• Dear Guest, and welcome to RailUK Forums. Our non-railway discussion forums are currently restricted until members have five or more posts, and you will not be able to make a new thread or reply to an existing one in this section until you have made five or more posts elsewhere on the forum.

Lockdown muddle up

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tin Rocket

Member
Joined
24 Nov 2008
Messages
248
Location
midlands
Hindsight is a wonderful thing,looking back now should we have started this charade with Lockdown version 2,then 3,and should we be in the strict Lockdown version 1 now??
Seems like sage and the government got the lockdowns muddled up.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Mojo

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
7 Aug 2005
Messages
18,662
Location
0035
In many regards the present restrictions are stricter than those that applied in Spring 2020.

For the rules that applied back then, travelling for exercise was permitted in accordance with police guidance this was considered “reasonable” provided the time spent travelling was less than the time spent exercising. We have seen this year, that the police no longer consider this “reasonable.”

Similarly, Face coverings were also advised against back then, whereas now they are mandatory by law in most indoor public spaces, with limited exemptions.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
7,529
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Hindsight is a wonderful thing,looking back now should we have started this charade with Lockdown version 2,then 3,and should we be in the strict Lockdown version 1 now??
Seems like sage and the government got the lockdowns muddled up.
I'm no fan of the government, but I fail to see how they would have know which order to put lockdowns in when they didn't know know many there would be? That said looking around the world it is clear that nobody sent the lockdown memos so its a moot point really.
 

jtuk

Member
Joined
4 Jun 2018
Messages
423
Hindsight is a wonderful thing,looking back now should we have started this charade with Lockdown version 2,then 3,and should we be in the strict Lockdown version 1 now??
Seems like sage and the government got the lockdowns muddled up.

Looking back now we should have done absolutely nothing
 

EssexGonzo

Member
Joined
9 May 2012
Messages
620
I'm no fan of the government, but I fail to see how they would have know which order to put lockdowns in when they didn't know know many there would be? That said looking around the world it is clear that nobody sent the lockdown memos so its a moot point really.

For me, it’s not about the order of lockdowns. It’s about the fact that we’re late with everything required due to the PM’s pathalogoical fear of unpopularity and his desire to keep everyone happy. E.g. still dithering about incoming border quarantine many months after other countries have implemented it.

Severe lockdown rules applied early, before things are bad, is hard to justify and would have involved some courage and decisiveness. But it would have been an easier target for the naysayers.

Severe lockdown rules applied when - arguably - it’s too late can be justified by the devastating impact of the virus and the new strain. But cannot be argued with because, well - look at the hospitals, they’re already full. Obviously all caused by not doing it sooner.

Timing is exactly and lack of decisiveness is why we’re the worst performing country by most Covid-handling measures.
 

Mcr Warrior

Established Member
Joined
8 Jan 2009
Messages
4,291
Seems entirely sensible to me that 'Lockdown One' should have come first, followed by 'Lockdown Two' and then 'Lockdown Three'.

And in that order.

Having 'Lockdown Three' first, without any 'Lockdown One' or 'Lockdown Two' beforehand, now that would have been a bit of a muddle! :rolleyes:
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
7,529
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
For me, it’s not about the order of lockdowns. It’s about the fact that we’re late with everything required due to the PM’s pathalogoical fear of unpopularity and his desire to keep everyone happy. E.g. still dithering about incoming border quarantine many months after other countries have implemented it.

Severe lockdown rules applied early, before things are bad, is hard to justify and would have involved some courage and decisiveness. But it would have been an easier target for the naysayers.

Severe lockdown rules applied when - arguably - it’s too late can be justified by the devastating impact of the virus and the new strain. But cannot be argued with because, well - look at the hospitals, they’re already full. Obviously all caused by not doing it sooner.

Timing is exactly and lack of decisiveness is why we’re the worst performing country by most Covid-handling measures.
Does the virus know about this? Because you do understand that viruses are blissfully unaware of restrictions, lockdowns, masks, one way systems...

Seriously though, is it just possible that for most countries lockdowns just don't work, regardless of when they are introduced? For example where I live in Baildon just north of Bradford it is widely believed that the virus was here in mid December, 3 months before we locked down, and 2 weeks before we even knew it was an issue. If this was the case then even slamming the doors shut on New Year's Day would have been too late. And given that the "Kent variant" was discovered in September, it is entirely possible that the first lockdown actually helped it by supressing the previously dominant strain. This happens quite a lot in nature, one dominant strain gets suppressed & another one takes advantage.

The real pathological fear is the fear generated by governments around the world of the virus. We know the global IFR is somewhere in the region of 0.2-0.3%, serious enough to be an issue for governments to take a critical look at their healthcare provision, nowhere near enough to lock people up for months on end whilst the virus waits patiently by & governments experiment with punitive measure after punitive measure.
 

Freightmaster

Established Member
Joined
7 Jul 2009
Messages
2,684
Hindsight is a wonderful thing,looking back now should we have started this charade with Lockdown version 2,then 3,and should we be in the strict Lockdown version 1 now??
As other have said, it's not that lockdown #1 was any more 'strict' as such, but that people and businesses
were (understandably) so scared of the new 'killer virus' that everyone massively overreacted and went far
beyond the guidelines and rules.

