Local lockdown in Greater Manchester, East Lancashire and parts of West Yorkshire - Discussion

[Bletchleyite]

Yeah - sorry I was not clear there! I was wondering what you based the bit about people would probably agree to have a Christmas gathering at Easter. My instinct is the opposite and that it would never happen.

Just based on gut feel to be honest.

 

[farleigh]

Just based on gut feel to be honest.

OK - fair enough. I completely disagree but that is just my gut feeling. Doubt it will come to that anyway

 

[Bletchleyite]

OK - fair enough. I completely disagree but that is just my gut feeling. Doubt it will come to that anyway

I think we probably both agree in hoping not!

 

[Crossover]

I feel very sorry for the Muslims in the lockdown areas for whom Eid al Adha has now effectively been cancelled. I wouldn't be surprised if there was mass civil unrest

But people can still go to their local pub!?

Purely anecdotal, but I don’t think much got cancelled to be honest

There was no civil unrest when Easter was cancelled during lockdown.

As I recall, Easter wasn’t curtailed with a couple of hours notice, was somewhat more foreseen and didn’t target particular areas (by extension, ones where in some cases the positive results were falling quite a lot in the prior week). I don’t think the two are particularly comparable!

 

[DB]

To most people Easter is nothing more than a long bank holiday weekend. The appropriate comparison is with Christmas.

 

[greyman42]

You wouldn't say that about Eid, would you?

Yes, i would.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

We were in maximum lockdown at Easter anyway, so pretty much irrelevant when the event itself arrived. Preparations had undoubtedly been made, such as Easter Egg hunts, and some may have been holding out against cancelling in the thought that lockdown really was only going to last three weeks. The level of disease around Easter was somewhat higher than it was around Eid, even in the areas of 'growth'.

I suggest that people already in lockdown mode can carry on doing so, for just a little bit longer, without much trouble. Those who have been substantially released from lockdown may find a sudden reversal rather more difficult.

I do hope that, when people realise they have been duped, as their celebrations were not legally curtailed, that any ill feeling is directed at those who seek to deliberately divide society rather than those who are simply caught up in the situation.

UPDATE
Legislation now published. Made at 0900, laid before parliament at 1230, comes into effect 5 August. Party until midnight then. SI 2020 828.

Sorry residents of East Lancashire, Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire lying within 'the protected area'. You've been tangoed.

 

[geoffk]

Last week’s guidance said households should not now mix inside private homes and gardens, pubs or restaurants in Greater Manchester, Calderdale, Bradford, Kirklees or five districts of East Lancashire. On Friday afternoon it was then reported that we can mix outside a pub or restaurant (so in a beer garden or at an outside table), in groups of no more than six, unless the group is made up of no more than two households.

However no additional restrictions on meeting in a pub or restaurant appear in the regulations (SI 828). While we are still advised not to meet friends in the local, it isn't actually illegal. So three members of an orchestra didn't break the law after all last night by meeting at a pub in Todmorden! Phew. And my trains were on time.

The legislation says this will be reviewed at least every fortnight, which means by August 19. However the Govt. is reviewing the local infection rates on at least a weekly basis, with further updates usually due on a Thursday. Also the health secretary can issue a direction removing any local authority from the current restrictions.

So it's all right to meet friends in a pub or restaurant but sitting in their garden is illegal! And you can't have sex with someone you don't live with in his/her house but a hotel romp is OK.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So it's all right to meet friends in a pub or restaurant but sitting in their garden is illegal! And you can't have sex with someone you don't live with in his/her house but a hotel romp is OK.

There's clearly a lot of inconsistency here, but if you look at what the ethos is - to reduce people meeting up without causing more businesses to collapse, and to keep people meeting up "in view" so they can be instructed to distance if they fail to do so - then it's quite easy to follow that.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Which one of the muppets in government make up these illogical "rules"?

 

[Trackman]

Infection rates in most areas of Greater Manchester were up yesterday. There is going be an update from the government today.
There are 3 areas which are in the ‘green zone’ Bury, Bolton and Wigan.
They reckon Preston is the next to face lockdown.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Infection rates in most areas of Greater Manchester were up yesterday. There is going be an update from the government today.
There are 3 areas which are in the ‘green zone’ Bury, Bolton and Wigan.
They reckon Preston is the next to face lockdown.

Are people still disregarding it and meeting up anyway? As otherwise I'm flummoxed how this could be happening, unless these are cases reported yesterday but the actual tests were days ago.

 

[adc82140]

Or alternatively they are blitzing the testing there. The more you test, the more you find.

 

[geoffk]

Infection rates in most areas of Greater Manchester were up yesterday. There is going be an update from the government today.
There are 3 areas which are in the ‘green zone’ Bury, Bolton and Wigan.
They reckon Preston is the next to face lockdown.

