Lockdown in England from Thursday 5 November until Wednesday 2 December

[Yew]

A stick that has been used very lightly, and with a current lockdown that is far from rigorous. I agree that compliance has fallen, as is hardly surprising when a sprint has become a marathon - but that does not make what is happening now a case of heavy handedness or use of the stick. Oh, and there is a carrot - that the incidence of Covid is low enough that the need for restrictions is removed.

"I'll stop hitting you with the stick if you achieve this thing that may not be within the power of humans to control" - I'd say that is not really a carrot.

 

[telstarbox]

That practice is permitted under the current regulations.

Which is a reasonable compromise - it lets people buy things but avoids mingling / browsing which can involve getting close to others in a confined space.

 

[Richard Scott]

"I'll stop hitting you with the stick if you achieve this thing that may not be within the power of humans to control" - I'd say that is not really a carrot.

Agree, we did as we were told first time around and look where it's got us. A big unrealistic carrot that we can never reach.

 

[Ianno87]

My neighbour went to a shop in the town to buy a couple of model boats as a Christmas gift. The shop was closed, however had moved as much stock as possible to be visible in the windows, and he was able to ring a phone number displayed in the window, and arrange a "kerbside collection", which just happened to be there and then on the shop's doorstep! No idea on the technical legalities of this, but he was most pleased with the arrangement!

It's essentially no different to 'Click and Collect'.

 

[Mojo]

A TV doctor has just been on the news stating that as a vaccine becomes more likely we should have a harder lockdown and more lockdowns, as we would no longer be postponing Covid deaths (as per the current strategy).

 

[Richard Scott]

A TV doctor has just been on the news stating that as a vaccine becomes more likely we should have a harder lockdown and more lockdowns, as we would no longer be postponing Covid deaths (as per the current strategy).

Someone else after their 15 minutes of fame. What a total clown.

 

[DB]

A TV doctor has just been on the news stating that as a vaccine becomes more likely we should have a harder lockdown and more lockdowns, as we would no longer be postponing Covid deaths (as per the current strategy).

Presumbaly he didn't address the other obvious point - that many Covid deaths are people who would normally be expected to die fairly soon anyway due to their age and other health problems?

 

[Mag_seven]

A TV doctor has just been on the news stating that as a vaccine becomes more likely we should have a harder lockdown and more lockdowns, as we would no longer be postponing Covid deaths (as per the current strategy).

What planet do these people live on. Presumably he is a TV doctor because if he cared one jot about deaths from cancer, mental health etc he would actually be out there practising medicine and actually helping people instead of calling for more misery.

 

[Jonny]

A TV doctor has just been on the news stating that as a vaccine becomes more likely we should have a harder lockdown and more lockdowns, as we would no longer be postponing Covid deaths (as per the current strategy).

Presumbaly he didn't address the other obvious point - that many Covid deaths are people who would normally be expected to die fairly soon anyway due to their age and other health problems?

Perhaps he needs to recognise that people have the right to refuse to be vaccinated; the harder and the longer the lockdown means that the more people will likely refuse out of spite, especially when people realise that the existing restriction/mask mandate orders use an enabling act that explicitly prohibits forced or coerced vaccination.

 

[3141]

Perhaps he needs to recognise that people have the right to refuse to be vaccinated; the harder and the longer the lockdown means that the more people will likely refuse out of spite, especially when people realise that the existing restriction/mask mandate orders use an enabling act that explicitly prohibits forced or coerced vaccination.

Are you are seriously suggesting that some people will refuse to be vaccinated
- if lockdowns have been longer or harder - even though a vaccine should help prevent the virus spreading and make further lockdowns much less likely;
- knowing that they themselves and others would be at greater risk of infection as a result of their refusal;
- and would "out of spite" decide to gratify their own personal prejudices at the expense of everybody else, in a situation which threatens the health and social and economic well-being of the whole world?

What sort of numbskull would do that?

 

[Meole]

Are you are seriously suggesting that some people will refuse to be vaccinated
- if lockdowns have been longer or harder - even though a vaccine should help prevent the virus spreading and make further lockdowns much less likely;
- knowing that they themselves and others would be at greater risk of infection as a result of their refusal;
- and would "out of spite" decide to gratify their own personal prejudices at the expense of everybody else, in a situation which threatens the health and social and economic well-being of the whole world?