Fast forward ten months and most people (again, understandably) realise that Covid is not the Bubonic Plague,
so they are more willing to go about their daily lives.





MARK
 

trainophile

Established Member
Joined
28 Oct 2010
Messages
5,195
Location
Wherever I lay my hat
The first one was something of a novelty, coupled with which we were all scared out of our wits, and also believed it wasn't going to be for more than a few weeks. The second (November) one we were given the end date right from the get go, so knew exactly when we would be able to get back to normal. This third one is the killer because it doesn't have a stated end date, even roughly, and everyone is fed up with them now.
 

brick60000

Member
Joined
18 Apr 2013
Messages
341
The first one was something of a novelty, coupled with which we were all scared out of our wits, and also believed it wasn't going to be for more than a few weeks. The second (November) one we were given the end date right from the get go, so knew exactly when we would be able to get back to normal. This third one is the killer because it doesn't have a stated end date, even roughly, and everyone is fed up with them now.
As you say - Even in lockdown 1.0, there was the constant 3 week review and the feeling that the next review really could be it.

Now, there’s nothing. Not even a glimmer of hope for the near term.
 

6862

Member
Joined
3 Dec 2014
Messages
506
As you say - Even in lockdown 1.0, there was the constant 3 week review and the feeling that the next review really could be it.

Now, there’s nothing. Not even a glimmer of hope for the near term.

Yes, its quite clear that they intend to keep us locked up either for good, or at least long term, this time. No point in reviewing something you don't plan to change.
 

XAM2175

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2016
Messages
1,302
Location
Glasgow
As you say - Even in lockdown 1.0, there was the constant 3 week review and the feeling that the next review really could be it.
Yes, its quite clear that they intend to keep us locked up either for good, or at least long term, this time. No point in reviewing something you don't plan to change.
Unless something's changed very recently I understood that a review was to occur in around two weeks from now. Is it possible that the government might just have finally learned that the cycle of jubilant promises and regretful retractions wasn't doing them any favours, and that as a result they're experimenting with a slightly more restrained approach?

Regardless I'd suggest that statements like "they intend to keep us locked up ... for good" are much closer to hyperbole than they are to credible possibility.
 

Horizon22

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Joined
8 Sep 2019
Messages
2,697
Location
London
I'm no fan of the government, but I fail to see how they would have know which order to put lockdowns in when they didn't know know many there would be? That said looking around the world it is clear that nobody sent the lockdown memos so its a moot point really.

Well the intention was always 1 and to "avoid a second wave"...
 

island

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2010
Messages
12,585
Location
0036
Unless something's changed very recently I understood that a review was to occur in around two weeks from now. Is it possible that the government might just have finally learned that the cycle of jubilant promises and regretful retractions wasn't doing them any favours, and that as a result they're experimenting with a slightly more restrained approach?

Regardless I'd suggest that statements like "they intend to keep us locked up ... for good" are much closer to hyperbole than they are to credible possibility.
The regulations used to say they needed to be reviewed every 4 weeks. It's possible that line was accidentally on purpose left out of the last batch.
 

LAX54

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2008
Messages
3,255
As you say - Even in lockdown 1.0, there was the constant 3 week review and the feeling that the next review really could be it.

Now, there’s nothing. Not even a glimmer of hope for the near term.
On the plus side, no one seems to have had 'the flu' this season ! Back in August or thereabouts, the Swiss said that when we get to 70 / 80 'we have forgotten how to die' which seemed an odd thing to say, but I assume they meant we ALL have to die at somepoint, and when you get to 80+, then it is to be expected, it may be from a fall, basic flu, a cold, or C19
 

Carlisle

Established Member
Joined
26 Aug 2012
Messages
3,513
In many regards the present restrictions are stricter than those that applied in Spring 2020.
How do you reach that conclusion? given Support Bubbles weren’t permitted then .
 

greyman42

Established Member
Joined
14 Aug 2017
Messages
2,819
In many regards the present restrictions are stricter than those that applied in Spring 2020.

For the rules that applied back then, travelling for exercise was permitted in accordance with police guidance this was considered “reasonable” provided the time spent travelling was less than the time spent exercising. We have seen this year, that the police no longer consider this “reasonable.”

Similarly, Face coverings were also advised against back then, whereas now they are mandatory by law in most indoor public spaces, with limited exemptions.
Regardless of which lockdown restrictions are harsher, the fact is that a lot of people have had enough of them and are ignoring some of them this time round.
 

Jamesrob637

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2016
Messages
3,761
The first one was something of a novelty, coupled with which we were all scared out of our wits, and also believed it wasn't going to be for more than a few weeks. The second (November) one we were given the end date right from the get go, so knew exactly when we would be able to get back to normal. This third one is the killer because it doesn't have a stated end date, even roughly, and everyone is fed up with them now.

Not that there was as much normality when Lockdown Two ended on the 2nd of December but at least Christmas was nearing and many of us believed that we could see some of our family (even if it was a case of "pick the one you haven't seen in the longest/who might not be there anymore next Christmas")

As you say this third one is just dragging its heels now. 4 and a bit weeks in and even the review is a couple of weeks off yet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top