but not wet or windy, but I felt cold after half an hour. That's in mild weather. Sitting outside in December will be a non starter. If the Welsh government insists that people cannot meet in pubs or restaurants then they will meet in homes instead.

 

[yorkie]

It honestly doesn't seem as if these local lockdown measures are working, and we need something more severe to keep this thing contained.

I strongly disagree, and I am sorry to say that I struggle to contain my anger when I read that people want such things.

 

[HSTEd]

Well if your objective is a mitigation strategy, some parts of the UK running ahead of others is actually a good thing because that spreads the peak.

Since the UK is small we can easily move patients around ICUs or hospitals as required.

 

[trebor79]

It honestly doesn't seem as if these local lockdown measures are working, and we need something more severe to keep this thing contained.

I strongly disagree, and I am sorry to say that I struggle to contain my anger when I read that people want such things.

As I lay in bed with insomnia last night, it struck me that the local lockdowns clearly don't work. And the dither for the next few days whilst the government decides what to do next with place like Nottingham and nationally will lead to more spread. I don't think that in itself is a bad think, necessarily.
It's clear there's now a huge argument at the heart of government about economy vs virus, and possibly with the whole notion of suppressing the virus at all.

So it struck me, that rather than compromise and introduce yet more socially and economically damaging measures that at best will have only a short term impact upon the virus, should the strategy be flipped?
So rather than an infection level being a trigger for lockdown, it could be a trigger for measures to help shield vulnerable people. Distribution of N95 respirator masks, free grocery, prescription and other essentials delivery. Maybe even "COVID secure" days out or transport to open air spaces for those who can't drive. That way people are properly looked after until the cases subside again. And it would cost way less and be way less damaging to our way of life than the current nonsensical measures.

The thing that makes me really angry is the current muddle is ineffective at supressing the virus, or at protecting those who need protected and incurs massive collateral damage for no gain. It's almost inevitable that the current wave will hit the vulnerable again and we will see another huge rise in deaths. At that point two things happen - either the government percieves public support for a very hard lockdown, or the whole thing breaks down as people realise the futility of it. Either way the vulnerable still get got sooner or later.

I am also very very angry.

 

[DB]

So it struck me, that rather than compromise and introduce yet more socially and economically damaging measures that at best will have only a short term impact upon the virus, should the strategy be flipped?
So rather than an infection level being a trigger for lockdown, it could be a trigger for measures to help shield vulnerable people. Distribution of N95 respirator masks, free grocery, prescription and other essentials delivery. Maybe even "COVID secure" days out or transport to open air spaces for those who can't drive. That way people are properly looked after until the cases subside again. And it would cost way less and be way less damaging to our way of life than the current nonsensical measures.

That would be a far more sensible strategy than the current one.

Mind you, I'm not sure that there actually is a current one any more, other than flapping aroung introducing random restrictions to be seen to be doing something.

 

[Smidster]

Ultimately Government is trapped between a rock and a hard place - If you ease up then people will get sick and die and if you tighten up then your economy and society gets weaker with all the bad effects that brings (including illness and death) Right now the message from the Public is clear that they want the Government to minimise the number of Covid deaths almost at any cost and so that is what they are going to do.

Personally I don't think a rolling strategy of Lockdown / semi-Lockdown / Lockdown is the way to go. The simple, harsh, fact is that this will be with us for at least the next 12 months and so we need to find a way to live with it and have a functioning society for that time and a world where it is illegal for people to meet others outside of their household / go for a drink for months on end does not sound at all sustainable.

So what might that look like? A heavy emphasis of personal responsibility rather than use of Criminal law and a series of measures that are really targeted at supporting the vulnerable. So yes, that might mean we can't have 75,000 at Old Trafford and maybe not have crush loaded tube trains for a while but right now the only strategy seems to be to be either applying the same measures that haven't worked elsewhere to even more places, introducing petty restrictions that are plainly pointless or strangling the economy even more.

Give people the chance to do the right thing, explain to them what they can do and why it is a good idea and most of us will listen!

 

[MikeWM]

That would be a far more sensible strategy than the current one.

Mind you, I'm not sure that there actually is a current one any more, other than flapping aroung introducing random restrictions to be seen to be doing something.

Officially (according to the lovely Mr Hancock) now it is 'suppress until the vaccine'. Given the vaccine probably won't stop people catching or transmitting the disease, just mitigate symptoms - mostly in those it wouldn't have hospitalised or killed anyway - I'm not sure that's exactly much of a strategy, but here we are.

