New lockdown in England, including school closures, announced by Johnson, 4/1/21

DustyBin · 5 Jan 2021

Silverlinky said:
But would there...if the demographics were different?

We've mentioned Sweden......but tell me, is there another country in Europe that hasn't imposed a lockdown of some sort? Serious question as I don't know the answer.

Are you saying that every European Leader is/has been wrong in what they've done?

Just briefly in regard to Sweden, I posted the graph on the relevant Sweden thread, but they aren’t experiencing anything like the number of excess deaths many other European countries are. If you look at the headline covid deaths number in isolation it doesn’t look great I’ll admit, but the number of excess deaths is relatively low.

Im not sure if any other European country has avoided lockdowns to be honest, I can’t think of any obvious examples.

As for your final question, my take on this is that China tried desperately to contain the virus and were willing to try anything, including locking down society. Italy, as the first European country to be hit, decided to follow China. The rest of Europe followed Italy as we collectively lost our nerve and abandoned traditional epidemiological thinking. The UK very nearly stuck with it but bottled it at the eleventh hour which is (at least in part) why we’ve had the worst of both worlds. I can understand and sympathise to a point with European governments as the pictures coming out of China suggested this was a SARS or even Ebola like virus in terms of virulence and so natural herd immunity was an unpalatable (and most likely unviable) strategy. This was however, in my opinion, a mistake, and one which no European governments are willing to admit to. And so we find ourselves where we are....

RailUK Forums

ValentaFan1974 · 5 Jan 2021

Wow. So many medical experts on here. How about everyone just following the rules for 6 weeks? It’s people not following the rules that’s caused this. For those saying “The other lockdowns didn’t help”... once again it’s people not following the rules that’s caused this. Pure and simple. And yes, I do have a source. It’s called “Common Sense”.

harz99 · 5 Jan 2021

ValentaFan1974 said:
Wow. So many medical experts on here. How about everyone just following the rules for 6 weeks? It’s people not following the rules that’s caused this. For those saying “The other lockdowns didn’t help”... once again it’s people not following the rules that’s caused this. Pure and simple. And yes, I do have a source. It’s called “Common Sense”.

Amen to that!

Bertie the bus · 5 Jan 2021

ValentaFan1974 said:
It’s people not following the rules that’s caused this. For those saying “The other lockdowns didn’t help”... once again it’s people not following the rules that’s caused this. Pure and simple. And yes, I do have a source. It’s called “Common Sense”.

Do you want to provide some evidence for that or are you just trying to prove me right when I said people love to judge and blame others for what is happening?

jtuk · 5 Jan 2021

Spamcan81 said:
Hooray. Someone talking a bit of sense on this thread. No matter how damaging these restrictions are, the damage caused by allowing the virus to spread uncontrolled would be much greater.

At least someone is able to post something hilarious, I was wondering exactly what life we've got right now that's worth living for, but this sort of post makes everything worth while

Huntergreed · 5 Jan 2021

ValentaFan1974 said:
Wow. So many medical experts on here. How about everyone just following the rules for 6 weeks? It’s people not following the rules that’s caused this. For those saying “The other lockdowns didn’t help”... once again it’s people not following the rules that’s caused this.

No, it really isn’t.

This is a seasonal respiratory virus.

Summer -> Cases go down
Winter -> Cases go up

That is what seasonal respiratory viruses do. They always have, and they always will. If anyone said this time last year “we will try to stop a seasonal respiratory virus from spreading through destroying our economy and way of life, stopping the education of our young people, and turning into an authoritarian police state” then I would have laughed at you... oh how things have changed.

All this because of the modelling of one man who should NOT have been listened to, and we’re still in this mess, having lost our civil liberties for over 1% of our entire lifetime trying to aimlessly stop the spread of a seasonal virus through political, and often ineffective/theatrical, measures.

So no, it’s not because “people aren’t following the rules”, it’s because power-hungry authoritarians believe they can cheat nature and stop a seasonal virus from transmitting, an idea which until recently would have been branded as ludicrous.