What sort of numbskull would do that?

Some have religious grounds for objection.

 

[Darandio]

What sort of numbskull would do that?

Are they also numbskulls if they are genuinely worried that this has been rushed and isn't as safe as it's made out to be?

 

[35B]

Are you are seriously suggesting that some people will refuse to be vaccinated
- if lockdowns have been longer or harder - even though a vaccine should help prevent the virus spreading and make further lockdowns much less likely;
- knowing that they themselves and others would be at greater risk of infection as a result of their refusal;
- and would "out of spite" decide to gratify their own personal prejudices at the expense of everybody else, in a situation which threatens the health and social and economic well-being of the whole world?

What sort of numbskull would do that?

The same numbskulls that believed the fraudster Andrew Wakefield on MMR, and propagate assorted myths online about vaccinations now. But more important are those who may have moral objections to vaccination itself, or who may as @Darandio suggests have concerns over the speed at which these vaccines have been produced.

Presumbaly he didn't address the other obvious point - that many Covid deaths are people who would normally be expected to die fairly soon anyway due to their age and other health problems?

I believe that's known in the trade as the Shipman defence. And as the excellent programme on him a few weeks ago showed, even if it's statistically true, it denies the reality of the individuals so carelessly written off.

I can think of two people in their late 80s who fall into that category. Both are aware of their frailty, both conscious that they've far more time behind them than ahead, yet both in their different ways continue to enjoy life, and wish to keep going. Accepting that they may be a low priority for treatment is very different to taking the view that they should be regarded as collateral damage.

 

[Ianno87]

Are they also numbskulls if they are genuinely worried that this has been rushed and isn't as safe as it's made out to be?

I'm happy to trust that there are enough checks and balances involved the approval of a vaccine by various bodies before it is made available for the general public that this won't be a problem.

 

[Darandio]

I'm happy to trust that there are enough checks and balances involved the approval of a vaccine by various bodies before it is made available for the general public that this won't be a problem.

You would hope so.

But even the announcement today which has got many people excited won't be enough for many and rightly so. There is only a small amount of actual data yet they want emergency approval by the end of the month. They don't know if it stops you spreading the virus. Plans are being on the assumption that the elderly at most risk will receive it first, yet they don't even know if it's effective for them. Oh, it's a completely new and experimental approach to vaccine creation as well.

Pretty easy to see why potentially large numbers will be very wary.

 

[Bantamzen]

Are you are seriously suggesting that some people will refuse to be vaccinated
- if lockdowns have been longer or harder - even though a vaccine should help prevent the virus spreading and make further lockdowns much less likely;
- knowing that they themselves and others would be at greater risk of infection as a result of their refusal;
- and would "out of spite" decide to gratify their own personal prejudices at the expense of everybody else, in a situation which threatens the health and social and economic well-being of the whole world?

What sort of numbskull would do that?

Who is going to be refusing a vaccine, it is going to be offered to healthcare staff and those most a need of it. It will take months, maybe even years to produce and distribute enough for the 7 or so billion people on the planet, by which a significant proportion won't need it either because they are not at risk or they have already had the virus.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I'm happy to trust that there are enough checks and balances involved the approval of a vaccine by various bodies before it is made available for the general public that this won't be a problem.

Jonathan Vam Tam really emphasised tonight on Boris news conference that vaccines have to be approved by MHRA (Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency) who are independent body and they won't be rushed. He was fairly cautious about how quick this would become available and says at best it will potentially help avoid future lockdowns.

 

[farleigh]

Are you are seriously suggesting that some people will refuse to be vaccinated
- if lockdowns have been longer or harder - even though a vaccine should help prevent the virus spreading and make further lockdowns much less likely;
- knowing that they themselves and others would be at greater risk of infection as a result of their refusal;
- and would "out of spite" decide to gratify their own personal prejudices at the expense of everybody else, in a situation which threatens the health and social and economic well-being of the whole world?

What sort of numbskull would do that?

Me for one

 

[3141]

I totally understand that some would not want a vaccine on religious grounds, and that others might be concerned about the speed at which it had been developed and approved.

What astonished me was the suggestion in post #1269 that some might refuse it "out of spite".

