Further Restrictions Announced by Johnson (22/09)

[brick60000]

It wasn't. Even the Government didn't use the term.

Not that it matters, but did the government not say “criteria for adjusting the lockdown” in most of the press briefings?

The below article also has a government minister referring to it as such.

Leave lockdown in lockstep

Writing in today’s Scottish Daily Mail, Scottish Secretary Alister Jack sets out the importance of leaving lockdown as one United Kingdom

www.gov.uk

 

[Class 33]

To me, these past 6 months of all this constant Coronavirus/COVID-19, the lockdown and all these horrible ongoing seemingly never-ending restrictions have lasted what FEELS like a LOT longer than 6 months. It's been incredibly draining for me, and I expect for millions of others. And the fact that we may well have to put up with this for yet another 6 LONG months is very depressing. Not sure I'll be able to take all this for too much longer.

Why does Boris envisage this could last another 6 months? What if we can get these cases and deaths back down to very low levels again way before 6 months time. Can these restrictions be finally lifted then?

 

[bramling]

To me, these past 6 months of all this constant Coronavirus/COVID-19, the lockdown and all these horrible ongoing seemingly never-ending restrictions have lasted what FEELS like a LOT longer than 6 months. It's been incredibly draining for me, and I expect for millions of others. And the fact that we may well have to put up with this for yet another 6 LONG months is very depressing. Not sure I'll be able to take all this for too much longer.

Why does Boris envisage this could last another 6 months? What if we can get these cases and deaths back down to very low levels again way before 6 months time. Can these restrictions be finally lifted then?

It does seem like they’re banking on a vaccine. If that doesn’t happen then things are going to get very messy indeed, even more so that they already are - especially as he will then *have* to come out and say that we need to be realistic, which will of course have the lockdown brigade up in arms.

 

[C J Snarzell]

Yeah I agree with that, it did seem a little like a threat. Not that I agree with it or that it would change my view on anything.

I would like to think everyone on this forum has been doing everything necessary to follow the rules. Tonight's 'threat' from the PM is directed at the minority of idiots who have no intentions of adhering to the restrictions.

Unfortunately, from my own experience of dealing with certain members of society over the years, a fine is no deterent. These people treat the justice system as an occupational hazard - a charge sheet or summons is just another piece of paper shoved in the back pocket. The police knocking on their doors is merely a unwanted inconvenience, as is spending 12 hours in a cell.

A £10,000 fine is an empty gesture as most 'flouters' probably don't have £100 to their name. I've seen scumbags get their fines wavered at court because they do not have the means to pay, therefore I simply don't think the lockdown parties will stop because of tonight's new measures.

As I've said previously, the pubs will close at 10pm, but most alcohol fueled flouters from the Frank Gallagher school of life, will simply continue to ignore any restrictions despite the repercussions.

CJ

 

[johntea]

Something that isn’t very clear...are off licenses banned from selling alcohol from 10pm - 5am?

I’m sure I read that somewhere but maybe it was a Scotland restriction rather than England

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

I would like to think everyone on this forum has been doing everything necessary to follow the rules. Tonight's 'threat' from the PM is directed at the minority of idiots who have no intentions of adhering to the restrictions.

Unfortunately, from my own experience of dealing with certain members of society over the years, a fine is no deterent. These people treat the justice system as an occupational hazard - a charge sheet or summons is just another piece of paper shoved in the back pocket. The police knocking on their doors is merely a unwanted inconvenience, as is spending 12 hours in a cell.

A £10,000 fine is an empty gesture as most 'flouters' probably don't have £100 to their name. I've seen scumbags get their fines wavered at court because they do not have the means to pay, therefore I simply don't think the lockdown parties will stop because of tonight's new measures.

As I've said previously, the pubs will close at 10pm, but most alcohol fueled flouters from the Frank Gallagher school of life, will simply continue to ignore any restrictions despite the repercussions.

CJ

All very true. The idea is that 99% of people will comply.

Sadly, we will always have people who decide they won’t comply with whatever laws or guidance in whatever aspect of life.

Speed cameras, points and fines don’t eliminate speeding but they do reduce it.

 

[DB]

All very true. The idea is that 99% of people will comply.

Sadly, we will always have people who decide they won’t comply with whatever laws or guidance in whatever aspect of life.

