New 4-tier system for England

[Philip]

As opposed to lockdown when they're not allowed out anyway ?

At least they should be able to make their own assessment.

The point I was making is that if you leave this virus to run riot, people who are medically vulnerable, young or old, are more likely to not want to venture outside for fear of catching it. If case numbers are lower then the same people might feel a bit more at ease about going out and doing the things they enjoy doing.

Again, I haven't advocated lockdown, I don't want this. But people should still be prepared to make small changes, make small sacrifices to help reduce the infection rate. To give an example...keep the pub open, but after the 3rd or 4th pint or glass or shot, no more alcohol. People should not be getting plastered in these times when it lowers the inhibitions and throws caution to the wind, should be a degree of personal and social responsibility here.

 

[Richard Scott]

The point I was making is that if you leave this virus to run riot, people who are medically vulnerable, young or old, are more likely to not want to venture outside for fear of catching it. If case numbers are lower then the same people might feel a bit more at ease about going out and doing the things they enjoy doing.

They'll be like that anyway, there's a proportion who are already scared to come out irrespective of case numbers. Think you're clutching at straws here?

 

[kristiang85]

Here we go again, blame people for not following the rules. The rules are made up by humans in belief we can control a virus, the virus doesn't respect rules. The two people at work who recently contracted the virus were probably the two that followed them to the letter. Please explain that.

Precisely. I know a friend's in a care home (a severe learning difficultly one, so is in his 20s and not elderly), but they had really strict rules on staff access and no visitors all year. Obviously the poor guy has no idea what's going on and has been stressed all year without his regular visits, although 7 months in is finally accepting Zoom chats. However, he was diagnosed with COVID at one point, despite all the regulations. Now he didn't get any symptoms and was fine (which could well also say something about the testing regime too), but it shows that the restrictions do not universally work.

Look at Lewis Hamilton in F1 - one of the prime virtue signalling mask wearers and sport and those close to him say he has been like a hermit all year, yet still got covid (with symptoms).

 

[yorkie]

What about young people who for whatever medical reason are extremely vulnerable and are scared to venture out whilst this virus is rife and thus also seeing their livelihoods affected and quite possibly their mental health too? There are many variables here on both sides.

If they were actually extremely vulnerable, this would have pushed the average age of a Covid death downwards and it would not be over 80. The reality is the younger people who are being scared into thinking there is a high chance of them dying are actually at far more risk from other factors, such as road pollution, the obesity crisis, road traffic accidents, and one of the biggest killers for younger people: suicides.

Their livelihoods and mental health are suffering due to the fear being spread and due to the measures being imposed. Those who call for more restrictions and spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) are not doing young people any favours.

 

[yorksrob]

The point I was making is that if you leave this virus to run riot, people who are medically vulnerable, young or old, are more likely to not want to venture outside for fear of catching it. If case numbers are lower then the same people might feel a bit more at ease about going out and doing the things they enjoy doing.

No one's talking about letting the virus run riot. Having socially distanced hospitality isn't letting it run riot, it's people being made (yes, I accept that bit of coercion) to follow some rules, but it isn't allowing it to run riot, just as people studying or working isn't allowing the virus to run riot.

Lockdown isn't a proportionate response to the current situation.

 

[Philip]

If they were actually extremely vulnerable, this would have pushed the average age of a Covid death downwards and it would not be over 80. The reality is the younger people who are being scared into thinking there is a high chance of them dying are actually at far more risk from other factors, such as road pollution, the obesity crisis, road traffic accidents, and one of the biggest killers for younger people: suicides.

Their livelihoods and mental health are suffering due to the fear being spread and due to the measures being imposed. Those who call for more restrictions and spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) are not doing young people any favours.

What do the government and scientists have to gain by spreading fear to people unnecessarily though? Why would they want to close things down without very good reason considering the effect this has both on the economy and on public morale? As I keep saying I don't want to see further lockdowns, but I can't see how anything other than medical evidence would influence the restrictions decisions by those in authority? Don't forget too that this government were quite slow to implement the restrictions/lockdown in the first place in March, compared with other countries.

 

[yorksrob]

What do the government and scientists have to gain by spreading fear to people unnecessarily though? Why would they want to close things down without very good reason considering the effect this has both on the economy and on public morale? As I keep saying I don't want to see further lockdowns, but I can't see how anything other than medical evidence would influence the restrictions decisions by those in authority? Don't forget too that this government were quite slow to implement the restrictions/lockdown in the first place in March, compared with other countries.

They're not bad people, they're just wrong. And not entirely wrong, wrong in certain aspects.