Green zone meaning presumably infection rates going down.

 

[Trackman]

Are people still disregarding it and meeting up anyway? As otherwise I'm flummoxed how this could be happening, unless these are cases reported yesterday but the actual tests were days ago.

I’ve just checked - Yes there were (Monday) but figures only released yesterday, so hopefully next week will be better.

Green zone meaning presumably infection rates going down.

No, they have gone up in those areas.

I‘ll try and post a link when I’m on my PC, bit of a faff on this thing.

 

[geoffk]

I’ve just checked - Yes there were (Monday) but figures only released yesterday, so hopefully next week will be better.


No, they have gone up in those areas.

I‘ll try and post a link when I’m on my PC, bit of a faff on this thing.

OK sorry. I would have thought green = good/go, red = bad/stop!

 

[Greybeard33]

Are people still disregarding it and meeting up anyway? As otherwise I'm flummoxed how this could be happening, unless these are cases reported yesterday but the actual tests were days ago.

The figures are for the week ending Monday 03 August. The North of England lockdown guidance was effective from Friday 31 July and the regulations did not come into force until Wednesday 05 August. The incubation period, before symptoms appear, is up to 10 days, so it is not surprising that cases continued to rise in that week. There is no mass testing of asymptomatic people and the national test and trace system is only managing to contact 53% of cases across Greater Manchester. Some of those who are contacted are reluctant to name their contacts because they do not want friends and family to be told to self-isolate. Also Mayor Andy Burnham has said:

If we don’t also help people follow the advice of the test and trace system, we’re still going to have problems, because this is the information that’s fed back to us all of the time.

There are some people in certain workplaces that are finding it very, very hard to follow the requests from the test and trace system. Either they may fear not being paid for the time they self isolate - they may fear losing their job altogether - or even if they have access to statutory sick pay, they feel that won’t be enough to live on.

So we believe this is a crucial issue that must be resolved and actually must be resolved before we get close to the schools coming back.

Prime Minister warned to fix test and trace 'in weeks' - as service fails to reach most cases in Oldham and Rochdale

Leaders want cases urgently handed over by the national system after it emerged only 53pc of them are being reached across the region. "August is the month to fix this," said the mayor

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is no mass testing of asymptomatic people and the national test and trace system is only managing to contact 53% of cases across Greater Manchester. Some of those who are contacted are reluctant to name their contacts because they do not want friends and family to be told to self-isolate.

I think this needs fixing a different way, to be honest. 14 day isolation may be the ideal, but compliance is poor because it's quite a long time, particularly if it affects your earnings. So would the overall effect be better if it was, say, an immediate test, then 5 days isolation, then another test?

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I think this needs fixing a different way, to be honest. 14 day isolation may be the ideal, but compliance is poor because it's quite a long time, particularly if it affects your earnings. So would the overall effect be better if it was, say, an immediate test, then 5 days isolation, then another test?

Expecting large numbers of people to self-isolate for fourteen days, without financial or other support, is a big ask. Not everybody has the wealth of the Prime Minister, nor the salary of Government Ministers (or their SPADS, or the chief health chappie). If you are on minimum wage, zero hours, it simply isn't going to happen. The same applies with people returning from abroad from their holidays.

I'm sure (most) people would be willing to comply but it simply isn't a practical option. Not everyone can afford to buy and then maintain a two/three week stockpile of everything, just in case. Nor does everone have access to a friends and family network to 'shop and doorstep drop' as an alternative.

A soon as someone is asked - or indeed instructed, to isolate (or quarantine or whatever) there should be immediate financial and physical support provided ie immediate access to food and essential supplies. That support must be of a high quality ie not the basic boxes offered to the 'shielded' for 19 weeks, which by all accounts were of variable content and quality. However, as we have a firmly non-interventionist government, wedded to their ideological approach to everything, then the 'isolaters' are left to fend for themselves.

 

[AdamWW]

I think this needs fixing a different way, to be honest. 14 day isolation may be the ideal, but compliance is poor because it's quite a long time, particularly if it affects your earnings. So would the overall effect be better if it was, say, an immediate test, then 5 days isolation, then another test?

Interesting question. Could work out better overall...but a bit hard to know.

 

[geoffk]

Preston to be added to the list of local authorities in NW, from midnight, but all other areas remain on the "restricted" list.

 

[bramling]

Expecting large numbers of people to self-isolate for fourteen days, without financial or other support, is a big ask. Not everybody has the wealth of the Prime Minister, nor the salary of Government Ministers (or their SPADS, or the chief health chappie). If you are on minimum wage, zero hours, it simply isn't going to happen. The same applies with people returning from abroad from their holidays.