 

[bengley]

I think it's fairly reasonable to be skeptical about the long term safety of the vaccine given how quickly it's been developed.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Are you are seriously suggesting that some people will refuse to be vaccinated
- if lockdowns have been longer or harder - even though a vaccine should help prevent the virus spreading and make further lockdowns much less likely;
- knowing that they themselves and others would be at greater risk of infection as a result of their refusal;
- and would "out of spite" decide to gratify their own personal prejudices at the expense of everybody else, in a situation which threatens the health and social and economic well-being of the whole world?

What sort of numbskull would do that?

Actually, anyone with half a brain and willing to do a little research would refuse the vaccine if they so wished, through informed choice

Have you ever checked the ingredients that go into vaccines?

Not all vaccines work - take the annual flu vaccine for example

Are you seriously suggesting that people would be lining up to take a vaccine that has been rushed to market?

 

[bramling]

I think it's fairly reasonable to be skeptical about the long term safety of the vaccine given how quickly it's been developed.

I’m certainly not going to be fighting to have it, and in fact won’t be having it until at least a period of time has elapsed. If I was in a riskier group than that might tip the scales the other way.

 

[david1212]

I have not seen anything posted about Remembrance (Sun)day.

It is the first time I have been at home for many years, probably when away at polytechnic. I did watch on TV, normally it is the early evening repeat I see.

Only one neighbour and myself stood out on our driveways. If I'd thought ahead I should have linked an amp & speaker up to the TV for Big Ben and the Last Post or even opened the window & turned the TV right up.

 

[yorkie]

This seems to me like a tortured overinterpretation of guidance and is in no way required by law. The law (SI2020/1200) specifies the types of shops which may open and, other than in-store cafés and restaurants, makes no requirement that parts of the store must close.

This has come to a head in York:

Council 'addressing' lockdown mezzanine matter at Asda store

COUNCIL bosses say they are 'addressing the matter' of a mezzanine floor at a York supermarket which has remained open to shoppers despite selling…

www.yorkpress.co.uk

COUNCIL bosses say they are 'addressing the matter' of a mezzanine floor at a York supermarket which has remained open to shoppers despite selling non-essential items.

The Press revealed earlier this week that the escalator leading up to the mezzanine at Asda's Monks Cross store, where clothing is sold, was still operating despite the lockdown.

This was in contrast to the equivalent escalators at Tesco's Clifton Moor and Askham Bar stores which were barred.

The Cabinet Office said that under Government lockdown rules, ''where a business has sufficiently distinct parts, and one section provides essential retail and one section provides non-essential retail, the non-essential sections should close to limit interactions between customers and the opportunity for the disease to spread.' Asda insisted it was acting within Government guidelines, adding: "As an essential retailer we are not required to cordon off any aisles in England."

Asked if City of York Council was looking into the Asda situation, Matt Boxall, head of public protection, said: “We are addressing this matter according to the regulations."

York Council is often referred to in the comments pages of the above paper as the 'Clowncil' ; I wouldn't take anything Mr Boxall says as gospel.

I'd trust our knowledgeable members of this forum much more than I'd trust pretty much anyone at York Council, or any Cabinet spokesperson (who cannot be trusted to quote the actual law and/or be able to distinguish between 'guidance' and the law).

This lockdown is a paradise for wealthier authoritarian types who wish to restrict what poorer people can and can't do, without any sound medical or scientific reasoning.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

First if a modorator feels this is better in another thread or a new thread please move / create.

This link on Yahoo from Sky lists the places people who tested positive for Covid-19 between 9th and 15th November had been in the days before the test.



The results are not surprising but any analysis of this by SAGE etc to make links between the places visited and the place(s) where most likely to have contracted Covid-19 must consider other factors not least the time spent in close proximity to members of other households.

For supermarkets 2m distancing is supposed to be being maintained and face coverings worn except by those exempt plus the time period when near to the staff and anyone from another household should be brief. The exception to the latter would be if two or more people from different households are behaving as if from the same household to create an opportunity to mix.

For pub / bar, cafe / restaurant and gym the presumption has to be these vists all were before 5th November. I've excluded hospitality as hotels are allowed to be open for guests to stay in specific circumstances.

