Life after the end of "lockdown" 2.0

[yorksrob]

I've read that SAGE think we'd need five days of harsh restrictions for every day of relaxation. Like you say, it would be nice to have a normal Christmas, but it isn't worth it if it means a month of full lockdown, with all the misery that would cause.

Yes, and that's if we believe a month's lockdown will be enough (clue - we don't).

But even if you completely ban socialising over Christmas, and keep every restaurant and pub througout the UK closed unti January, that will only suppress demand, not cancel it. If restrictions are relaxed in January, all the parties etc. that would have happened over Christmas will just happen then.

It would be far better to have a limited relaxation of restrictions over Christmas, allowing families to meet (but advising to cut down on the numbers of people and different households at gatherings) and allowing all hospitality venues to open with a set of COVID secure rules.

Whatever your own views, people will meet up over Christmas and New Year, and it is far better that this is done in a controlled fashion.

And I agree absolutely. I don't believe we should ban socialising over Christmas - or any time. I don't think we should be closing hospitality. As I've said previously they should be establishing sustainable guidelines that can be kept up over the longer term, not lurching from lockdown to being in everyone's house to lockdown again. That might mean limited numbers of households mixing indoors, but people will still be considering theirs and their relatives comparative risks.

I think the sensible approach is for individuals and indeed families to do a risk assessment. I’m certainly not pro lockdown in the way that things have been handled and are currently going but I do care about the health of some of my older relatives and friends. I think we just all need to take a sensible approach to how much we mix with others over Christmas, but so many people unfortunately won’t be sensible. I think we have to realise that this Christmas is going to be different and I can’t see the point of having to endure strict lockdowns until March or later just so that people can go wild for 5 days at Christmas. The longer the government keep us in strict lockdown before Christmas, the busier and more crowded the shops will be when they do open and surely that defeats the object of the current lockdown.

I agree 100%

 

[duncanp]

I think the sensible approach is for individuals and indeed families to do a risk assessment. I’m certainly not pro lockdown in the way that things have been handled and are currently going but I do care about the health of some of my older relatives and friends. I think we just all need to take a sensible approach to how much we mix with others over Christmas, but so many people unfortunately won’t be sensible. I think we have to realise that this Christmas is going to be different and I can’t see the point of having to endure strict lockdowns until March or later just so that people can go wild for 5 days at Christmas. The longer the government keep us in strict lockdown before Christmas, the busier and more crowded the shops will be when they do open and surely that defeats the object of the current lockdown.

There just needs to be a bit of guidance.

For example, 8 people from 5 different households meeting is more of a risk than 8 people from two different households.

Similarly, if you go out for a drink, having four pints of beer in four different pubs is more of a risk than four pints of beer in just one pub. Also, pubs are a lot less busy on a Sunday night and Monday night than on Fridays and Saturdays, so if you can go to the pub then you should.

When doing Christmas shopping, you should plan what you are going to get and where you are going to get it from in advance, rather than aimlessly wandering round a shopping centre. This minimises the time you spend in a shopping centre in proximity to other people. You should also try and shop as close to home as possible, rather than travel huge distances.

All these things, if enough people do them, can make a difference

 

[Bantamzen]

I've read that SAGE think we'd need five days of harsh restrictions for every day of relaxation. Like you say, it would be nice to have a normal Christmas, but it isn't worth it if it means a month of full lockdown, with all the misery that would cause.

Given how often SAGE move the goal posts yet seem unable to change their modelling, right now I wouldn't trust them to forecast the weather in 10 minutes. I am sorry to say but as the restrictions have dragged out, the more it seems they are trying to keep themselves relevant.

Maybe it is time to send them back to their offices and let politicians do political stuff, the attention they have been getting isn't helping their advice in my opinion.

 

[ChrisC]

There just needs to be a bit of guidance.

For example, 8 people from 5 different households meeting is more of a risk than 8 people from two different households.

Similarly, if you go out for a drink, having four pints of beer in four different pubs is more of a risk than four pints of beer in just one pub. Also, pubs are a lot less busy on a Sunday night and Monday night than on Fridays and Saturdays, so if you can go to the pub then you should.

