I'm detecting a distinct direction in the opinion on this thread. Nevertheless, I'm broadly supportive of these actions.
I am guessing you have a secure job that perhaps involves working from home or for which you will still be paid?
I don't intend to to argue or refute any of the (numerous) posts above, but I will share some of my thoughts:
- The Welsh Government, like other governments, have been saying for a long time that they wanted to keep schools open if at all possible. Given that, if they were to implement a short closure, it makes sense to do it now, overlapping with the half-term break.
They're still closing schools for an extra week, but I don't see how this is a reason to do it.
- The county-based Local Lockdowns, generally implemented when cases rose above "50 per 100,000 over 7 days", have arguably succeeded in slowing the increase in case rates in many counties, but they haven't been enough to bring them back down below that threshold. (Caerphilly, the first into lockdown, saw their case numbers go right down from ~130 to ~40, but they've since risen again to 130 during October.) See https://twitter.com/foxy_michael/status/1318919521437163520/photo/1 for a convenient graph of recent rolling averages.
I don't think lockdowns are actually that effective; a lot of evidence has been gathered regarding lockdown effectiveness all over the world, and what they tend to do is delay the inevitable, and even then only to a limited extent.
The lockdown in Victoria, Australia had to be extended many times, despite the weather there being not as cold as our Winters, and despite starting from a relatively low number of cases, and it has had a devastating impact in other areas.
The UK wide lockdown didn't really bring cases down for several weeks, and when the numbers really came down it coincided with good weather. When we were opening things up, cases continued to decline.
- All but one of the counties of Wales are above that 50 threshold, or approaching it. (Only Ceredigion remains well below.) If the Government hadn't been busy planning for this Firebreak lockdown, they'd have been adding the likes of Monmouthshire, Torfaen, and Anglesey to the Local Lockdown list: we'd have ended up with the vast majority of councils under restrictions.
This is just kicking the can down the road; it's total reliance on a vaccine being available soon, and if you intend to keep numbers low, you are going to have to keep locking down again and again!
- England apparently considers 100 cases per 100,000 to be the threshold for moving from tier 1 to tier 2. This feels high to me, as Wales has been using a threshold of 50, but I understand that observers from the other side of the dyke more used to the 100 threshold may consider 50 to be too low. (Then again, the Wales-wide average is about 150 at the moment.)
It depends on what your strategy is; if you implement restrictions at a low number, it's easier to keep them low, but it will take much longer to build up immunity (the population under 50 are going to have to build up immunity naturally by infections rather than by vaccinations, based on current vaccination policy) and it's going to mean you have to keep locking down to keep them low.
- WG Ministers have said that they won't be able to decide how much this firebreak has had until after it's ended, because of the lag in infections, arrival of symptoms, and hospitalisations. If it's worked, the various rates will be dropping after we've reopened. For that reason, I'm not concerned about a sneaky extension to this period.
While the WG have lost all credibility in the eyes of many people, they would lose even more if they extended it, having made it clear that they won't do so. So I agree with you that they won't extend it.
I'm sure they will be exaggerating how successful it was.
- I do, ohwever, foresee something similar happening in December/January: that's the next time that schools will be closed, and a lot of people will be taking holiday from work anyway. It's just the issue of visiting other family and friends over Christmas that needs to be resolved. A few ministers have already been saying that the "can't rule out" having to do this, so it seems they're laying the groundwork and managing the public's expectations. If that happens, and it buys us time until, say, February half term, then the advent of a vaccine and/or improved weather should help things.
We can't live in this state until February. I do think their plan is to allow people to see friends/family at Christmas but I am not really sure that harsh restrictions before/after this period is really suitable and I am not sure how people of other faiths would view this if Christmas does get special treatment (but it's probably too early to discuss that now as we are pre-empting any potential actions at this point).
- I know England's system is quite newly implemented, and still bedding in (with growing pains), but I can't see a strategy in Westminster's actions for getting through this winter. Maybe it's there, but I haven't twigged onto it. (As for Scotland and NI, I don't hear enough detail about their plans on national radio etc., so I can't give an informed opinion there.)
The strategy overall appears to be to reduce infections until a vaccine becomes available, but in Wales and Scotland there is a focus on really harsh measures to keep infections really low. I have my doubts about the effectiveness of those measures in their ability to achieve their intended purpose, I also have doubts that the intended purpose is actually morally right or worthwhile, and the question over whether or not our society can recover from such draconian restrictions for such an extended period of time is a very serious threat in my opinion, which the pro-lockdown brigade are not particularly interested in or concerned about. I find that frightening.