It doesn't help that no clear explanations have been given as to what any of these measures are actually supposed to achieve, other than vacuous phrases such as 'beat the virus'. If people can't see any point in what they are being asked to do then they are less likelt to actually do it.

 

[bramling]

It doesn't help that no clear explanations have been given as to what any of these measures are actually supposed to achieve, other than vacuous phrases such as 'beat the virus'. If people can't see any point in what they are being asked to do then they are less likelt to actually do it.

Exactly right.

If the strategy is “get through the next six months and hang everything on getting a vaccine” then at least be honest and tell everyone; and debate the pros and cons of this approach in parliament. At least then in six months time we know where we stand, and he can then say “we bought time, but it’s just not affordable or realistic to carry on”.

As you say “beat the virus” is just meaningless.

 

[Wuffle]

Last Saturday there was a protest meeting in Trafalgar Sq which turned quite ugly at the end, there is another one this Saturday I suspect more will be there - "Interesting Times"

Sadly Hancock was exposed by Julia Hartley Brewer on TalkRadio for not understanding the "false positives" in PCR tests and both Whitty and Vallance seem to be driving the agenda

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

It doesn't help that no clear explanations have been given as to what any of these measures are actually supposed to achieve, other than vacuous phrases such as 'beat the virus'. If people can't see any point in what they are being asked to do then they are less likelt to actually do it.

I agree with you on that. The explanation and messaging throughout this last 6 months has been hopeless.

Getting support from the public was, of course, by Boris electing to back and not sack his Svengali

 

[ainsworth74]

It does seem like they’re banking on a vaccine.

I definitely think there's an element of truth to that. There was fair bit more positivity than I recall hearing previously on Monday for example. Going so far as to say that it's possible that we'll see it being rolled out in a limited fashion by the end of the year (but not likely on a widescale until well into next year) which I don't think is something that I've heard before. Well, outside of Trump who keeps predicting that there will be a vaccine by October...

 

[philosopher]

What did everyone think of the speech?

Must admit, I find it funny how it's not at all 'realistic' to expect the vulnerable/elderly to isolate/shield whilst we pursue herd immunity, but he does find it 'realistic' and 'possible' that everyone might have to do that if the numbers get too high.

To me it sounded like he was very much blaming the public for having to increase restrictions while not acknowledging that government measures that such as the Eat Out to Help Out or encouraging people back to offices may have also contributed to the rise in cases.

Personally I have come to the conclusion that surpressing the virus won‘t work, however if the government is going to go down that route, I think they should at least be consistent.

 

[Mintona]

I’d rather not wear a mask in a taxi. Wearing a mask makes me dizzy and riding passenger in a vehicle makes me sick so I’m going to be owing a lot of £50s to taxi drivers.

 

[Ianno87]

I would like to think everyone on this forum has been doing everything necessary to follow the rules. Tonight's 'threat' from the PM is directed at the minority of idiots who have no intentions of adhering to the restrictions.

And probably weren't watching Boris anyway.

 

[Class 33]

On the ITV News Special immediately after Boris's speech, correspondent Emily Morgan mentioned that she had been talking to a GP who had said that over 40% of her patients in recent months had been making appointments about mental health issues as a result of all this - "people are worried about losing their job, the furlough scheme ending, they can't find a job, they can't pay their rent, they're lonely.". Just imagine what further effect this will have on the nation's mental health if all this drags on for another 6 months and with the possibility of even FAR tougher restrictions being brought in. Doesn't bear thinking about.

 

[bramling]

I’d rather not wear a mask in a taxi. Wearing a mask makes me dizzy and riding passenger in a vehicle makes me sick so I’m going to be owing a lot of £50s to taxi drivers.

I don’t get why one would need to wear a mask in something like a London taxi where there’s already a dividing screen behind the driver. Obviously it might be different if more than one person from different households shares a taxi.

 

[Ianno87]

I don’t get why one would need to wear a mask in something like a London taxi where there’s already a dividing screen behind the driver. Obviously it might be different if more than one person from different households shares a taxi.

Or a second passenger could use the same taxi shortly after dropping off the previous passenger.

 

[bramling]

Or a second passenger could use the same taxi shortly after dropping off the previous passenger.