When doing Christmas shopping, you should plan what you are going to get and where you are going to get it from in advance, rather than aimlessly wandering round a shopping centre. This minimises the time you spend in a shopping centre in proximity to other people. You should also try and shop as close to home as possible, rather than travel huge distances.

All these things, if enough people do them, can make a difference

I completely agree with all the points you make but to me that’s just being sensible and using a bit of common sense. The majority of people ought to be able to do this without needing any guidelines. I think we have had too many ever changing guidelines from the government. Unfortunately some of the problems have occurred when some groups of people have not been sensible. Then again we have the people the other extreme who sadly still daren't go out of their homes.

 

[trainophile]

Has anyone except me risked buying any Advance tickets for post-2/12?

 

[Smidster]

So it very much seems that we are going to get "let out" for 4 / 5 days over Christmas and then pay for it in January.

Absolutely awful idea all round - and not just because a January lockdown after a very hard Brexit sounds like hell.

I would be watching what happens over Thanksgiving next week in the States before committing to anything. The USA is a dumpster fire right now but they will at least show us what happens when you have mass movement and family gathering.

It is either safe to meet family or it isn't. It doesn't magically change because it is December 25th

 

[221101 Voyager]

So it very much seems that we are going to get "let out" for 4 / 5 days over Christmas and then pay for it in January.

Absolutely awful idea all round - and not just because a January lockdown after a very hard Brexit sounds like hell.

I would be watching what happens over Thanksgiving next week in the States before committing to anything. The USA is a dumpster fire right now but they will at least show us what happens when you have mass movement and family gathering.

It is either safe to meet family or it isn't. It doesn't magically change because it is December 25th

Completely agree with that.

I thought we may have been in lockdown until 2nd January as that gets Christmas and New Years day out of the way that could've worked.

Until I heard of this Christmas easing of the rules.

I think that will cause people to become complacent, likely to break the rules after Christmas and will cause rates to skyrocket, I'm just dreading it and waiting for another even bigger surge to strike, even though the one we've just had isn't slowing down by any means.

 

[Logan Carroll]

Maybe they don’t want the PR disaster of Grandma & Grandad being arrested for breaching lockdown rules to see the grandchildren.

 

[221101 Voyager]

Maybe they don’t want the PR disaster of Grandma & Grandad being arrested for breaching lockdown rules to see the grandchildren.

PR disaster?

Rules are rules and for better or for worse people must follow them, because if everyone pulled together and followed social distancing and wore a proper mask as much as possible, we might be in a slightly better position than we are now.

But no, through some selfish fools out there breaking rules, we all lose out on seeing our relatives for Christmas, we all now have to face it and try our best to keep going through this period in time.

 

[big_rig]

PR disaster?

Rules are rules and for better or for worse people must follow them, because if everyone pulled together and followed social distancing and wore a proper mask as much as possible, we might be in a slightly better position than we are now.

But no, through some selfish fools out there breaking rules, we all lose out on seeing our relatives for Christmas, we all now have to face it and try our best to keep going through this period in time.

A few questions to this bold assertion:

1) What level of cases per day would we see if ‘rules’ were being followed?
2) Was ‘rules’ not being followed the specific cause of everything being banned again?
3) Does the end of summer and the beginning of winter have anything to do with rising cases, or were the ‘rules’ in nearly every country in Europe being followed perfectly in summer then all simultaneously start being broken when temperatures dropped 10+ degrees?

 

[HSTEd]

Well PHE now apparently claiming five days of lockdown for every day not of lockdown.

Lockdown becoming less and less effective as public mobilisation degrades, as expected.
Soon the lockdown figure will go infinite and this will be over.

 

[221101 Voyager]

A few questions to this bold assertion:

1) What level of cases per day would we see if ‘rules’ were being followed?
2) Was ‘rules’ not being followed the specific cause of everything being banned again?
3) Does the end of summer and the beginning of winter have anything to do with rising cases, or were the ‘rules’ in nearly every country in Europe being followed perfectly in summer then all simultaneously start being broken when temperatures dropped 10+ degrees?

