Local lockdown - Liverpool region

[Camden]

All 6 Liverpool boroughs plus West Lancashire and Warrington are under local restrictions from Tuesday.

The full list of measures and advice is:

• Only to use public transport for essential purposes, such as travelling to school or work

• Residents must not socialise with other people outside of their own households or support bubble in private homes and gardens

• Hospitality for food and drink will be restricted to table service only

• Late night restriction of operating hours will be introduced, with leisure and entertainment venues required to close between 10pm to 5am

Residents are also advised to adhere to the following guidance to further reduce rates of infection:

• Not to socialise with other people outside of their own households in all public venues

• Take holidays only within your own household or support bubble

• Avoid attending amateur and semi-professional sporting events as spectators

These changes are in addition to the nationwide 6-person limit on social gatherings that came into force last Monday.

People are being asked to start following the new measures immediately and have a safe and careful weekend.

Source https://theguideliverpool.com/full-...he-latest-advice-from-liverpool-city-council/

Along with the 40 million odd journeys on the Wirral and Northern lines of Merseyrail, the city also supplies at least 50 million local journeys across the City lines operated by Northern. Reversing any recent gains in return to the railways here will have a big impact on finances.

 

[NorthOxonian]

All 6 Liverpool boroughs plus West Lancashire and Warrington are under local restrictions from Tuesday.



Source https://theguideliverpool.com/full-...he-latest-advice-from-liverpool-city-council/

Along with the 40 million odd journeys on the Wirral and Northern lines of Merseyrail, the city also supplies at least 50 million local journeys across the City lines operated by Northern. Reversing any recent gains in return to the railways here will have a big impact on finances.

Interesting that public transport restrictions are guidance in the North East, but an actual measure/restriction here. I wonder why there's a difference?

 

[big_rig]

The Liverpool City Council website has it a bit differently - they state that residents are 'advised' to adhere to 'guidance' to only use public transport for essential purposes, such as travelling to work or school. I genuinely don't know what that means though and it sounds like 'no thanks' is an acceptable response. I wonder how this would square with any potential need to seek funding from DfT to shore up lost transport fares as a result?

New restrictions to tackle COVID-19 - Liverpool Express

New restrictions are being introduced in Liverpool and other areas to control the spread of COVID-19. The measures, for Liverpool, Sefton, Knowsley,

liverpoolexpress.co.uk

 

[Camden]

Interesting that public transport restrictions are guidance in the North East, but an actual measure/restriction here. I wonder why there's a difference?

See what the government own page says when it's published. I don't believe it was an actual national restriction even in the height of things, just a plead. I expect it will be the same here, even though the effect will still be just as chilling.

The Liverpool City Council website has it a bit differently - they state that residents are 'advised' to adhere to 'guidance' to only use public transport for essential purposes, such as travelling to work or school.

That sounds more like it. Re funding, these are national government edicts, so I'd hope the DfT is on the same page! Having said that, my understanding is that there has been no local rail settlement as yet.

 

[nedchester]

See what the government own page says when it's published. I don't believe it was an actual national restriction even in the height of things, just a plead. I expect it will be the same here, even though the effect will still be just as chilling.


That sounds more like it. Re funding, these are national government edicts, so I'd hope the DfT is on the same page! Having said that, my understanding is that there has been no local rail settlement as yet.

Public transport for essential travel is 'advice' not law. However, I can see some over zealous security thug (Merseyrail) asking people the purpose of their journey.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Interesting that public transport restrictions are guidance in the North East, but an actual measure/restriction here. I wonder why there's a difference?

There isn't. It's word for word exactly the same as Newcastle if you look on gov.uk (everyone else seems to be transcribing it a bit differently rather than copying it word for word, and this is I understand causing PHE some consternation).

 

[birchesgreen]

Lucky i decided to do my 507/8 final thrash tomorrow and not next week then

 

[nedchester]

Lucky i decided to do my 507/8 final thrash tomorrow and not next week then

You can do it next week if you want.

 

[birchesgreen]

You can do it next week if you want.

I dunno, rate we're going probably be marshal law by next week

 

[nedchester]

I dunno, rate we're going probably be marshal law by next week

 

[yorkie]

Public transport for essential travel is 'advice' not law. However, I can see some over zealous security thug (Merseyrail) asking people the purpose of their journey.

It would be unlawful for any restriction to apply to public transport specifically.

If they are asking people to make only "essential" journeys by any mode then fair enough (notwithstanding any such arguments over whether such measures are proportionate; that's a whole new topic) but the idea that non-car owners can be subject to additional restrictions compared to car owners is absurd and the fact that anyone is trying to suggest this is absolutely abhorrent.

Anyone who is responsible for this disparity has extremely questionable morals; I'd like to have an argument with them (and it would bes the full argument, not the 5 minute argument ).