Which is no different to a train cab being used by ten or more drivers through the course of a day, at least some of which will be one straight after the other. Yet this doesn’t seem to have been an issue.

In fact a train cab is probably a more problematic atmosphere as some cabs don’t have opening windows.

 

[Ianno87]

Which is no different to a train cab being used by ten or more drivers through the course of a day, at least some of which will be one straight after the other. Yet this doesn’t seem to have been an issue.

In fact a train cab is probably a more problematic atmosphere as some cabs don’t have opening windows.

But train drivers can be tracked and traced very easily. Cab passengers can't.

 

[RT4038]

I don’t get why one would need to wear a mask in something like a London taxi where there’s already a dividing screen behind the driver. Obviously it might be different if more than one person from different households shares a taxi.

Many 'provincial' taxis are just ordinary cars though. I expect it is considered too complicated a message to start having exceptions regarding the design of taxis.

 

[bramling]

But train drivers can be tracked and traced very easily. Cab passengers can't.

Why not? We’re tracking visitors to hospitality venues after all.

 

[Chester1]

I definitely think there's an element of truth to that. There was fair bit more positivity than I recall hearing previously on Monday for example. Going so far as to say that it's possible that we'll see it being rolled out in a limited fashion by the end of the year (but not likely on a widescale until well into next year) which I don't think is something that I've heard before. Well, outside of Trump who keeps predicting that there will be a vaccine by October...

That is almost certainly the plan. The Oxford vaccine is having problems but it looks like at worst it will be sufficiently safe for emergency use only. US law requires an absolute minimum of 30,000 trial vaccinations before an emergency license can be granted. The trial is approaching that number which is why Trump is talking about October (pressumably very late October). Once the US government grant an emergency licence then our government will follow. An emergency license would likely only cover health and social care workers and the extremely clinically vulnerable e.g. care home residents, people with very severe conditions and probably the very elderly (e.g. 85+). That would leave healthy pensioners and those with less severe heart and lung problems to protect with a fully licenced vaccine (which may or may not be Oxford vaccine). Our most at risk citizens should be vaccinated by the end of the 6 months which combined with higher immunity from infection should be enough to return to this summers restrictions in March or April next year.

 

[Camden]

I would like to think everyone on this forum has been doing everything necessary to follow the rules. Tonight's 'threat' from the PM is directed at the minority of idiots who have no intentions of adhering to the restrictions.

Having read a number of posts on this forum over the past months, suggesting civil unrest and so on, complaints about various things being "unacceptable", I get the opposite impression that there is a significant minority here who fit in that category, sadly.

The measures don't require 100% compliance, but do require it from the vast majority. The virus is highly virulent, so super spreader events emanating from irresponsible people do matter. Too many of these and we're fighting a lost cause.

And this is the reality of the position of the defiant, who say we should just let rip and take the death toll. Through their actions, and the consequences of those, logically they will push the government to a position of either giving in, knowing that thousands of people will suffer and die, or enforcing even harder.

If they were to have to give in, despite their desperate want to avoid the needless death and suffering, they (the government staff) will have been despicably placed in that position by those who will shoulder no responsibility for what unfolds (for avoidance of doubt, that's those taking choices and options away from the rest of us, by refusing to cooperate). Should that come to pass, thought will need to be put into how to make sure those actually culpable bear the burden of responsibility.

 

[Richard Scott]

It doesn't help that no clear explanations have been given as to what any of these measures are actually supposed to achieve, other than vacuous phrases such as 'beat the virus'. If people can't see any point in what they are being asked to do then they are less likelt to actually do it.

As always this deluded idea we can 'beat the virus'. It isn't a thinking entity we can challenge tactically. Another load of meaningless drivel from politicians with no real understanding. It's no wonder people don't comply as they're not being given the facts in the first place. Majority are not stupid and will follow rules if they are explained why they are in place. However, when they appear to have limited value then people will treat them as such.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

I'm predicting civil unrest very soon, surely people will not allow these restrictions on their lives?

No team sports allowed inside? That's the indoor bowls cancelled then! Absolutely ridiculous!

Edit: Also, his threats of even more restrictions are absolutely disgusting.

We now live in a de facto tin pot dictatorship

All for a virus which kills on average people aged 82.