I'm sure (most) people would be willing to comply but it simply isn't a practical option. Not everyone can afford to buy and then maintain a two/three week stockpile of everything, just in case. Nor does everone have access to a friends and family network to 'shop and doorstep drop' as an alternative.

A soon as someone is asked - or indeed instructed, to isolate (or quarantine or whatever) there should be immediate financial and physical support provided ie immediate access to food and essential supplies. That support must be of a high quality ie not the basic boxes offered to the 'shielded' for 19 weeks, which by all accounts were of variable content and quality. However, as we have a firmly non-interventionist government, wedded to their ideological approach to everything, then the 'isolaters' are left to fend for themselves.

I don’t think the last bit is due to ideology, on the contrary they’ve shown themselves to be more than willing to be interventionalist to the extent that the whole of society and daily life has been turned upside down. I’d say it’s more down to a complete lack of ability to anticipate issues and work through points of detail. Let’s face it the only one who seems to have any clout at all is Rishi Sunak, the jury being well and truly out on some of his interventions, however the rest of them are about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Preston to be added to the list of local authorities in NW, from midnight, but all other areas remain on the "restricted" list.

A curious thing I've noticed from looking at a map is that this actually only takes in about 2/3 of what you might consider Preston, as well as a load of rural land and, yes, really, half of Longridge (the boundary is right down the middle!).

Most of Preston south of the river is South Ribble and so isn't included.

 

[Scrotnig]

The localised retrictions have been extended for a further two weeks.

They are starting to look indefinite now. Given that further easings elsewhere have been announced, we now have a two-tier society - those whose businesses are allowed to trade, and those were many are not.
Also those who can see their friends and family, and those who are not allowed to. Also those who are allowed to get married and, those who are not allowed to.

No extra assistance is available for businesses in these areas, and the furlough scheme is winding down meaning many businesses are now expected to pay staff yet are not allowed to trade. Obviously these are already closing down and sacking people at great speed.

 

[Yew]

The localised retrictions have been extended for a further two weeks.

They are starting to look indefinite now. Given that further easings elsewhere have been announced, we now have a two-tier society - those whose businesses are allowed to trade, and those were many are not.
Also those who can see their friends and family, and those who are not allowed to. Also those who are allowed to get married and, those who are not allowed to.

No extra assistance is available for businesses in these areas, and the furlough scheme is winding down meaning many businesses are now expected to pay staff yet are not allowed to trade. Obviously these are already closing down and sacking people at great speed.

Given that the Govt have admitted that:

when morbidity is taken into account, the estimates for the health impacts from a lockdown and lockdown induced recession are greater in terms of QALYs than the direct COVID-19 deaths.

Surely it's time to start ending this insane policy..

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/907616/s0650-direct-indirect-impacts-covid-19-excess-deaths-morbidity-sage-48.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0TbLCsYD2CA-lI2XZhqyELllrxcXVVf5f9W7fPqjC1lburHtw3H2KYNH0

 

[AdamWW]

Given that the Govt have admitted that:


Surely it's time to start ending this insane policy..

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/907616/s0650-direct-indirect-impacts-covid-19-excess-deaths-morbidity-sage-48.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0TbLCsYD2CA-lI2XZhqyELllrxcXVVf5f9W7fPqjC1lburHtw3H2KYNH0

I wonder why you would omit this bit?

It should be noted that the health impacts modelled here represent a scenario with mitigations in place. Without mitigations, a far larger number of people would have died from COVID-19 such that the QALY impact from COVID-19 deaths would be more than three times the total QALY impact of all the categories (mortality and morbidity impacts) for the CSS mitigated scenario presented here. A comparison with an unmitigated scenario3 is provided in Annex G and shows that mitigation have prevented up to 1.5m direct COVID-19 deaths

 

[DB]

I wonder why you would omit this bit?

But is it true? The evidence of Sweden certainly casts doubt on that claim.

 

[Yew]

I wonder why you would omit this bit?

Because the 1.5 Million direct COVID deaths is so far removed from anything we've seen in reality, that it's obviously wrong. Not even Fergurson was suggesting numbers that high, and he generally over-predicts by an order of magnitude or two.

 

[AdamWW]

But is it true? The evidence of Sweden certainly casts doubt on that claim.

If one part of the report is wrong, that doesn't exactly justify selectively quoting another part of it to give a misleading impression.

By the way - I'm suspect the authors of the report are aware of Sweden - and that like the UK they also applied mitigations and continue to do so, albeit not the ones here.

 

[DB]

If one part of the report is wrong, that doesn't exactly justify selectively quoting another part of it to give a misleading impression.

By the way - I'm suspect the authors of the report are aware of Sweden - and that like the UK they also applied mitigations and continue to do so, albeit not the ones here.

Sweden's mitigations were and are far more light-touch than ours - although they did make the same mistake as the UK in letting it run through nursing homes.