Even the disgrace that is Transport for Wales were not actually restricting people at any point, as they divulged in a response to an FOI request. It's just weasel words that some people/organisations of dubious character say to deter people from travelling. While it is disgraceful that these views are expressed as official 'guidance', people have the right to ignore any advice that appears to be imposing unlawful disparities in freedoms between those who rely on public transport and those that don't.

Any attempt to impose unlawful restrictions by authoritarian regimes that promote the interests of wealthier individuals, at the expense of those who use public transport, must be bitterly and robustly opposed.

 

[Yew]

I dunno, rate we're going probably be marshal law by next week

I hear that Ocotober has been popular for revolutions in the past

 

[Camden]

The government page is now up:

regulations will enforce the following restrictions from Tuesday 22 September:

• residents must not socialise with other people outside of their own households or support bubble in private homes and gardens
• hospitality for food and drink will be restricted to table service only
• late night operating hours will be restricted, with leisure and entertainment venues including restaurants, pubs, and cinemas, required to close between 10pm to 5am

Residents are also advised to adhere to the following guidance to further reduce rates of infection:

• only to use public transport for essential purposes, such as travelling to school or work
• avoid attending amateur and semi-professional sporting events as spectators

source: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...and-midlands-to-tackle-rising-infection-rates

As someone suggested earlier, confirmed that essential purposes only public transport travel is "advised" rather than mandated.

It will obviously still have a chilling effect on usage recovery, but I cannot imagine for one moment that security will be questioning people just going about their business.

 

[Vespa]

Most of measures are advisory, mask, distancing, bubble, 6 max, essential travel, pub and entertainment setting will be on restricted hours, other than that We will not be going back to total lockdown.

The aim is to reduce the curve and pressure on the NHS, enforcing it will be like herding cats tho.

 

[Camden]

mask, distancing, bubble, 6 max, pub and entertainment setting will be on restricted hours

Those are mandatory, legally enforceable now.

Agree about the prospect of enforcement though. Perhaps with the exception that cats can at least be tempted to cooperate!

 

[Bikeman78]

Lucky i decided to do my 507/8 final thrash tomorrow and not next week then

I'm heading north at the weekend and then spending a night in Liverpool on the way back next week to cover Merseyrail. I have no intention of changing my plans at the moment.

 

[Vespa]

I'm heading north at the weekend and then spending a night in Liverpool on the way back next week to cover Merseyrail. I have no intention of changing my plans at the moment.

Wear a mask and keep your distance you should be fine, it's Muppets not wearing masks, standing close to each other, touchy feely is the problem.

 

[Bantamzen]

Most of measures are advisory, mask, distancing, bubble, 6 max, essential travel, pub and entertainment setting will be on restricted hours, other than that We will not be going back to total lockdown.

The aim is to reduce the curve and pressure on the NHS, enforcing it will be like herding cats tho.

So kind of flattening the curve? As back in March when the national lockdown was announced? Remind me, how did that work out?

 

[Vespa]

So kind of flattening the curve? As back in March when the national lockdown was announced? Remind me, how did that work out?

A lot better than if you had no lockdown, if you have mass surge, very quickly the NHS will collapse ! It will NOT cope with the numbers as you no doubt know we had 41,000 deaths, of there was NO lockdown, you would be looking at 250,000 death plus other serious cases hospitalised ! Taking up resources, we barely had enough oxygen tanks during the last lockdown.

Do you have a better idea of flattening the curve ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm heading north at the weekend and then spending a night in Liverpool on the way back next week to cover Merseyrail. I have no intention of changing my plans at the moment.

Let us know if the thugs start accosting people for reasons for travel. (Goodness knows why they had to dress them like thugs; I reckon people would respond to them better if they were dressed in suit and tie the same as the guards).

 

[Yew]

A lot better than if you had no lockdown, if you have mass surge, very quickly the NHS will collapse ! It will NOT cope with the numbers as you no doubt know we had 41,000 deaths, of there was NO lockdown, you would be looking at 250,000 death plus other serious cases hospitalised ! Taking up resources, we barely had enough oxygen tanks during the last lockdown.

I don't think that is a statement of which we can be certain. I'd give this half a chance of running out of steam before we get close to that, hopefully we can get t-cell testing online to prove it one way or another.

 

[Bantamzen]

A lot better than if you had no lockdown, if you have mass surge, very quickly the NHS will collapse ! It will NOT cope with the numbers as you no doubt know we had 41,000 deaths, of there was NO lockdown, you would be looking at 250,000 death plus other serious cases hospitalised ! Taking up resources, we barely had enough oxygen tanks during the last lockdown.