1 -If rules were followed things would certainly be at least somewhat better, I don't know by how much becuase I'm not a specialist in this area and because many people break the rules we will never know what difference it would make for sure.
2 - I've seen many people out and about blatently breaking rules and it's infruriating because people like that certainly aren't making things better, I'm not saying igonoring rules is entirely why we are back to square one again, but I am saying it certainly hasn't done us any good has it?
3 - I'm not saying the rise in cases has anything to do with the weather.


If there is anyone to blame for rises, it's groups such as the anti-lockdown protests, I've seen them on the news blatantly wear no masks and completely ignoring social distancing. Little do these fools know they are making things worse for themselves and everyone else.

Bunch of fools, can they at least be responsible?

I don't have an issue with anti-lockdown protests, it's the fact that the people on them are really irresponsible

 

[Logan Carroll]

I’m saying this is what i think the GOVERNMENT is thinking.

I don’t know enough about it to form a real opinion on lockdown measures.

 

[farleigh]

PR disaster?

Rules are rules and for better or for worse people must follow them, because if everyone pulled together and followed social distancing and wore a proper mask as much as possible, we might be in a slightly better position than we are now.

But no, through some selfish fools out there breaking rules, we all lose out on seeing our relatives for Christmas, we all now have to face it and try our best to keep going through this period in time.

Which selfish fools are these and what increase in infections are they responsible for??

And it seems contradictory to bemoan missing out on seeing relatives. Rules are rules and you should just follow them no?

 

[bramling]

Well PHE now apparently claiming five days of lockdown for every day not of lockdown.

Lockdown becoming less and less effective as public mobilisation degrades, as expected.
Soon the lockdown figure will go infinite and this will be over.

It amused me in my local paper that cases still seem to be rising here. Predictably the “lockdown” (which in reality is simply a shops and hospitality closure) doesn’t seem to be biting. They don’t seem to make a connection with the next story, which was how dozens of school year-groups are now learning at home due to massive numbers of Covid cases.

I would be so peeved if I were a shop owner, as it seems quite clear they’re closed for no real reason at all.

 

[Richard Scott]

PR disaster?

Rules are rules and for better or for worse people must follow them, because if everyone pulled together and followed social distancing and wore a proper mask as much as possible, we might be in a slightly better position than we are now.

But no, through some selfish fools out there breaking rules, we all lose out on seeing our relatives for Christmas, we all now have to face it and try our best to keep going through this period in time.

Sorry but you're well wide of the mark. The rules are not scientific but made up by the government allegedly with science advise and secondly the Government seems to move the goal posts on acceptable levels of infections irrespective of the outcomes of this. It's the daft politicians ruining things with their total obsession with this virus not anything else. It's a virus people will get it, it does not respect rules. If you lock every one up it will still get transmitted.

 

[NoMorePacers]

I haven't really commented on COVID on this forum before (not that I remember at least), but I felt like venting my views (and what better way to do it than by text eh ).

Although back in March I was in favour of the lockdown imposed at the time, I've changed my mind in regards to this second lockdown. It's not working. Since the lockdown was brought in, cases have absolutely skyrocketed here to the point where we now have the highest case rates in the country by quite a margin. Of course, not a word has been said by the government about it - not surprising.

The only thing this lockdown achieves in my eyes is further ruining the hospitality sector and smaller local shops.

 

[brad465]

PR disaster?

Rules are rules and for better or for worse people must follow them, because if everyone pulled together and followed social distancing and wore a proper mask as much as possible, we might be in a slightly better position than we are now.

But no, through some selfish fools out there breaking rules, we all lose out on seeing our relatives for Christmas, we all now have to face it and try our best to keep going through this period in time.

If rule breaking is driving the infections here, then this behaviour is happening in many other countries around Europe. The pattern in many countries being so similar shows imposing restrictions has no effect whatsoever and/or there is only so long natural human behaviours can be halted.

 

[Logan Carroll]

Rules are rules and you should just follow them no?

No.

The government must be questioned at every turn and an unjust law is no law at all.

Condescendingly telling people to blindly follow orders and be penned in like cattle is wrong, Virus or not.