You may remember the strategy originally was 'allow the NHS to build up capacity'. I'm not entirely sure when it stopped being that, but it appears that despite 7 months having passed, hundreds of billions of pounds being thrown into the gutter and people all over the country denied essential medical treatment, they've failed miserably at that and so we have the same NHS situation as we had in March.

Also, remember what Johnson said on June 23rd

Our principle is to trust the British public to use their common sense in the full knowledge of the risks, remembering that the more we open up, the more vigilant we will need to be. From now on, we will ask people to follow guidance on social contact, instead of legislation

How does that fit with the ever-increasing and ever-more-incomprehensible mass of legislation that keep churning out?


The UK have done this completely wrong from mid-March when we moved away from herd immunity being the strategy, and we continue to double-down on the same mistakes. I've never seen such a miserable failure in my lifetime.

 

[DB]

Officially (according to the lovely Mr Hancock) now it is 'suppress until the vaccine'. Given the vaccine probably won't stop people catching or transmitting the disease, just mitigate symptoms - mostly in those it wouldn't have hospitalised or killed anyway - I'm not sure that's exactly much of a strategy, but here we are.

And that is of course based on a viable vaccine actually being developed, in a fairly short timescale. By no means guaranteed!

 

[trebor79]

Ultimately Government is trapped between a rock and a hard place - If you ease up then people will get sick and die and if you tighten up then your economy and society gets weaker with all the bad effects that brings (including illness and death) Right now the message from the Public is clear that they want the Government to minimise the number of Covid deaths almost at any cost and so that is what they are going to do.

Personally I don't think a rolling strategy of Lockdown / semi-Lockdown / Lockdown is the way to go. The simple, harsh, fact is that this will be with us for at least the next 12 months and so we need to find a way to live with it and have a functioning society for that time and a world where it is illegal for people to meet others outside of their household / go for a drink for months on end does not sound at all sustainable.

Yes, the government needs to find a third way.

Officially (according to the lovely Mr Hancock) now it is 'suppress until the vaccine'. Given the vaccine probably won't stop people catching or transmitting the disease, just mitigate symptoms - mostly in those it wouldn't have hospitalised or killed anyway - I'm not sure that's exactly much of a strategy, but here we are.

You may remember the strategy originally was 'allow the NHS to build up capacity'. I'm not entirely sure when it stopped being that, but it appears that despite 7 months having passed, hundreds of billions of pounds being thrown into the gutter and people all over the country denied essential medical treatment, they've failed miserably at that and so we have the same NHS situation as we had in March.

Also, remember what Johnson said on June 23rd

Our principle is to trust the British public to use their common sense in the full knowledge of the risks, remembering that the more we open up, the more vigilant we will need to be. From now on, we will ask people to follow guidance on social contact, instead of legislation

How does that fit with the ever-increasing and ever-more-incomprehensible mass of legislation that keep churning out?


The UK have done this completely wrong from mid-March when we moved away from herd immunity being the strategy, and we continue to double-down on the same mistakes. I've never seen such a miserable failure in my lifetime.

I think this is one of the most devastatingly effective critiques of the awful government response to this crisis that I have read. Bravo!

 

[MikeWM]

I think this is one of the most devastatingly effective critiques of the awful government response to this crisis that I have read. Bravo!

Thanks - my usual version is rantier (and swearier!).

I do feel very annoyed about pretty much everything to do with the utterly disastrous handling of this, but my current major irritant is this 'the NHS may run out of capacity' line that seems to be back in spades. That was bad enough in March, but there is *zero* excuse for it after all this time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As I lay in bed with insomnia last night, it struck me that the local lockdowns clearly don't work.

Which I venture is because people are just meeting in their homes.

You won't like it, but that could be solved. £5,000 fine for first offence of someone who cannot prove they live in that home in a home or garden. Prison for both that person and the homeowner/tenant for 6 months on second offence. Police to do random door to door checks.

This is more in line with what most other countries are doing.

At the moment it's a case of having maybe 5% chance of paying £200. You're about as likely to get caught as you are for fare dodging between non-barriered stations on the south WCML.

 

[DB]

Prison for both that person and the homeowner/tenant for 6 months on second offence. Police to do random door to door checks.

So fill the prisons to bursting (and create ideal conditions for spreading the virus), and then still run out of places.

If the government wants to lose al remaining credibility, that would certainly be the way to go!

 

[Ianno87]

Police to do random door to door checks.

I'm enjoying the notion that the Police actually have time to do this....