It means absolutely nothing. I can only assume that it is 'project fear' intended to deter people from visiting the supermarket any more than absolutely necessary - by getting them to jump to incorrect, but convenient for lockdown supporters, conclusions. The report does not suggest that the supermarket is where they caught the virus, merely that they had visited one. So what! Elsewhere, spider-sense research suggests that 100% of those confirmed as having a positive test result had visited the toilet in the 12 hours prior to their test, further 100% had visited a bedroom in the 24 hours prior to their test. Should we stop using the bathroom and going to bed 'because I might catch it there'?

I would have expected more than 18% to have visited the supermarket in the week prior, given that most other activities are closed by government diktat.

 

[bramling]

It means absolutely nothing. I can only assume that it is 'project fear' intended to deter people from visiting the supermarket any more than absolutely necessary - by getting them to jump to incorrect, but convenient for lockdown supporters, conclusions. The report does not suggest that the supermarket is where they caught the virus, merely that they had visited one. So what! Elsewhere, spider-sense research suggests that 100% of those confirmed as having a positive test result had visited the toilet in the 12 hours prior to their test, further 100% had visited a bedroom in the 24 hours prior to their test. Should we stop using the bathroom and going to bed 'because I might catch it there'?

I would have expected more than 18% to have visited the supermarket in the week prior, given that most other activities are closed by government diktat.

There was exactly the same in my local paper a couple of weeks back - a story where the headline said shops were the second biggest spreader after schools. When one actually read the article, all it said was that a high proportion of people who tested positive had been in a shop at some point. Which is not exactly a revelation, as most people tend to visit shops.

 

[3141]

It means absolutely nothing. I can only assume that it is 'project fear' intended to deter people from visiting the supermarket any more than absolutely necessary - by getting them to jump to incorrect, but convenient for lockdown supporters, conclusions. The report does not suggest that the supermarket is where they caught the virus, merely that they had visited one. So what! Elsewhere, spider-sense research suggests that 100% of those confirmed as having a positive test result had visited the toilet in the 12 hours prior to their test, further 100% had visited a bedroom in the 24 hours prior to their test. Should we stop using the bathroom and going to bed 'because I might catch it there'?

I would have expected more than 18% to have visited the supermarket in the week prior, given that most other activities are closed by government diktat.

"Project fear"??? I think you're leaving reality behind. If that was true, the figures would also be likely to discourage people from sending their children to school, which is not what the government wants - or do you have another weird theory about that?

There are some people here whose ideas about what they imagine lockdown supporters are thinking are pretty far out.

 

[Freightmaster]

It means absolutely nothing. I can only assume that it is 'project fear' intended to deter people from visiting the supermarket any more than absolutely necessary - by getting them to jump to incorrect, but convenient for lockdown supporters, conclusions. The report does not suggest that the supermarket is where they caught the virus, merely that they had visited one. So what?!

Exactly. We are supposed to be "following the science" with all this, but one of the most important rules
that scientists have to constantly bear in mind is 'correlation does not imply causation'

Why correlation does not imply causation?

Correlation and causation are terms which are mostly misunderstood and often used interchangeably. Understanding both the statistical terms…

towardsdatascience.com

MARK

 

[Peter Sarf]

It means absolutely nothing. I can only assume that it is 'project fear' intended to deter people from visiting the supermarket any more than absolutely necessary - by getting them to jump to incorrect, but convenient for lockdown supporters, conclusions. The report does not suggest that the supermarket is where they caught the virus, merely that they had visited one. So what! Elsewhere, spider-sense research suggests that 100% of those confirmed as having a positive test result had visited the toilet in the 12 hours prior to their test, further 100% had visited a bedroom in the 24 hours prior to their test. Should we stop using the bathroom and going to bed 'because I might catch it there'?

I would have expected more than 18% to have visited the supermarket in the week prior, given that most other activities are closed by government diktat.

Overall it is never going to be straight forward but you can probably ignore the risks associated with toilets and bedrooms. Most people are certainly not going to encounter people from outside their own household in their bedroom. For toilets at home there is a good chance that there will not even be anyone else in the same room, but if there is then it will be another person from the same household.

The risk would increase for toilets that are public. But a visitor is unlikely to be in very close contact with someone else there. Certainly not large numbers of people like you would encounter in a supermarket. I tend to aim for visits to my local Morrisons at times when they are less busy btw (might be harder as Christmas approaches).

 

[island]

I am hearing Boris will address the nation on Monday with details of the new restrictions coming on from 03•DMR•20.