DustyBin · 5 Jan 2021

ValentaFan1974 said:
Wow. So many medical experts on here. How about everyone just following the rules for 6 weeks? It’s people not following the rules that’s caused this. For those saying “The other lockdowns didn’t help”... once again it’s people not following the rules that’s caused this. Pure and simple. And yes, I do have a source. It’s called “Common Sense”.

You’re well wide of the mark there I’m afraid. So we all follow the rules for six weeks, to the letter, then what? The virus won’t have gone away. We can reduce the infection rate in the short term but strategically lockdowns aren’t the answer, nor are the (in some cases) pointless restrictions imposed upon us. I’m a great believer in common sense generally, but it’s being misapplied in this instance.

Silverlinky · 5 Jan 2021

DustyBin said:
You’re well wide of the mark there I’m afraid. So we all follow the rules for six weeks, to the letter, then what? The virus won’t have gone away. We can reduce the infection rate in the short term but strategically lockdowns aren’t the answer, nor are the (in some cases) pointless restrictions imposed upon us. I’m a great believer in common sense generally, but it’s being misapplied in this instance.

At least this time 12 million people will have received their first jab.....and will therefore be less susceptible to suffering the consequences of the virus. And numbers of cases fall, the R number falls, ok it falls a hell of a lot more slowly than it rose, but it does fall.....eventually!

RomeoCharlie71 · 5 Jan 2021

You post is rather contradictory. You start by saying:

ValentaFan1974 said:
So many medical experts on here.

but then continue to say...

ValentaFan1974 said:
It’s people not following the rules that’s caused this.

Therefore I'd like to ask: Are you a behavioural expert that can satisfactorily come to this conclusion? And common sense is not a "source".

Huntergreed said:
This is a seasonal respiratory virus.

Summer -> Cases go down
Winter -> Cases go up

That is what seasonal respiratory viruses do.

Exactly.

swissrailpassion · 5 Jan 2021

There's a big gamble being taken. To save the NHS from collapse the vaccine is being given during an epidemic. This is risky as the virus could learn its way round the immune response. Giving a single dose to more people assists this. Therefore new lockdown helps to minimise spread during the risky period when people are not given full protection. We are in a large experiment to save life and there may be more surprises in store.

bramling · 5 Jan 2021

ValentaFan1974 said:
It’s people not following the rules that’s caused this.

I’m not sure how this can be so when it seems generally accepted that schools are the major driver behind this.

It does of course suit the government for people to swallow the above.

yorkie · 5 Jan 2021

When does lockdown actually start?

Schools have been sent a government email saying it starts on Wednesday

Does that mean I can play football tomorrow?

DustyBin · 5 Jan 2021

swissrailpassion said:
There's a big gamble being taken. To save the NHS from collapse the vaccine is being given during an epidemic. This is risky as the virus could learn its way round the immune response. Giving a single dose to more people assists this. Therefore new lockdown helps to minimise spread during the risky period when people are not given full protection. We are in a large experiment to save life and there may be more surprises in store.

This is basically what I was asking about on the vaccine approval thread, but I was more interested in any additional risk posed by only administering one dose of a two dose vaccine. Even if that’s not a factor, I am a little concerned that we’ll see a vaccine resistant strain before long. It has that feeling of inevitability, but I very much hope I’m wrong!

yorkie said:
When does lockdown actually start?

Schools have been sent a government email saying it starts on Wednesday

Does that mean I can play football tomorrow?

My understanding is Wednesday, but Boris politely requested we start from tonight. I’m sure we can think of a few polite requests in response!

duncanp · 5 Jan 2021

ValentaFan1974 said:
Wow. So many medical experts on here. How about everyone just following the rules for 6 weeks? It’s people not following the rules that’s caused this. For those saying “The other lockdowns didn’t help”... once again it’s people not following the rules that’s caused this. Pure and simple. And yes, I do have a source. It’s called “Common Sense”.