 

[Bertie the bus]

What do the government and scientists have to gain by spreading fear to people unnecessarily though? Why would they want to close things down without very good reason considering the effect this has both on the economy and on public morale? As I keep saying I don't want to see further lockdowns, but I can't see how anything other than medical evidence would influence the restrictions decisions by those in authority? Don't forget too that this government were quite slow to implement the restrictions/lockdown in the first place in March, compared with other countries.

Scientists always spread fear and want to put restrictions on our lives. The main reason I didn't take this seriously at all to begin with in early March, except by making very very small adjustments to what I did when outside, was because we've had fearmongering stories for years - SARS, bird flu, swine flu to name 3. None caused us in this country any harm whatsoever but the news headlines at the various times tried to put the fear of God into all of us - news headlines based on what scientists were saying.

 

[DB]

What do the government and scientists have to gain by spreading fear to people unnecessarily though? Why would they want to close things down without very good reason considering the effect this has both on the economy and on public morale? As I keep saying I don't want to see further lockdowns, but I can't see how anything other than medical evidence would influence the restrictions decisions by those in authority? Don't forget too that this government were quite slow to implement the restrictions/lockdown in the first place in March, compared with other countries.

Because they are terrified of being labelled as granny killers.

Younger people dying of suicide, cancers, etc are a different matter - they are expendable and don't matter.

The government, as with many, have developed an obsession with covid case numbers and literally nothing else matters to them now - they have lost any perspective.

 

[Richard Scott]

The government, as with many, have developed an obsession with covid case numbers and literally nothing else matters to them now - they have lost any perspective.

As proved in past few hours. No perspective at all. There also seems to be an element of political games going on between Westminster and the devolved nations. None of this nonsense is helping anybody.

 

[bramling]

The government, as with many, have developed an obsession with covid case numbers and literally nothing else matters to them now - they have lost any perspective.

And, though this may appear cynical, I don’t think we can overlook the fact that elderly people vote.

Fast forward a year, assuming we don’t get a Covid SE which is vaccine-resistant, and no doubt we’ll be seeing the same group shielded from as many economic effects as possible, whilst everyone else will be straight under the bus.

As proved in past few hours. No perspective at all. There also seems to be an element of political games going on between Westminster and the devolved nations. None of this nonsense is helping anybody.

And don’t forget the likes of Sadiq Khan, who seems to have an agenda all of his own, which seems to be plain destructive.

 

[yorkie]

No one's talking about letting the virus run riot. ...

Indeed, but those who call for tougher restrictions need to be able to use this fallacy to justify their proposed tougher measures.

The usual line they use is ''let it rip''. I think "let it run riot'" is only a minor, non-material mutation of their hyperbole.

Because they are terrified of being labelled as granny killers.

Younger people dying of suicide, cancers, etc are a different matter - they are expendable and don't matter.

The government, as with many, have developed an obsession with covid case numbers and literally nothing else matters to them now - they have lost any perspective.

This is so true

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed, but those who call for tougher restrictions need to be able to use this fallacy to justify their proposed tougher measures.

The usual line they use is ''let it rip''. I think "let it run riot'" is only a minor, non-material mutation of their hyperbole.

This is so true

Indeed. Those phrases seem to be the death knell of any proportionate version of life that doesn't involve lockdown.

 

[HSTEd]

What do the government and scientists have to gain by spreading fear to people unnecessarily though? Why would they want to close things down without very good reason considering the effect this has both on the economy and on public morale?

What do a bunch of rich old scientists really care about the economy?

They will either have state guaranteed pensions or will soon be receiving them, they have nothing to fear from unemployment.

Public morale is also irrelevant when you can ensure public obedience through fearmongering and threats.

As I keep saying I don't want to see further lockdowns, but I can't see how anything other than medical evidence would influence the restrictions decisions by those in authority? Don't forget too that this government were quite slow to implement the restrictions/lockdown in the first place in March, compared with other countries.

A group of scientists dominated by the old and rich demand a strategy that prioritises protecting the old and rich at the expense of everyone and everything else.

Clearly no conflict of interest there at all.

They can either face losing a portion of their friends or even themselves, or they can quietly liquidate people they have never met and will likely never meet.
It's not a hard choice.

 

[C J Snarzell]

Do you really think Greater Manchester will vote Conservative instead with the constant restrictions the county has been under?

What I will say to that statement is that Labour aren't exactly winning much in the way of popularity stakes either in Greater Manchester.

Example - the Rochdale grooming scandal where many victims of sexual abuse have been let down because of failings by the police and Crown Prosecution Service. The Head of the CPS at the time, Kier Starmer felt it wasn't in the interest to prosecute the offenders. I believe he's now in charge of the Labour Party!!!!!