We've gotten a partial lockdown with other unnecessary restrictions on our lives for the next six months (and what's a bet the restrictions will be extended!)

Replace the word ‘him’ with ‘coronavirus’ and the words of a certain moustached leader come to mind:

Concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong, and if you haven't got an enemy - then make one up.

Never allow the public to cool off.

Never admit a fault or wrong.

Never leave room for alternatives.

Never accept blame.

 

[Richard Scott]

Having read a number of posts on this forum over the past months, suggesting civil unrest and so on, complaints about various things being "unacceptable", I get the opposite impression that there is a significant minority here who fit in that category, sadly.

The measures don't require 100% compliance, but do require it from the vast majority. The virus is highly virulent, so super spreader events emanating from irresponsible people do matter. Too many of these and we're fighting a lost cause.

And this is the reality of the position of the defiant, who say we should just let rip and take the death toll. Through their actions, and the consequences of those, logically they will push the government to a position of either giving in, knowing that thousands of people will suffer and die, or enforcing even harder.

If they were to have to give in, despite their desperate want to avoid the needless death and suffering, they (the government staff) will have been despicably placed in that position by those who will shoulder no responsibility for what unfolds (for avoidance of doubt, that's those taking choices and options away from the rest of us, by refusing to cooperate). Should that come to pass, thought will need to be put into how to make sure those actually culpable bear the burden of responsibility.

No, it's not that people on this forum want to be defiant it's they can see the broader picture, as stated many times what about those dying needlessly of cancer as treatment has been delayed or those with mental health issues which in some cases has ended in suicides; I take it you're not interested in that? If you were you'd be taking that into account and realising this isn't a one horse race.

 

[bramling]

As always this deluded idea we can 'beat the virus'. It isn't a thinking entity we can challenge tactically. Another load of meaningless drivel from politicians with no real understanding. It's no wonder people don't comply as they're not being given the facts in the first place. Majority are not stupid and will follow rules if they are explained why they are in place. However, when they appear to have limited value then people will treat them as such.

This is the problem. Explain things properly and honestly to people, and lead by example (in other words the opposite of Cummings), rather than threats.

How can one take his 6 months seriously, when we’ve heard things like 12 weeks, by November, or whatever. People just can’t take seriously anything he says.

Pissing in the wind and draining the ocean spring to mind.

 

[Camden]

Replace the word ‘him’ with ‘coronavirus’ and the words of a certain moustached leader come to mind:

Concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong, and if you haven't got an enemy - then make one up.

Never allow the public to cool off.

Never admit a fault or wrong.

Never leave room for alternatives.

Never accept blame.

I suppose if you're going to give me an example, you may was well go the full Godwin's Law.

No, it's not that people on this forum want to be defiant it's they can see the broader picture,

Oh gosh I am so sorry. Here I am thinking that those going around not giving a hoot about spreading the virus (when it would have been pretty avoidable with sensible measures) were unbelievably self-centred. All along it turns out they were just well rounded strategists with an in-depth understanding of the health service and every bit the intellectual superior of those doing as they are asked. My bad.

 

[Chester1]

This is the problem. Explain things properly and honestly to people, and lead by example (in other words the opposite of Cummings), rather than threats.

How can one take his 6 months seriously, when we’ve heard things like 12 weeks, by November, or whatever. People just can’t take seriously anything he says.

Pissing in the wind and draining the ocean spring to mind.

12 weeks was more or less accurate for breaking the back of the pandemic. There has been a degree of normality since 4th July and the daily deaths are extremely low compared with March to June. 27 deaths are awful for those concerned but tiny compared with the height of the pandemic. The November pledge was wildly optimistic!

 

[Richard Scott]

I suppose if you're going to give me an example, you may was well go the full Godwin's Law.


Oh gosh I am so sorry. Here I am thinking that those going around not giving a hoot about spreading the virus (when it would have been pretty avoidable with sensible measures) were unbelievably self-centred. All along it turns out they were just well rounded strategists with an in-depth understanding of the health service and every bit the intellectual superior of those doing as they are asked. My bad.

If you're going to quote my post have the decency to put in the whole thing and not reply sarcastically to a selected section. Yes I would consider myself intellectual and, that being the case, have spent lots of time studying and researching this along with many others on this forum.