 

[Bantamzen]

1 -If rules were followed things would certainly be at least somewhat better, I don't know by how much becuase I'm not a specialist in this area and because many people break the rules we will never know what difference it would make for sure.
2 - I've seen many people out and about blatently breaking rules and it's infruriating because people like that certainly aren't making things better, I'm not saying igonoring rules is entirely why we are back to square one again, but I am saying it certainly hasn't done us any good has it?
3 - I'm not saying the rise in cases has anything to do with the weather.


If there is anyone to blame for rises, it's groups such as the anti-lockdown protests, I've seen them on the news blatantly wear no masks and completely ignoring social distancing. Little do these fools know they are making things worse for themselves and everyone else.

Bunch of fools, can they at least be responsible?

I don't have an issue with anti-lockdown protests, it's the fact that the people on them are really irresponsible

Can you actually substantiate your claim about anti-lockdown protests, or are you just desperately clutching at straws here? I suspect the latter.

Quite honestly I am sick and tired of people blaming all and sundry (except themselves of course) for this. Viruses happen, they have been happening for literally hundreds of millions of years, maybe even billions, and they will be happening right up until the sun goes supernova in a couple of billion years (I'm sure some people will already be lining up people to blame for that). And in that time they have survived extinction events that wiped out all but a few species of life, which makes lockdowns seem all the more ridiculous.

Its time for the adults to re-enter the room here and start handling the pandemic in a calm & pragmatic manner. We are not going to "beat" the virus, we have to find ways to mitigate for it, heling those most at risk whilst not trashing society by pretending that hiding away from it whilst blaming everyone else will somehow make it go away.

 

[Freightmaster]

The only thing this lockdown achieves in my eyes is further ruining the hospitality sector and smaller local shops.

...while forcing thousands of pub goers to drink/socialise in private homes, where social distancing is not monitored/enforced.





MARK

 

[Smidster]

1 -If rules were followed things would certainly be at least somewhat better, I don't know by how much becuase I'm not a specialist in this area and because many people break the rules we will never know what difference it would make for sure.
2 - I've seen many people out and about blatently breaking rules and it's infruriating because people like that certainly aren't making things better, I'm not saying igonoring rules is entirely why we are back to square one again, but I am saying it certainly hasn't done us any good has it?
3 - I'm not saying the rise in cases has anything to do with the weather.


If there is anyone to blame for rises, it's groups such as the anti-lockdown protests, I've seen them on the news blatantly wear no masks and completely ignoring social distancing. Little do these fools know they are making things worse for themselves and everyone else.

Bunch of fools, can they at least be responsible?

I don't have an issue with anti-lockdown protests, it's the fact that the people on them are really irresponsible

Sorry but I can't agree with this.

Ultimately I would say that most people are trying to follow the rules - of course there are exceptions but by and large people are trying there best in a very difficult situation.

I don't support the "anti-lockdown" protests but equally there is no evidence that has any impact - quite simply the number of people involved is too small to make much difference to anything.

The much bigger reason, for me, is simply that viruses spread...it is what they are built to do and when we hit this time of year, and spend more time inside, the task becomes even easier for them. That is why having a moratorium over Christmas is such a bad idea not because of "rule breaking"

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Did they introduce him as a current or former member of SAGE?
He has been quietly sneaked back onto that group, if you look at https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...cientific-advisory-group-for-emergencies-sage

Further to my previous post and having watched the same drivel as you on the news today, I actually find it quite insulting that they think we can be bought off with a couple of days of normality! And, as you say, it will inevitably lead to further restrictions....

New government lockdown policy for Christmas

 

[greyman42]

Maybe they don’t want the PR disaster of Grandma & Grandad being arrested for breaching lockdown rules to see the grandchildren.

That won't be happening. Do you seriously believe that the police are going to be arresting grandparents for visiting relatives?

 

[duncanp]

The statement "A Merry Christmas might mean burying your relatives in January, warn scientists" is pure emotional blackmail and a complete load of codswallop.

Honestly they are sounding more and more like Ebenezer Scrooge every day. Presumably the SAGE scientists believe “every idiot who goes about with ‘Merry Christmas’ on his lips, should be boiled with his own pudding, and buried with a stake of holly through his heart. He should!”

It has also been reported that the assertion that "every day of releasing the restrictions over Christmas will require twofive days of tougher restrictions after Christmas" was not shared with the government before it was made public. This is a blatant attempt to influence government policy rather than provide advice, and is an abuse of their role by Public Health England (who really need to be abolished when this is all over.

