You must stay at home as much as possible

[Howardh]

Wonder if people are put off travelling any distance in case there's a sudden outbreak where they are (on holiday) so can't get home for a fortnight - meaning booking a room for longer, missing work etc if they have gone for a short break?
Example, when I arrive in Brighton, if there is an outbreak on local news, I'm getting out of there sharpish before I'm locked in. Even more concerned about that happening in Formentera in September, it's far more difficult to get away quickly from a small island.

If people were "trapped" in Leicester because they didn't live there, were they allowed to leave? And *promise* to quarantine at home?

 

[Huntergreed]

Wonder if people are put off travelling any distance in case there's a sudden outbreak where they are (on holiday) so can't get home for a fortnight - meaning booking a room for longer, missing work etc if they have gone for a short break?
Example, when I arrive in Brighton, if there is an outbreak on local news, I'm getting out of there sharpish before I'm locked in. Even more concerned about that happening in Formentera in September, it's far more difficult to get away quickly from a small island.

If people were "trapped" in Leicester because they didn't live there, were they allowed to leave? And *promise* to quarantine at home?

And the concern of a council shutting down hotels and holiday accommodation and this not being refunded, it’s enough to put me off any long-term holiday planning!

Hotels were never allowed to open in Leicester, but I don’t believe there was any enforced travel ban, simply the government asking people to not travel if not necessary, and getting home is definitely necessary in my view.

 

[yorkie]

Most people know the best thing for us, as individuals , and for society, is to be out and about.

Those who want to lock everyone inside their homes are very much in the minority; albeit an extremely vocal minority.

Wonder if people are put off travelling any distance in case there's a sudden outbreak where they are (on holiday) so can't get home for a fortnight - meaning booking a room for longer, missing work etc if they have gone for a short break?
Example, when I arrive in Brighton, if there is an outbreak on local news, I'm getting out of there sharpish before I'm locked in. Even more concerned about that happening in Formentera in September, it's far more difficult to get away quickly from a small island.

If people were "trapped" in Leicester because they didn't live there, were they allowed to leave? And *promise* to quarantine at home?

You would not be trapped. There is no restriction on travel to/from Leicester; it's just that the guidelines advise all but essential travel to/from Leicester.

And the concern of a council shutting down hotels and holiday accommodation and this not being refunded, it’s enough to put me off any long-term holiday planning!

This is not going to happen!

If a place is forced to close you will be given your money back, end of.

I've booked loads of Premier Inns; take a look at their policies, they are very reassuring; I won't say more here as it's not for this thread.

Hotels were never allowed to open in Leicester, but I don’t believe there was any enforced travel ban, simply the government asking people to not travel if not necessary, and getting home is definitely necessary in my view.

That's absolutely correct.

 

[Howardh]

And the concern of a council shutting down hotels and holiday accommodation and this not being refunded, it’s enough to put me off any long-term holiday planning!

Hotels were never allowed to open in Leicester, but I don’t believe there was any enforced travel ban, simply the government asking people to not travel if not necessary, and getting home is definitely necessary in my view.

Like many others, I now use booking/hotels sites option to pay on arrival and free cancellation. Think that can cost slightly more, but it's peace of mind. BUT don't want to be there having to fund a fortnight when I only went for a weekend!!

 

[yorkie]

Like many others, I now use booking/hotels sites option to pay on arrival and free cancellation. Think that can cost slightly more, but it's peace of mind. BUT don't want to be there having to fund a fortnight when I only went for a weekend!!

This is not going to happen. If you want advice on a particular journey, or advice on booking hotels generally, feel free to create a thread in the Trip Planning & Reports section.

 

[talldave]

The virus is still out there and has to be contained by minimising its transmission so staying at home remains the best remedy we have.

In my Borough 4 out of the last 7 days have had zero positive Covid tests, it was 2 out of 7 in the previous week. Just 4 positives in the last week, down from 12 the previous week.

And that's with no masks. How much more minimising are we meant to be doing to be graciously allowed out of our homes?

I have the feeling that when we reach zero positives day in day out, the coronaphobes are going to invent some new criteria we all have to buckle down to. We can't get the test count to go negative, so what's it going to be?

 

[DB]

I have the feeling that when we reach zero positives day in day out, the coronaphobes are going to invent some new criteria we all have to buckle down to. We can't get the test count to go negative, so what's it going to be?

It's difficult to guess what they might come up with, but I share your view that they will find something - and Boris Johnson will then announce a new knee-jerk law to enforce it.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

High prevalence of cases? There are under 1000 new cases per day. At that rate would take around 200 years for everyone to have had it once!