CJ

 

[jimm]

Because they are terrified of being labelled as granny killers.

Younger people dying of suicide, cancers, etc are a different matter - they are expendable and don't matter.

The government, as with many, have developed an obsession with covid case numbers and literally nothing else matters to them now - they have lost any perspective.

How's this for some perspective then?

So far, 66,500 Britons have died after becoming infected with coronavirus on the measure the Government uses - that's the equivalent of all the people in a town the size of Farnborough or Paignton dying. Plenty of them were not grannies - several hundred were NHS staff.

You can come out with all the pat phrases you like, along the lines of

Targeted measures would be better for everyone.

or

Sensible, low-key guidance

but what do they actually mean? How about enlightening us to what such things would look like? And how they would rein in the current rapid spread of the virus?

Or are we just supposed to sit back and relax while thousands more people die during the year or so that it is being suggested it will take to vaccinate most of the UK population?

Even the Swedes have admitted their different approach is not working and are about to introduce restrictions looking a lot like those in other countries across Europe.

 

[TUC]

The St Pancras issue does highlight the ignorance about rail services by the media in assuming that all who were travelling were going to Leeds, not understanding that EMT would be an unlikely route for that (It just happened to be one of the small number of EMT services which go to Leeds), and that most of those on the train were far more likely travelling to the East Midlands.

 

[DelayRepay]

I have checked https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ because I want to know what the actual law says. In the past the politicians, the gov.uk website, the media and the police have all mis-represented advice and guidelines as the law.

The only legislation that was published yesterday was a Statutory Instrument by the Welsh Government.

So in the absence of published legislation, has the law actually changed? Or am I, legally, still in Tier 3?

but what do they actually mean? How about enlightening us to what such things would look like? And how they would rein in the current rapid spread of the virus?

Or are we just supposed to sit back and relax while thousands more people die during the year or so that it is being suggested it will take to vaccinate most of the UK population?

I think the Christmas relaxation for five days was always too optimistic. But even a couple of days ago the Government was clear that they did not intend to change it.

What would lower key mean? Perhaps two households mixing for one day, perhaps an exception for people who live alone, perhaps stronger advice about isolating beforehand. Perhaps not threatening legal action to schools, who wanted to close a few days earlier to allow people to ensure their children were 'clear' before Christmas.

But here we are, five days before Christmas, with plans ruined. I am furious about this, as you can probably tell.

 

[CyrusWuff]

The update to the Regulations has now been published and came into force at 0700 today.

From an initial read, it would appear that anyone whose primary residence is now in Tier 4 and "escaped" to an area in a lower tier yesterday is in breach of the regulations and could be ordered to return home by a "relevant person".

 

[MalaiseForever]

So in the absence of published legislation, has the law actually changed? Or am I, legally, still in Tier 3?

The law has not yet changed, you are legally still in tier 3.

edit: turns out they have been published, see above comment. Apologies.

 

[adc82140]

I have checked https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ because I want to know what the actual law says. In the past the politicians, the gov.uk website, the media and the police have all mis-represented advice and guidelines as the law.

The only legislation that was published yesterday was a Statutory Instrument by the Welsh Government.

So in the absence of published legislation, has the law actually changed? Or am I, legally, still in Tier 3?


I think the Christmas relaxation for five days was always too optimistic. But even a couple of days ago the Government was clear that they did not intend to change it.

What would lower key mean? Perhaps two households mixing for one day, perhaps an exception for people who live alone, perhaps stronger advice about isolating beforehand. Perhaps not threatening legal action to schools, who wanted to close a few days earlier to allow people to ensure their children were 'clear' before Christmas.

But here we are, five days before Christmas, with plans ruined. I am furious about this, as you can probably tell.

The plans should always have been that if you want to form a Christmas bubble you must self isolate for x days beforehand. People could then have made informed decisions weeks ago about how they wanted to do Xmas. But that would have required a prime minister that actually thinks ahead, and doesn't just respond to what he sees on Twitter.

 

[duncanp]

But that would have required a prime minister that actually thinks ahead, and doesn't just respond to what he sees on Twitter.

...or doesn't just respond to what he is told to do by Twitty.

The more I think about this, the more I come to the conclusion that this is a organised coup by Twitty and Vallance to get everyone into a full lockdown, without the bothersome inconvenience of having the "data" which they use to scare the Prime Minister, subject to independent scrutiny.

The new variant of the virus has been known about for some time now, as per the quote below from The Telegraph

Yet as the Prime Minister metamorphosed from Santa to Scrooge before the public’s eyes on Saturday, many could have been forgiven for wondering why he didn’t have "the guts" to pull the plug when, by his own admission, he was puzzled back in November as to why Tier 3 “wasn’t delivering the results in Kent”.