 

[DB]

I'm enjoying the notion that the Police actually have time to do this....

Well, quite!

 

[Jozhua]

Which I venture is because people are just meeting in their homes.

You won't like it, but that could be solved. £5,000 fine for first offence of someone who cannot prove they live in that home in a home or garden. Prison for both that person and the homeowner/tenant for 6 months on second offence. Police to do random door to door checks.

This is more in line with what most other countries are doing.

At the moment it's a case of having maybe 5% chance of paying £200. You're about as likely to get caught as you are for fare dodging between non-barriered stations on the south WCML.

mmm, we love police state. I think we should be very careful when it comes to freedom of association, it is a dangerous path to start eroding these freedoms.

But also, how many people would we end up sending to prison? Probably about 10x as many as our prison system is capable of holding. This is basically how to cause a revolution 101. The first lockdown didn't go so well on the whole rioting side of things.

Then we actually look at what the risk is of people meeting in their homes vs pubs/shops/restaurants. Sure, people are supposedly "socially distanced" in those venues (I can assure you that is often not the case), but you have what can be up to 100's of people in one room, often with sub-par ventilation. There have been cases of, even with good social distancing measures, one person infecting an entire room of people through airborne transmission. Homes often have far fewer people, and those people can notify each other if one gets sick or tests positive.

I'm enjoying the notion that the Police actually have time to do this....

Yep, they don't even have the time to sort out the literal armed robberies in my area, nevermind covid restriction breaking.

 

[takno]

Which I venture is because people are just meeting in their homes.

You won't like it, but that could be solved. £5,000 fine for first offence of someone who cannot prove they live in that home in a home or garden. Prison for both that person and the homeowner/tenant for 6 months on second offence. Police to do random door to door checks.

This is more in line with what most other countries are doing.

At the moment it's a case of having maybe 5% chance of paying £200. You're about as likely to get caught as you are for fare dodging between non-barriered stations on the south WCML.

I'm not currently inviting anybody to my home, but under those circumstances I would feel compelled to do so. Complete loss of our principles as a liberal democracy is not a sane, balanced or useful response to the situation. So often when things like this are suggested I wonder if the proposer actually is an idiot, or has just spent their entire lifetime doing a non-stop perfect impression of one.

 

[birchesgreen]

Random door to door checks by Old Bill? I don't have a door bell (by design as i hate sales calls) and unless i am expecting someone or a parcel i'll ignore any knocks on the door. Would i get my door smashed in and SO19 barging their way in?

 

[Yew]

Which I venture is because people are just meeting in their homes.

You won't like it, but that could be solved. £5,000 fine for first offence of someone who cannot prove they live in that home in a home or garden. Prison for both that person and the homeowner/tenant for 6 months on second offence. Police to do random door to door checks.

Why stop there, why not just shoot them on sight. A few more deaths don't matter as long as we slightly delay stop the deadly killer virus.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why stop there, why not just shoot them on sight. A few more deaths don't matter as long as we slightly delay stop the deadly killer virus.

How can we have a sensible discussion when this ridiculous hyperbole comes in all the time?

There is no point having law that isn't enforced/enforceable.

I'm only suggesting following the lead of a number of other countries.

 

[Bantamzen]

Which I venture is because people are just meeting in their homes.

You won't like it, but that could be solved. £5,000 fine for first offence of someone who cannot prove they live in that home in a home or garden. Prison for both that person and the homeowner/tenant for 6 months on second offence. Police to do random door to door checks.

This is more in line with what most other countries are doing.

At the moment it's a case of having maybe 5% chance of paying £200. You're about as likely to get caught as you are for fare dodging between non-barriered stations on the south WCML.

Whoop, whoop, its da sound of da Pol-ice...

As I and others have said before, we don't have the resources to run a full on Police State, especially when there are real criminals out there. And as for filling the prisons, well think about it....

Oh and how are those countries you so admire getting on...??

 

[DB]

There is no point having law that isn't enforced/enforceable.

Indeed - but an unenforceable law is what you seem to be advocating.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Oh and how are those countries you so admire getting on...??

Well, for one example the Isle of Man has next to no cases.

 

[DB]

Well, for one example the Isle of Man has next to no cases.

A small island is hardly comparable...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed - but an unenforceable law is what you seem to be advocating.

No, I'm advocating increasing the penalties and enforcement of a law that already exists, which may have some sort of chance of making people actually follow it!

There is no point having a law against meeting people in the home unless you're going to have high penalties and door knocking, because people will just shut the curtains and ignore it.