Absolute rubbish.

This has been caused by the new strain of the virus being much more infectious, so that existing rules are no longer strong enough to cope.

This is not the fault of the public nor, dare I say it, the politicians.

Before the new strain took hold, cases were coming down, which suggests to me that the existing rules were adequate, and sufficient numbers of people were following them.

But if Boris Johnson doesn't get anywhere near his vaccine target of 13.4 million by the middle of February, he may well come under pressure to resign, as happened in the Second World War in May 1940 when Neville Chamberlain was replaced by Winston Churchill.

TheEdge · 5 Jan 2021

Huntergreed said:
This is a seasonal respiratory virus.

Summer -> Cases go down
Winter -> Cases go up

But unlike a cold, cough or the flu this one can cause organ failure, septic shock, heart failure, liver damage, seizure, stroke, muscle weakness, nerve damage and long term fatigue and breathing issues. Now, most wont get those complications but when they all sit there as an option if YOU (or someone you care about) gets it it's not exactly like a cold we just let circulate round the office.

Class 33 · 5 Jan 2021

Watching BBC Breakfast this morning, several reference to this lockdown being at least 7 weeks. Where do they get 7 weeks from, because from today until 15th February is 6 weeks!

But despite me being fairly optimistic in my recent posts(before this stupid third national lockdown was announced), I'm not too optimistic that this lockdown will end on 15th February. Even if hospital admissions, numbers in hospitals and deaths have started to fall by then, I reacon it will be the case that come 15th February that cases are still high and the government will be saying something like "We still have a very worrying high number of cases, therefore we must still continue this national lockdown.".

Absolutely furious about yet another national lockdown going ahead. Johnson and his cabinet are absolutely wrecking the country. The hospitality will be really really damaged by this, along with many people's mental health.

Ianno87 · 5 Jan 2021

Class 33 said:
Watching BBC Breakfast this morning, several reference to this lockdown being at least 7 weeks. Where do they get 7 weeks from, because from today until 15th February is 6 weeks!

But despite me being fairly optimistic in my recent posts(before this stupid third national lockdown was announced), I'm not too optimistic that this lockdown will end on 15th February. Even if hospital admissions, numbers in hospitals and deaths have started to fall by then, I reacon it will be the case that come 15th February that cases are still high and the government will be saying something like "We still have a very worrying high number of cases, therefore we must still continue this national lockdown.".

Absolutely furious about yet another national lockdown going ahead. Johnson and his cabinet are absolutely wrecking the country. The hospitality will be really really damaged by this, along with many people's mental health.

I think the restrictions get *reviewed* on 15th of February ahead of being altered the following week.

yorkie · 5 Jan 2021

DustyBin said:
This is basically what I was asking about on the vaccine approval thread, but I was more interested in any additional risk posed by only administering one dose of a two dose vaccine. Even if that’s not a factor, I am a little concerned that we’ll see a vaccine resistant strain before long. It has that feeling of inevitability, but I very much hope I’m wrong!

My understanding is Wednesday, but Boris politely requested we start from tonight. I’m sure we can think of a few polite requests in response!

Sadly it seems the leisure centres have closed a day early, so this isn't possible to have one last game on the final day before lockdown.

Spamcan81 said:
Hooray. Someone talking a bit of sense on this thread. No matter how damaging these restrictions are, the damage caused by allowing the virus to spread uncontrolled would be much greater.

Who is suggesting the virus is allowed to spread uncontrolled? (Or is this a strawman argument?)

What do you think the damages of these restrictions are / could be?

Ianno87 said:
I think the restrictions get *reviewed* on 15th of February ahead of being altered the following week.

Yes that's right.

The lockdown officially starts tomorrow and ostensibly finishes on 21st February, subject to the review, which is effectively reliant on vaccine progress.

But the exact provisional end date is unclear to me. We may not even discover that until a day before. It may not be made clear. Remember the 28 day lockdown actually lasted 27 days but this wasn't confirmed until shortly before it ended and not all businesses were able to open on the first 'unlocked' day.

