-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
How much longer will social distancing go on for in the UK?
- Thread starter Class 33
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Given this is not a short notice thing, there is absolutely no excuse for not doing it properly. It should be properly debated. Locking down in the Summer is also utterly absurd.
I'm becoming increasingly angry with people who support lengthy harmful lockdowns.
I'm becoming increasingly angry with people who support lengthy harmful lockdowns.
The BBC are a complete waste of space at the moment. Even when they get round to reporting it, they won't be challenging it properly.
Indeed. It will be more pro-lockdown whitewash.
Richard Scott
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2018
- Messages
- 3,696
I really don't understand the point. Are they just set on a path to destruction of our country and people's wellbeing? I really have had enough of this government and other politicians thinking that the only thing that counts is this damn virus. I really wish they'd all f**k off before I end up losing the plot along with many others. We have multiple vaccines available, many people have had this, sooner or later it will be background noise, what it there obsession? New variants will come along but likely will have negligible impact. Why they think this virus is unlike any other is beyond me.
Peter Mugridge
Veteran Member
According to the government's own figures, they already are - and this is too soon for the vaccinations to be kicking in.
( Images below are simply screenshots of charts from the official Government coronavirus website showing the seven day averages of the relevant figures ) https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases
First, the number of detected new infections has been dropping like a stone since 6th January.
...the number of hospital admissions has been declining since 9th January...
...and the number of patients in hospital appears to have peaked this week.
Couldn’t read it but the comments make up for it, the commentators are not happy and I agree but 17 July that’s pretty much well into the summer!
brad465
Established Member
I had a quick look at the article and it appears CRG chair Mark Harper knows about this legislation extension as he's given an opinion on it in that article. Therefore it probably will get mentioned in Parliament. It's not the Sunday Telegraph's front page though, so they don't think it's significant in that sense (even though the powers at stake definitely are).
If councils are using this power in the late spring/early summer I can see a lot of hostility being generated towards them for it.
If councils are using this power in the late spring/early summer I can see a lot of hostility being generated towards them for it.
RomeoCharlie71
Established Member
Did many councils use this authority in the Summer when it was first introduced though?
I certainly didn't hear much about it, it was largely police shutdowns (e.g. the tier 3 Liverpool gym scenario) that made the headlines.
brad465
Established Member
If anything is proving how unsustainable furlough is and how eventually the population will have enough of all these restrictions, this story does, both by way of what it reports and what it might be predicting for 2021:
Firms planned record 800,000 redundancies last year
Despite the furlough scheme, employers decided to cut a record number of jobs during 2020.
www.bbc.co.uk
British employers made plans to cut 795,000 jobs last year, a record number, as Covid lockdowns took their toll on the economy.
More than 10,000 firms planned job cuts, however the pace of planned cuts slowed at the end of the year.
Without the government's furlough scheme, designed to protect jobs, the numbers might have been higher still.
The figures were obtained in response to a BBC Freedom of Information request to the Insolvency Service.
Employers must notify the Insolvency Service when they plan to cut 20 or more jobs, giving an earlier indication of changes in the labour market than waiting for official joblessness statistics.
Large parts of the British economy were brought to a standstill for weeks on end during 2020 by the measures imposed to contain Covid-19, and many employers were forced to cut staff as a result.
The number of job cuts proposed through the year was well above the 530,000 seen the last time the UK was in recession, in 2010, and higher than any year in the records which go back to 2006.
However, in recent months the pace of layoffs has slowed, even though the new Covid variant has seen surging case numbers and new lockdowns imposed across the UK.
Last month employers notified government of plans to cut 23,100 job cuts, which is the lowest monthly figure for 2020, though still a third higher than December 2019.
The decision to extend the furlough scheme, where government pays most of a worker's wages if their employer can't, will have enabled more firms to keep their staff, believes Tony Wilson, Director of the Institute for Employment Studies.
"The question now though is where redundancy figures go next," he says.
"If they start to stabilise around these levels, then [job cuts] would be at least one third higher than what we've seen over most of the last decade, and it's possible that a combination of this lockdown and then furlough unwinding from May could see numbers creeping up."
Despite that, Mr Wilson sees the situation as "pretty positive".
The slowdown in planned job cuts towards the end of the year is surprising (possibly because many jobs had already been cut before), but it shows even furlough's existence is not stopping jobs disappearing, where the longer this third lockdown goes on, the worse it will get.