How can you decide whether extra restrictions will be needed, and if so exactly what extra restrictions, when the government hasn't yet decided to what extent the restrictions will be released? We also will not be able to tell in advance the extent to which the public will comply with whatever rules are in place over Christmas.

It is high time these scientists were put back in their box, which should then be locked and the key thrown away.

 

[island]

That won't be happening. Do you seriously believe that the police are going to be arresting grandparents for visiting relatives?

They did a week or two ago, didn’t they?

 

[Carlisle]

They did a week or two ago, didn’t they?

At a care home, not a private residence?

 

[Pete_uk]

That won't be happening. Do you seriously believe that the police are going to be arresting grandparents for visiting relatives?

Give some of them a chance...

 

[Bantamzen]

Life after Lockdown v2.0? Meet Austerity v2.0!

Sunak faces backlash over public sector pay freeze

Chancellor Rishi Sunak is trying to bolster public finances after huge spending to fight coronavirus.

www.bbc.co.uk

Millions of public sector workers face a pay freeze in next week's Spending Review, the BBC has learned.
It comes as Chancellor Rishi Sunak makes the case for pay restraint to reflect a fall in private sector earnings this year.
The Treasury is trying to bolster public finances after a huge rise in spending to fight coronavirus.
It declined to comment but pointed to language used by Mr Sunak in a letter about the Spending Review in July.
The letter outlined that in the "interest of fairness we must exercise restraint in future public sector pay awards, ensuring that across this year and the spending review period, public sector pay levels retain parity with the private sector".
The Treasury has also taken interest in a report by the Centre for Policy Studies that suggested a three-year freeze could save £23bn by 2023, or £15bn if NHS workers were exempt.

In September the Office for National Statistics calculated that public sector workers on average earned 7% more than private sector workers last year.
Any gap would have further widened in a year that has seen falls in private earnings during pandemic shutdowns, while public sector wages have been maintained.
The chancellor's wish to maintain "parity" indicates that a freeze or cap on pay levels in the coming years will be justified as a response to the divergence.

The pay of some 5.5 million public sector workers could be affected, with just under half that number having pay deals set by pay review bodies.
It is expected that NHS workers would be exempt from a freeze, to reflect efforts during the pandemic.
But most of those affected include key workers lauded for their service during the pandemic, from the armed forces and police, to teachers and civil servants.

'Cruel Body Blow'

In July, almost 900,000 public sector workers were given an above-inflation pay rise - including doctors and teachers - because of their "vital contribution" during the pandemic.
But there were complaints that many workers missed out, and unions plan to campaign against the new pay freeze.
Unison general secretary Dave Prentis said: "Reports of pay restraint for all but frontline NHS staff would be a cruel body blow to other health, care and public service employees working tirelessly to get us through the pandemic. It would also backfire badly with the public.
"The government must do what's right next week and announce the wage rise all staff have more than earned. Anything less risks destroying morale when the entire country is counting on them."
The savings on pay come as government borrowing stands near a peacetime record and the national debt is worth more than the size of the economy.
UK government borrowing hit £36.1bn in September - £28.4bn more than last year and the third highest in any month since records began in 1993. Meanwhile public debt rose further above the £2tn mark, to £2.06tn.
Fiscal watchdog the Office for Budget Responsibility will also publish its first full assessment since March of the economic and fiscal impact of the pandemic.

 

[duncanp]

Life after Lockdown v2.0? Meet Austerity v2.0!

Sunak faces backlash over public sector pay freeze

Chancellor Rishi Sunak is trying to bolster public finances after huge spending to fight coronavirus.

www.bbc.co.uk

It is inevitable after the lockdowns (who would bet against lockdown v3.0, v4.0) that we will have to start paying for all the epxenditure. This is just the start - you wait until the budget in March next year.

No doubt there will be a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth, and threats of strikes by those affected, but it is high time that the costs of all these lockdowns and restrictions were brought to the attention of the general public.

Once the public is more aware of the costs of COVID-19 restrictions, perhaps they won't be quite so keen on imposing restrictions in the first place.