I think the Government wants there to be ambiguity in the hope that people will not make plans. The ambiguity about today is a good example: many places have closed a day early and suspect that's because they didn't realise they could stay open today

birchesgreen · 5 Jan 2021

What is a "local area"? Is this defined anywhere? Local authority, council ward or what?

6862 · 5 Jan 2021

TheEdge said:
But unlike a cold, cough or the flu this one can cause organ failure, septic shock, heart failure, liver damage, seizure, stroke, muscle weakness, nerve damage and long term fatigue and breathing issues. Now, most wont get those complications but when they all sit there as an option if YOU (or someone you care about) gets it it's not exactly like a cold we just let circulate round the office.

A cold, cough or the flu can cause all of the things you mention. Granted they may not be common outcomes, but they can happen.

northernchris · 5 Jan 2021

duncanp said:
Absolute rubbish.

This has been caused by the new strain of the virus being much more infectious, so that existing rules are no longer strong enough to cope.

This is not the fault of the public nor, dare I say it, the politicians.

Before the new strain took hold, cases were coming down, which suggests to me that the existing rules were adequate, and sufficient numbers of people were following them.

Agreed, I think without this new strain the tier system would have been enough, although cases were inevitably going to rise early January due to the Christmas mixing. I also suspect those who devise the 'rules' factor in a level of non-compliance

It's frustrating that we are back in another lockdown, and hopefully this will be the last in our lifetimes! One thing I can't understand though, is Boris saying once a person is vaccinated it takes 2-3 weeks for the immunity to kick in, so why not make it mandatory for those to self isolate during this time and allow those not in the higher priority groups to get out of lockdown a couple of weeks sooner.

duncanp · 5 Jan 2021

Ianno87 said:
I think the restrictions get *reviewed* on 15th of February ahead of being altered the following week.

The government have also said that the measures are under "continuous review", which means they could be tightened or eased at any time before 15th February.

However it is unlikely that we will see any major easing of restrictions before 15th February unless there is a really dramatic and sustained fall in the figures.

But I wonder how long it is going to be before we see a "SAGE scientist" warning that the new rules are not enough, and they need to be tightened and extended until the end of June?

JamesT · 5 Jan 2021

birchesgreen said:
What is a "local area"? Is this defined anywhere? Local authority, council ward or what?

The guidance has the following for local:

If you need to travel you should stay local – meaning avoiding travelling outside of your village, town or the part of a city where you live

We’ll have to wait to see if the legislation enshrines those rules and/or a more concrete definition.

It seems mostly to be an exhortation not to be daft and take long trips. Putting hard boundaries is going to lead to ridiculous edge cases where you can’t cross the road because it’s a different area.

py_megapixel · 5 Jan 2021

birchesgreen said:
What is a "local area"? Is this defined anywhere? Local authority, council ward or what?

As @JamesT has mentioned, Gov.UK says that it means not travelling "outside of your village, town or the part of a city where you live"

But it then goes on to say that it's permitted to visit GP appointments (not every settlement in the country has a GP surgery, and not everyone is registered with the one nearest to where they live!), go to work (so are you advised against a commute outside the local area or not?) and visiting a vet's surgery (which, again, not everywhere has).

In any case, all of this is only listed as a should, rather than a must, so make of that what you will.

So, to summarise: who the hell knows?

Edit: here's the link, and full quote: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-lockdown-stay-at-home#travel

You should stay local – meaning avoiding travelling outside of your village, town or the part of a city where you live – and look to reduce the number of journeys you make overall. The list of reasons you can leave your home and area include, but are not limited to:

work, where you cannot reasonably work from home

accessing education and for caring responsibilities

visiting those in your support bubble – or your childcare bubble for childcare

visiting hospital, GP and other medical appointments or visits where you have had an accident or are concerned about your health

buying goods or services that you need, but this should be within your local area wherever possible

outdoor exercise. This should be done locally wherever possible, but you can travel a short distance within your area to do so if necessary (for example, to access an open space)

attending the care and exercise of an animal, or veterinary services

If you need to travel, walk or cycle where possible, and plan ahead and avoid busy times and routes on public transport.

birchesgreen · 5 Jan 2021

py_megapixel said:
So, to summarise: who the hell knows?