If anything is proving how unsustainable furlough is and how eventually the population will have enough of all these restrictions, this story does, both by way of what it reports and what it might be predicting for 2021:
Firms planned record 800,000 redundancies last year
Despite the furlough scheme, employers decided to cut a record number of jobs during 2020.www.bbc.co.uk
The slowdown in planned job cuts towards the end of the year is surprising (possibly because many jobs had already been cut before), but it shows even furlough's existence is not stopping jobs disappearing, where the longer this third lockdown goes on, the worse it will get.
No confidence, people not being paid and not spending, people with money having nothing to spend it on - this is the stuff economic nightmares are made of.
In all honesty, I don't think we've ever seen the numbers drop so quickly, I'm struggling for an explanation...
Pro-lockdown authoritarians in their well proportioned homes with their guaranteed incomes and other luxuries don't care about disadvantaged or disabled people like John:
The media doesn't either; they are desperately keen to highlight any outliers such as younger people who had severe symptoms, yet when a 12 year old boy commits suicide, the media are largely silent. The narrative is very clear: Covid matters and nothing else does. And it's abundantly clear these people have an agenda. The BBC are very on board with that agenda, with the odd reasonable article now and then as a token gesture so they can attempt to deny their ludicrously obvious bias.
'Lockdown made me feel like I was in prison'
John Nicholl, who is deafblind, says his use of hands-on sign language left him isolated in lockdown.
www.bbc.co.uk
Nor do they care about mental health.
The media doesn't either; they are desperately keen to highlight any outliers such as younger people who had severe symptoms, yet when a 12 year old boy commits suicide, the media are largely silent. The narrative is very clear: Covid matters and nothing else does. And it's abundantly clear these people have an agenda. The BBC are very on board with that agenda, with the odd reasonable article now and then as a token gesture so they can attempt to deny their ludicrously obvious bias.
initiation
Member
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2014
- Messages
- 432
One suggestion I've seen is that it is because of the rapid increase in lateral flow tests being used over the last month; up to 250k per day recently in England.
The potential problems with PCR testing have been discussed before so a switch to lateral flow could reduce the number of postive test results.
DustyBin
Established Member
Surely not!....
I wouldn't read too much into this if I were you.
The law which has been extended gives local councils power to close establishments that are breaking COVID restrictions.
On the one hand, you could interpret this to mean that the lockdown is going to last until July.
On the other hand, you could interpret this as meaning that July 17th is the date by which all restrictions will be lifted, and councils will have no more need of those powers after then.
I think it is just an automatic extension of the powers, and the end date of July 17th does not mean that restrictions will not be lifted before then.
Tracked
Established Member
I saw something yesterday about a big drop in numbers infected around London, did wonder if it was partly due to the new faster-spreading variant effectively burning itself out after 4 months.
Bantamzen
Established Member
Beginning? I've felt this way for months, the government has been systematically dismantling our democracy, failing to properly support our health services, destroying the public's wellbeing, all whilst filling their pockets. In 1789 the people had a far more effective way of dealing with them than jail.
I'm way beyond being angry at lockdown supporters. I'm holding them all personally responsible for them damage they are helping to cause to society, the economy, mental health etc.
bramling
Veteran Member
Let's hope you're right on this. July seems ominously similar to last year, almost like let's keep the population holed up for the whole year, give them a couple of months over the summer coinciding with the school holidays (perhaps even throw in some discount dining to keep them happy), then start the whole process over again in the autumn...
Yes, there really is no way that the government can keep the lockdown going in its current form until July.
The cost to the economy will be far too great, as will be made painfully clear in the budget on March 3rd. And that is without considering the effect on people's mental health.
I think the government will start to lift restrictions in early March.
As I posted elsewhere yesterday the government are having discussions with the hospitality sector about the restrictions that will be in place when they are allowed to reopen. The report also said that a date for reopening the hospitality sector will become apparent within the next few weeks once the government see the data on vaccination, new cases, hospitalisations and deaths.
So the government are clearly making plans to reopen the economy starting in the spring.
As for reimposing restrictions in the autumn, I just can't see how that can be justified, because the vast majority of the population should have been vaccinated by then. Even if some deadly new strain emerges over the summer, we know that existing vaccines can be modified to cope with the new strain, as happens with the flu vaccine every year.
Any restrictions in the autumn of 2021 are likely to be low key, such as work from home if you are feeling unwell, shielding on a part or full time basis for anyone who is vulnerable, and possibly advice about wearing face coverings in crowded settings such as public, without making them mandatory.
bramling
Veteran Member
The trouble is, we've been here before. No one would have believed we could keep furlough going for a year, yet here it is, and it's at least a plausible bet that it will be extended again yet.
Hopefully you're right that Sunak will make it all very clear in March. I'm not holding my breath though.