Do you have evidence that there will be a mass surge resulting in the collapse of the NHS? If so it would be helpful to share it, because there is a serious flaw, well two actually with your post. Firstly case do not necessarily mean hospitalisation, or in some case any symptoms at all. Secondly a lot of patients do not end up on ventilators because of newer treatments & the discovery that in many cases ventilators can actually cause more problems.

 

[Vespa]

Do you have evidence that there will be a mass surge resulting in the collapse of the NHS? If so it would be helpful to share it, because there is a serious flaw, well two actually with your post. Firstly case do not necessarily mean hospitalisation, or in some case any symptoms at all. Secondly a lot of patients do not end up on ventilators because of newer treatments & the discovery that in many cases ventilators can actually cause more problems.

I'm guessing you're one of those that denies the existence of the virus.

Do YOU have ANY evidence there won't be a mass surge if we didnt have a lockdown ?
If so do tell us.

 

[Bantamzen]

I'm guessing you're one of those that denies the existence of the virus.

Then you would be guessing wrong. Sadly this situation is not binary, there are not just two sides to the argument. You'd do well to realise that before coming to silly conclusions like that.

Do YOU have ANY evidence there won't be a mass surge if we didnt have a lockdown ?
If so do tell us.

No I don't. We can however look at other countries that have not used lockdowns as blunt weapons, and draw some conclusions from them. Sweden for example has had much lighter restrictions, yet has not fared much worse than countries that have had harsher ones. It could just be that lockdowns serve only to delay, not to suppress.

 

[Yew]

I'm guessing you're one of those that denies the existence of the virus.

Do YOU have ANY evidence there won't be a mass surge if we didnt have a lockdown ?
If so do tell us.

That's a strawman argument.

I'm afraid you don't know how the null hypothesis works, it's impossible to prove a negative, hence why the onus is on you to provide evidence of your assertion that hundreds of thousands will die.

 

[yorkie]

of there was NO lockdown, you would be looking at 250,000 death plus other serious cases hospitalised !

Source please? Can you add a link and quote the text.

If your source is Ferguson, see this: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...own-at-this-point.209250/page-10#post-4778867

 

[Vespa]

Then you would be guessing wrong. Sadly this situation is not binary, there are not just two sides to the argument. You'd do well to realise that before coming to silly conclusions like that.



No I don't. We can however look at other countries that have not used lockdowns as blunt weapons, and draw some conclusions from them. Sweden for example has had much lighter restrictions, yet has not fared much worse than countries that have had harsher ones. It could just be that lockdowns serve only to delay, not to suppress.

You started it by claiming

So kind of flattening the curve? As back in March when the national lockdown was announced? Remind me, how did that work out?

in a confrontational manner as if I'm responsible for policy.


Sweden is a completely different country, what worked in Sweden wouldnt necessarily work here, you're hypothesising that it would work here. What other country you claimed has not used lockdown and is successful ?

 

[Bantamzen]

You started it by claiming

in a confrontational manner as if I'm responsible for policy.


Sweden is a completely different country, what worked in Sweden wouldnt necessarily work here, you're hypothesising that it would work here. What other country you claimed has not used lockdown and is successful ?

Would you like to expand on why Sweden is so different?

 

[nedchester]

Let us know if the thugs start accosting people for reasons for travel. (Goodness knows why they had to dress them like thugs; I reckon people would respond to them better if they were dressed in suit and tie the same as the guards).

Merseyrail Security thugs were asking people for the reason for travelling during the first lockdown and I suspect they will try that again in their usual intimidating manner.

As someone who is just outside the new lockdown area on Merseyside and uses Merseyrail regularly I will continue to use their services for leisure purposes and if asked the purpose of my travel will get a polite "none of your business". When a population has to account for their legal movements to another party (whether it be security or the police) then we are heading down a very rocky road.

 

[Freightmaster]

If there was NO lockdown, you would be looking at 250,000 death plus other serious cases hospitalised !

Wow. I think I am starting to understand why so many of the 'general public' are still clamouring
for an never ending, hard lockdown if they genuinely believe that 250,000 would die from the virus
without one!

Do you have a better idea of flattening the curve ?

This has been discussed/addressed countless times by many posters on numerous threads
in this forum section, but as a reminder they include, but are not limited to:

- encourage (but not compel) the 'vulnerable' to shield themselves by providing
them with meaningful financial and logistical support.

- ensure that care homes have sufficient PPE

- encourage fastidious personal hygiene standards

- identify and restrict 'super spreading' events

- introduce/improve testing and quarantine facilities at airports, ferry terminals, etc.

- make sure that our "world beating" track and trace lives up to its name!

- ensure that anyone self isolating due a positive test/track and trace request
is not penalised financially by their employer


...and probably a few others that I can't recall, but the point is that a lockdown is not
needed as it can only temporarily delay the spread of the virus - it cannot control it in
the long term; and some experts even think that artificially suppressing it could actually
make things worse in the long term...






MARK