Yes quite. I do live on the edge of Birmingham so i can be in Warwickshire in about the same time as it takes to go to my "local" high street. Just need to apply some common sense and hope that Old Bill, if they do stop me, apply the same common sense...

Domh245 · 5 Jan 2021

Silverlinky said:
The only way out is and has always been a vaccine.....forget herd immunity

The vaccine is the safe route to herd immunity. Don't make the unhelpful mistake of conflating herd immunity (the concept, where sufficient people have immunity by whatever means to prevent widespread transmission by breaking chains of infection) with the herd immunity by mass infection concept that has been popular for a while

Mag_seven · 5 Jan 2021

The legislation will define what you legally can or cannot do. Its not been published yet but should be available via this link when it is:

Coronavirus Legislation

py_megapixel · 5 Jan 2021

I wish Boris would stop this nonsense of announcing things and then having the legislation published in retrospect a day later.

In my opinion he should be waiting until it is ready to publish, then doing the announcement on television, then having the legislation go live immediately afterwards.

Watershed · 5 Jan 2021

northernchris said:
so why not make it mandatory for those to self isolate during this time and allow those not in the higher priority groups to get out of lockdown a couple of weeks sooner.

Those who are 'clinically extremely vulnerable' have been advised not to go to work and those who are vulnerable have been advised to shield as per the first lockdown. Many getting the vaccine at the moment will fall into these groups and will therefore de facto be advised to shield.

It would be totally impractical to suggest that those care home and NHS workers that are receiving the vaccine should self isolate for 3 weeks. That really would precipitate the collapse of the NHS that we have been warned of.

duncanp · 5 Jan 2021

birchesgreen said:
Just need to apply some common sense and hope that Old Bill, if they do stop me, apply the same common sense...

I wouldn't necessarily include The Police and "common sense" in the same sentence.

Meanwhile, exactly as I predicted earlier in this thread, a "SAGE scientist" has warned that staying at home and waiting for the vaccine is not enough to beat the virus. In his words, "..we need to be bearing down on it..", although unsurprisingly he doesn't say what that means.

I wish all the "SAGE Scientists" would just shut up.

It is bad enough that we are all facing these restrictions for an indeterminate period of time, with this further speculation about yet more tightening of the rules.

This all has an extremely adverse effect on people's mental health and must stop immediately. The governmen

Restrictions may need to be brought in next winter, Chris Whitty warns

www.telegraph.co.uk

Staying at home and waiting for the vaccine is not enough to stop the virus, a Sage member has warned.

Prof Andrew Hayward said last week that the UK could be heading towards a catastrophe if there was no national lockdown. Asked if the new restrictions would avert the catastrophe, he told the BBC's Radio 4 Today programme: "The threat we're facing is at least as bad as what we were facing in March, but the virus is different and it may be that the lockdown measures that we do have are not enough.

"So we do need to learn from the new insights and the new technology and we need to learn from the last lockdown.

He added: "You need to do more than stay at home and wait for the vaccine. We need to be bearing down on it."

Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove said the country was in for a "very difficult" few weeks and could give no firm date for lifting the lockdown.

py_megapixel said:
I wish Boris would stop this nonsense of announcing things and then having the legislation published in retrospect a day later.

In my opinion he should be waiting until it is ready to publish, then doing the announcement on television, then having the legislation go live immediately afterwards.

I also wish Boris would stop the nonsense of publishing guidance which conflicts with the legislation.

But pigs are more likely to fly before that happens.

New lockdown in England, including school closures, announced by Johnson, 4/1/21

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member