Leicester had a few a day a month ago but it spiralled up to 140 at its peak three weeks ago before they locked down and its still running at 40-45/day. My point is a few areas are getting hot so people should be warned so they can make choices and hopefully be extra alert as the way we keep things normal (as close as) is by being responsible.

 

[Huntergreed]

In my Borough 4 out of the last 7 days have had zero positive COVID tests, it was 2 out of 7 in the previous week. Just 4 positives in the last week, down from 12 the previous week.

Indeed! Under the current numbers, asking people to stay at home is simply ridiculous!

And that's with no masks. How much more minimising are we meant to be doing to be graciously allowed out of our homes?

I think there was more to the masks than mitigation (media and public pressure, having to be seen to be doing 'something' to make people feel safe), but that's not a topic for this thread.

I have the feeling that when we reach zero positives day in day out, the coronaphobes are going to invent some new criteria we all have to buckle down to. We can't get the test count to go negative, so what's it going to be?

I fear this may be true, but at the same time I don't think they'll have any justification for keeping any measures, and the vast majority of people wouldn't put up with it (if we're questioning their necessity now, I can only imagine most people would when we get to 0 cases).

 

[thejuggler]

In my Borough 4 out of the last 7 days have had zero positive Covid tests, it was 2 out of 7 in the previous week. Just 4 positives in the last week, down from 12 the previous week.

And that's with no masks. How much more minimising are we meant to be doing to be graciously allowed out of our homes?

I have the feeling that when we reach zero positives day in day out, the coronaphobes are going to invent some new criteria we all have to buckle down to. We can't get the test count to go negative, so what's it going to be?

How many individuals are being tested to get to those results?

 

[DB]

Leicester had a few a day a month ago but it spiralled up to 140 at its peak three weeks ago before they locked down and its still running at 4-45/day. My point is a few areas are getting hot so people should be warned so they can make choices and hopefully be extra alert as they way we keep things normal (as close as) is by being responsible.

So what? The more measure that are taken to slow the spread down, the longer this will drag on for. The NHS is currently in no danger of being overwhelmed, and there is now more experience in what works in the way of treatment. Nursing homes need to be protected in any areas with an increase in cases, but beyond that what exactly is the purpose?

 

[Crossover]

Surely a ‘stay at home’ message is somewhat incompatible with the hospitality trade reopening, all and sundry being encouraged to use public transport and an imminent move to encourage employers to get their employees back to the office rather than working from home?

 

[yorkie]

Can we try to avoid straying from discussing the 'You must stay at home as much as possible' messaging as this thread is threatening to become a "master" thread, which we are keen to avoid.

There are already threads for some of the other topics that have cropped up in this thread (and we have plenty of capacity for any new topics as required

Anyway back on topic...

Surely a ‘stay at home’ message is somewhat incompatible with the hospitality trade reopening, all and sundry being encouraged to use public transport and an imminent move to encourage employers to get their employees back to the office rather than working from home?

Quite! It's clearly outdated information.

 

[Busaholic]

''Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law'' was probably Alasteir Crowley's most famous saying (certainly the only one I can remember offhand) and probably is not too far removed from the philosophy of Cummings and Johnson, insofar as either can be claimed to have one, not that either would wish the majority of the country to heed it. ' Anything goes ' might be another way of expressing it. It used to be said that ignorance of the law was no excuse, but I don't think that statement could possibly be justified now, if by 'law' you include the panoply of regulations, official guidance notes, things stated in government briefings, etc etc. So much of it doesn't square with other legislation anyway on things like human rights and provision for disabled/disadvantaged people: which trumps which probably no two lawyers would agree on anyway, and might take years for a definitive verdict to be issued. In the meantime, the country disintegrates further, before our very eyes. I feel extremely sad about it, because from now on I'm convinced it's much more self-inflicted than the result of a mysterious and potentially deadly virus per se.

Edit - apologies, written before post above seen by me.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

So what? The more measure that are taken to slow the spread down, the longer this will drag on for. The NHS is currently in no danger of being overwhelmed, and there is now more experience in what works in the way of treatment. Nursing homes need to be protected in any areas with an increase in cases, but beyond that what exactly is the purpose?

All im saying is keep people informed locally about prevalence they can then make choices about whether they want to stay at home or not ie give them the confidence its safe in there area

 

[talldave]

How many individuals are being tested to get to those results?

The Local Government Association data I'm using doesn't contain that information.

 

[DB]

The Local Government Association data I'm using doesn't contain that information.

If they don't give that it does make it rather less than meaningful, given that if testing is increased in a particlar area there's a fair chance that will distort the figures and show what appears to be an elevated number of cases. Without the number of tests being done the data is incomplete.

 

[talldave]

If they don't give that it does make it rather less than meaningful, given that if testing is increased in a particlar area there's a fair chance that will distort the figures and show what appears to be an elevated number of cases. Without the number of tests being done the data is incomplete.