The claim appeared to cast doubt over Mr Johnson’s insistence that the sudden seasonal U-turn had been sparked by “transmissibility” data on a new variant strain of Covid that only emerged on Friday.

I just cannot believe that the transmissibility data only emerged on Friday. Someone, somewhere must have known about it beforehand.

If it emerges that Boris Johnson colluded with Twitty and Vallance to conceal the data from MPs until after parliament went into the Christmas recess, then he will be toast, and we could well have a new Prime Minister by the summer.

No doubt some more scary data will "emerge" just before the next review of the tiers on December 30th, in order to panic the Prime Minister into ordering everywhere in England into Tier 4 restrictions. (lockdown)

 

[SignallerJohn]

If the internet existed in the 1940s, would people have been posting on forums about how they don’t agree with going in Anderson shelters when the air raid siren went off?

 

[DelayRepay]

If the internet existed in the 1940s, would people have been posting on forums about how they don’t agree with going in Anderson shelters when the air raid siren went off?

Was it the law, with the threat of fines/arrest if you decided to stay in your house rather than going to the shelter?

 

[Bantamzen]

People don’t sit in corners socially distanced though, do they? That’s the problem. And because large numbers of people can’t behave in a socially responsible way, then to have any effect in containing a deadly transmissible disease, more draconian rules / guidance has to be put in place. Which everyone then moans about / ignores. Thus not improving the situation at all. The government is certainly not competent, nor does it have any management capabilities - but what choices were there right now, with the data as it is? Certainly no easy choices.

Ah yes, the "blame anybody else but me" narrative. I hate to break this to you but nothing short of a complete lockdown for months with every single human interaction banned would have any hope of doing what the politicians seem to think they can do. This would mean zero contact with anyone else, including closing schools, shops, work places, even hospitals.

As to the choices this government has? Well instead of throwing over half a trillion quid away in the hope of making the virus go away, they could concentrate on identifying those that are most likely to suffer the most and get them help & advice to help them protect themselves pending getting a vaccine. I think a budget over 3 times the current NHS budget would suffice....

If the internet existed in the 1940s, would people have been posting on forums about how they don’t agree with going in Anderson shelters when the air raid siren went off?

Maybe, but equally as likely would be people saying that if we just stay at home the Nazi regime would just ignore us and go away......

 

[Tracked]

The plans should always have been that if you want to form a Christmas bubble you must self isolate for x days beforehand. People could then have made informed decisions weeks ago about how they wanted to do Xmas. But that would have required a prime minister that actually thinks ahead, and doesn't just respond to what he sees on Twitter.

This. I can appreciate that this is a fast-changing situation, but Johnson's constant habit of avoiding hard decisions until it's too late is getting a bit annoying. Whatever, I'm sure to him all of this will be everyone else's fault ...

 

[adc82140]

If the internet existed in the 1940s, would people have been posting on forums about how they don’t agree with going in Anderson shelters when the air raid siren went off?

If a Doodlebug landed on your house, you were 100% guaranteed dead. But this virus has a less than 0.1% IFR. Therefore no comparison.

 

[6862]

Out of interest, could the likes of Whitty ever realistically be held legally liable? His role is only as an adviser, after all. Then there will be the massive blame contest between what was advised versus what was actually done.

I would like to see the lot of them charged with crimes against humanity, and see them one day on trial in The Hague.

 

[317 forever]

The Newcastle Chronicle is reporting that footfall on the main shopping street Northumberland Street on Saturday was up 36% compared to the same Saturday last year!



https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/newcastle-city-centre-busier-saturday-19415670

This may in part have been through people having had to postpone their shopping from November, some of which had to be done in good time before Christmas.

 

[The Ham]

There's currently been 67,000 deaths recorded as being linked to Covid, at a rate of 0.1% then 67 million people would have been infected in the UK.

Now whilst Covid-19 deaths are any cause of death within 28 days of a positive result (so probably a bit higher than they actual are), it's also true that once we get to 60-70% of the population having been infected then infected rates of infections would be tiny as there would be few people that it could pass to.

Even if some are getting Covid twice and there's an over counting of deaths from Covid we'd easily be in the final days of the problem is the rate was 0.1%.

Even at 0.2% then given the current rates of deaths (489/day) we'd be probably seeing the end of it by the end of January, as we'd rapidly be approaching 60-70% of the population having been infected.

As such I would be doubtful of any sources which made suggestions that anything as low as 0.2% was the actual rate.

It may well be that is the rate for those under a certain age, such as under 65 or under 40, but that then means that the rate is a going to be a lot higher for those in an older group given that 90% of deaths are in those over 65.