I think we've had furlough for so long, and the debt is so massive, that from the government perspective it doesn't really make much difference if they keep it for another year or so. And if they keep it for another year, why not keep it permanently. The long term economic health of the country doesn't matter one bit to the government.
The long term economic health of the country does matter to the government, although it may not be their top priority now.
But keeping the furlough scheme going indefinitely would involve either a massive increase in government borrowing, or large increases in taxes, or a combination of both.
The increase in borrowing would place an intolerable burden mainly on younger people, and would affect the ability of the government to fund services (including the NHS) and pay for benefits in the future.
To avoid an intolerable burden on young people in the future, we really need to open up the economy, and hope that economic growth and activiy will generate an increase in tax revenue which can be used to pay down the debt.
We have been there with the furlough scheme before, in that it has been extended several times beyond its original deadline.
But when furlough was first introduced, no-one could have predicted the timing and extent of the second wave (when schools and universities went back) or the third wave (due to the new variant of the virus)
Now, we have a long term solution with the vaccine. It may not give complete protection, and it may not stop transmission altogether, but it should reduce it to manageable levels, where most people who catch COVID only get mild symptoms and can recover at home, and the hospitals are not overwhelmed.
Not sure that's entirely true - it wasn't unlikely that it would increase in the winter, as most respiratory viruses do.
Richard Scott
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2018
- Messages
- 3,696
Problem is they thought the lockdown would make it disappear, didn't plan long term. Whitty, Vallence etc. really fell short there as they didn't say anything about long term.
I can't believe that they really thought that - there would after all be no medical precedent for that working with any virus.
What the public was told is a different matter, of course...
Perhaps I should have said the precise timing and extent of the second wave.
I do recall reading somewhere that the government were expecting the second wave to happen in November, and were taken aback somewhat when it started in September.
Although it is know that viruses mutate, no-one could have predicted exactly when and where the new variant would appear, or how more infectious it was.
But the point remains that the furlough scheme as it exists at the moment is unaffordable in the long term.
Another reason why furlough can't continue in the long term is that it would cause increasing resentment amongst those who are still working. (ie. why should I carry on working when people are paid 80% of their wages by the government to sit at home doing nothing)
At some point in the future the people who are currently on furlough are either going to have to go back to work, or move on to Universal Credit.
It is possible that the furlough scheme will be modified in the budget so that it is less generous, with a view to it finishing altogether in the summer when things are more like normal.
Last edited:
Apologies if this has been addressed earlier in the thread, I've not ploughed all the way through it, but I note a number of you are not in favour of lockdown. I'm no fan of it, but I understand why it's in place. I do share the concerns over the furlough scheme however.
The question I have for those of you who are not in favour of it, if we didn't have lockdown, how do you think the NHS would be coping with what would undoubtedly be even larger numbers requiring care and treatment? Our hospitals are struggling as it is - having seen it first hand when in hospital for something other than Covid recently. There are people of all ages needing to be hospitalised for treatment, and I know of people from all age groups (apart from under 18s) who have either ended up with long-Covid, or have passed away.
I do count myself very fortunate as being someone (who works for Network Rail) who is able to do my job full time from home, so am not having to put myself at risk on a daily basis like so many people are.
The question I have for those of you who are not in favour of it, if we didn't have lockdown, how do you think the NHS would be coping with what would undoubtedly be even larger numbers requiring care and treatment? Our hospitals are struggling as it is - having seen it first hand when in hospital for something other than Covid recently. There are people of all ages needing to be hospitalised for treatment, and I know of people from all age groups (apart from under 18s) who have either ended up with long-Covid, or have passed away.
I do count myself very fortunate as being someone (who works for Network Rail) who is able to do my job full time from home, so am not having to put myself at risk on a daily basis like so many people are.
There is no evidence that lockdowns make much difference - see the recent Stanford University paper, and look at the Worldometers stats and compare them with restrictions in each country - there is no correlation.
Numbers here were starting to fall before the most recent lockdown could have had any effect.
Younger people dying has been exaggerated - statistically these cases are very rare. So-called 'Long Covid' is post-viral fatigue, rebranded to make it sound more scary. Most will recover from it within a couple of months.
The current thinking of several SPI-M and NERVTAG members who have looked at the numbers in detail (so can strip out test type impact) suggests that the new strain has higher K value than the older ones i.e. the increase in R value due to the new strain was mostly seen in more super spreader individual /events and reducing those has hence had a larger than expected effect on reducing R.One suggestion I've seen is that it is because of the rapid increase in lateral flow tests being used over the last month; up to 250k per day recently in England.
The potential problems with PCR testing have been discussed before so a switch to lateral flow could reduce the number of postive test results.
This of course has important repercussions for the order things get reopened in.
- Status