England's new three-tier lockdown system

[yorkie]

I think we can have a national one but not loads of local ones.

At least with a national lockdown people won't be visiting family and friends where restrictions are less severe.

what would that achieve?

how often can we lock down for?

can we afford it?

 

[bramling]

what would that achieve?

how often can we lock down for?

can we afford it?

Ed Davey speaking just now on Sky News very strongly advocating lockdown.

If we *are* going to have it (and whether we like it or not, I get the feeling the political - if not public - wind is blowing that way), perhaps we should just get on with it, as the later it happens the longer it will last for. It's madness of course, but the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

 

[Richard Scott]

Ed Davey speaking just now on Sky News very strongly advocating lockdown.

He lives on his own does he and his job is at risk? Bet answer to both is no.

 

[radamfi]

This isn't really a party political issue. If Labour were in power now, they would be doing pretty much the same as the Tories are now. And the Tories would be criticising and proposing alternative strategies. A shame that Starmer is being deliberately contrarian.

 

[bramling]

This isn't really a party political issue. If Labour were in power now, they would be doing pretty much the same as the Tories are now. And the Tories would be criticising and proposing alternative strategies. A shame that Starmer is being deliberately contrarian.

It has turned very much in a party political spat now. Lib Dems are screaming their heads off now too. Then there's politicians like Sadiq Khan.

We wonder why many people are cynical about our politics in this country.

 

[big_rig]

what would that achieve?

how often can we lock down for?

can we afford it?

Nothing in the long run, never again, no as it has an incalculable social and economic cost. Not to mention that it has barely been one single day since the WHO said so.

I have written to my local Labour MP to let her know that I will not be volunteering for her again based on her stance on this, after having happily leafleted for her before sunrise during the last winter election

 

[Bletchleyite]

Labour are now totally unelectable as far as I'm concerned.

Whereas I am more and more impressed with Starmer by the day. He's professional, he's articulate, he explains his views. He's the first genuinely good Labour leader in years. Makes an absolute mockery of Johnson's halfwittery.

 

[duncanp]

Whereas I am more and more impressed with Starmer by the day. He's professional, he's articulate, he explains his views. He's the first genuinely good Labour leader in years. Makes an absolute mockery of Johnson's halfwittery.

He may be better than Boris Johnson in normal times (and I as a Conservative voter will not vote for them again at the next election if Boris is still in charge) but his half baked idea of a "circuit breaker" lockdown doesn't inspire me with confidence.

See the three questions to him that I posted earlier.

 

[bramling]

Whereas I am more and more impressed with Starmer by the day. He's professional, he's articulate, he explains his views. He's the first genuinely good Labour leader in years. Makes an absolute mockery of Johnson's halfwittery.

He hasn't yet explained why he feels a short lockdown would be effective, against a background of us having had several months of lockdown earlier in the year which has seen us now essentially return to square one.

I am rather disturbed by the way a lot of outlets now seem to be saying "let's get this done in time for Christmas". Is this the new strategy to try and get public buy-in? If so it's completely facile. What are we going to have? Two months of lockdown, followed by "eat out to help celebrate Christmas"?!

 

[kristiang85]

I am rather disturbed by the way a lot of outlets now seem to be saying "let's get this done in time for Christmas". Is this the new strategy to try and get public buy-in? If so it's completely facile. What are we going to have? Two months of lockdown, followed by "eat out to help celebrate Christmas"?!

It is disturbing.

Respiratory diseases rise throughout winter, usually peaking in Jan/Feb. This has never been stopped in human history. If we go into full lockdown now, the conditions for getting out of it won't be right until well into 2021.

We were told the March one would be a few weeks to flatten the curve; we didn't get out of it until midsummer. I'm not falling for that again.

 

[radamfi]

Is any country in Europe other than Sweden removing restrictions?

 

[takno]

Ed Davey speaking just now on Sky News very strongly advocating lockdown.

If we *are* going to have it (and whether we like it or not, I get the feeling the political - if not public - wind is blowing that way), perhaps we should just get on with it, as the later it happens the longer it will last for. It's madness of course, but the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

I agree it's a catastrophically stupid course of action, but everybody's been daring themselves into it for weeks now, and I think it probably will happen. Given how little I can do in central Scotland at the moment anyway I'm close to past caring either way.

Viewed through that lens Starmer's approach is cynical but good politics - most people probably support a lockdown as long as it's on the government's tab, and the majority of people against it are more likely to abstain than ever vote Labour anyway. If they position it as something that's only necessary because the government is bad, then they're probably making the best of a bad job.

That doesn't apply to Khan, who in demanding needless local measures for London just seems to be wildly out of touch with his electorate. I'm not sure he even understands what he's actually arguing for anyway - he just seems to have lost whatever tenuous grasp on reason he ever had to start with.

 

[Bletchleyite]

He hasn't yet explained why he feels a short lockdown would be effective, against a background of us having had several months of lockdown earlier in the year which has seen us now essentially return to square one.

Having enjoyed a period of opening back up again.

 

[takno]

Is any country in Europe other than Swedien removing restrictions?

I don't think Sweden is removing any. They just conspicuously aren't dealing with much of a rise in cases and aren't piling new restrictions on

 

[radamfi]

I don't think Sweden is removing any. They just conspicuously aren't dealing with much of a rise in cases and aren't piling new restrictions on

So no country in Europe is removing restrictions?

 

[takno]

So no country in Europe is removing restrictions?

Not that I'm aware of. Many of them are doing even stupider things than we are

 

[Class 33]

what would that achieve?

how often can we lock down for?

can we afford it?

Not only the economic effects it would have, but the increased mental health problems this would cause too. The majority of these front bench MP's just don't seem to care about this atall. I for one have not heard any of them mentioning the mental health implications all these restrictions and lockdowns are having.

We just can't go on like this will all these local lockdowns, and possibly numerous full national lockdowns too. It's completely wrecking the country. As mentioned if this "circuit breaker lockdown" does end happening, I can bet it won't end up being 2 or 3 weeks in duration, it would probably end up being at least 5 weeks. And then we could come out of that - though still with all these seemingly never-ending social distancing and mask wearing restrictions/laws in force, and then what if the cases/infection rates/R rate starts going up again? They'll then start pushing for another circuit breaker lockdown again! And we'll be stuck in a vicious circle. We just can't go on like this.

 

[yorkie]

So no country in Europe is removing restrictions?

Switzerland maybe? I know they were planning to, but they may have since changed course (@Oscar will know)

 

[158756]

Labour are now totally unelectable as far as I'm concerned.

Starmer is a disgrace. How on earth can the leader of the Labour Party advocate measures to force millions into unemployment and poverty??? Unless he thinks destroying the economy will give him a better chance at the next election...

 

[duncanp]

It will be interesting to see if the 16 day "circuit breaker" lockdown in Central Scotland has a significant effect.

If it doesn't, then all these people clamouring for one in England will have some explaining to do.

If is does have an effect, what is Nicola Sturgeon going to do afterwards? Reports are that she is planning a version of the three tier system that has been introduced in England.

 

[Chester1]

Not only the economic effects it would have, but the increased mental health problems this would cause too. The majority of these front bench MP's just don't seem to care about this atall. I for one have not heard any of them mentioning the mental health implications all these restrictions and lockdowns are having.

We just can't go on like this will all these local lockdowns, and possibly numerous full national lockdowns too. It's completely wrecking the country. As mentioned if this "circuit breaker lockdown" does end happening, I can bet it won't end up being 2 or 3 weeks in duration, it would probably end up being at least 5 weeks. And then we could come out of that - though still with all these seemingly never-ending social distancing and mask wearing restrictions/laws in force, and then what if the cases/infection rates/R rate starts going up again? They'll then start pushing for another circuit breaker lockdown again! And we'll be stuck in a vicious circle. We just can't go on like this.

5 weeks... Wow you are optimistic! I would bet on a "circuit breaker lockdown" lasting until shortly before Christmas. Cases are rising because of seasonal change and fewer people following the rules because they know their personal risk is low and won't put their life on hold until there is a vaccine. Politicians can't accept this because it means they will face high causalities, primarily of higher risk people who have taken too many risks and got caught out. The main effect of more restrictions will be that people will break more of them.

 

[bramling]

Having enjoyed a period of opening back up again.

Some businesses have only just opened back up, and are very much on their last legs as a result.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Some businesses have only just opened back up, and are very much on their last legs as a result.

Which is why I think the funding packages haven't been good enough. This is everyone's problem, so I say bail out now and we can pay back in our taxes later, just like a war.

 

[Richard Scott]

Which is why I think the funding packages haven't been good enough. This is everyone's problem, so I say bail out now and we can pay back in our taxes later, just like a war.

That's because Government doesn't have infinite amounts of cash. As for paying it all back later you said in another post you were a higher rate tax payer so maybe you can afford to pay more tax. Some people are already on bread line so can't. That's a bit selfish. Perhaps we need to accept that we need to allow these businesses to carry on even if infections rise. We just can't carry on like we are as we don't know what's happening from one week to the next. This is affecting business and people's mental health.

 

[bramling]

Which is why I think the funding packages haven't been good enough. This is everyone's problem, so I say bail out now and we can pay back in our taxes later, just like a war.

I don’t think that’s a solution at all. If taxes rise later then people have less in their wallets to spend, so will spend less - which will hit many of these businesses that way.

Whichever way we try to square it up, it’s impossible to get back what is being paid out unproductively.

And I don’t believe it is right to saddle society with a massive debt, which is what we’re already well on the way to doing. We already have many younger people unable to afford their own property.

As an aside, I don’t think it’s the right thing for people to be paid just to stay at home. Some may have enjoyed this for a while, and there’s certainly a subset who want that to continue, however it’s not good for people in the longer run. Some people have worked bloody hard to build up their businesses, whilst others take pride in going to work, throwing all that away is not the way to go.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's because Government doesn't have infinite amounts of cash.

Actually, they effectively do. Government borrowing isn't like you borrowing.

 

[Richard Scott]

Actually, they effectively do. Government borrowing isn't like you borrowing.

But they still have to pay it back. Is there really an infinite amount of cash in the world? Seem to remember reading in history books about Germany trying it by printing lots, look how that worked out.

 

[birchesgreen]

But they still have to pay it back. Is there really an infinite amount of cash in the world? Seem to remember reading in history books about Germany trying it by printing lots, look how that worked out.

At least with debit cards you won't need to fill a wheelbarrow with 100,000 quid in order to buy a load of bread, they'll have to raise the contactless limit a bit though.

 

[takno]

Actually, they effectively do. Government borrowing isn't like you borrowing.

The government has access to very large amounts of money, and where the money is used to grow the economy they have a lot of ability to effectively never repay it. We show no signs of using this money to grow the economy.

If they want to avoid repaying it without growing the economy, they can also just print more money and let inflation take its course. In general that is regarded as a very bad idea by almost everybody for extremely good reasons. In the past it has led to untold misery, fascist dictatorships, breakup of countries, and in one case the second world war.

The fact that government borrowing doesn't work like a credit card doesn't mean there are no constraints on it at all.

 

[Busaholic]

Switzerland maybe? I know they were planning to, but they may have since changed course (@Oscar will know)

Highly unlikely I feel as they reached their highest ever daily rate of infections late last week, and amongst those testing positive in Geneva was the U.N. high commissioner for human rights who heads the U.N. refugee agency.