I agree, but we're not screening the entire population we're testing people who have a reason to be tested. I presume amongst the pillar 1, pillar 2 or whatever group sets there are will be a "I have symptoms" group. When we're hitting zeros for most days of the week I see that as a positive. I have no reason to believe people with symptoms have suddenly stopped reporting for testing. And if there are hardly any people with symptoms there's probably a similar drop in asymptomatic people passing it on. Which means we're probably means we're probably getting to the point where I could come into close contact with every customer visiting my local Sainsbury's for a month and still not find an infected person.

But despite all this it's critical we start wearing masks to shop in a week's time. It's utterly pathetic.

 

[yorksrob]

''Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law'' was probably Alasteir Crowley's most famous saying (certainly the only one I can remember offhand) and probably is not too far removed from the philosophy of Cummings and Johnson, insofar as either can be claimed to have one, not that either would wish the majority of the country to heed it. ' Anything goes ' might be another way of expressing it. It used to be said that ignorance of the law was no excuse, but I don't think that statement could possibly be justified now, if by 'law' you include the panoply of regulations, official guidance notes, things stated in government briefings, etc etc. So much of it doesn't square with other legislation anyway on things like human rights and provision for disabled/disadvantaged people: which trumps which probably no two lawyers would agree on anyway, and might take years for a definitive verdict to be issued. In the meantime, the country disintegrates further, before our very eyes. I feel extremely sad about it, because from now on I'm convinced it's much more self-inflicted than the result of a mysterious and potentially deadly virus per se.

Edit - apologies, written before post above seen by me.

I don't know. After months of lockdown, I detect the country gently flowing back to life !

 

[yorkie]

Can we try to stay reasonably on topic please

@talldave we have a dedicated thread to discuss face coverings in shops at https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ory-in-shops-in-england-includes-poll.206406/

 

[CaptainHaddock]

All im saying is keep people informed locally about prevalence they can then make choices about whether they want to stay at home or not ie give them the confidence its safe in there area

What's safe in there (sic) area?

One of the most ridiculous aspects of the whole lockdown is this strange concept of "safe", ie the idea that you should never be allowed to leave your home again unless there's zero chance of you catching the virus. The world will never be completely safe, there is always a possibility, however remote, that you might pick up germs from other people.

Prior to the lockdown we were all happy to take that miniscule risk and wouldn't let it stop us going out and doing all the things we enjoy. Now the lockdown is all but over, why are some people still so fearful?

 

[DB]

Prior to the lockdown we were all happy to take that miniscule risk and wouldn't let it stop us going out and doing all the things we enjoy. Now the lockdown is all but over, why are some people still so fearful?

Because they've absorbed the constant messaging from the government and become terrified of this Deadly Killer Virus.The fact that it's not particularly dangerous to most people doesn't seem to register with a lot of them. The most extreme are still demanding restrictions 'until there's a vaccine', clearly assuming that there will be one (not a given), and seemingly without any understanding of the economic consequences of continuing with this approach.

 

[Huntergreed]

Prior to the lockdown we were all happy to take that miniscule risk and wouldn't let it stop us going out and doing all the things we enjoy. Now the lockdown is all but over, why are some people still so fearful?

Because of the messaging that has come from both the media and the government.

We don't normally announce daily deaths from any other cause (although if we did I imagine some people would be quite shocked at just how many there really are!), we don't normally tell people that leaving their home or going near someone else could kill them for months on end. It's understandable to see why people are so scared, and I would argue we need just as big of a push to try and convince people it is, in fact, safe to go out again.

Back on topic. The website does indeed seem to be outdated, but for someone who doesn't check this, the message could easily be interpreted as 'I need to stay at home still', which is not true, and the government actually want to start actively discouraging to start the economic recovery effort we sorely need.

 

[yorksrob]

Because they've absorbed the constant messaging from the government and become terrified of this Deadly Killer Virus.The fact that it's not particularly dangerous to most people doesn't seem to register with a lot of them. The most extreme are still demanding restrictions 'until there's a vaccine', clearly assuming that there will be one (not a given), and seemingly without any understanding of the economic consequences of continuing with this approach.

It's a shame that had people looked into the guidance more deeply, they would have found that they had more freedom than they'd thought. I count myself lucky to have had this forum to highlight the relevant points !

 

[Starmill]

What replies have people had from emails about this message?

It's a shame that had people looked into the guidance more deeply, they would have found that they had more freedom than they'd thought.

I think it’s well out of order for you to try to imply it's the fault of the general public for not understanding the government's communications tbh

 

[The Ham]

Because of the messaging that has come from both the media and the government.

We don't normally announce daily deaths from any other cause (although if we did I imagine some people would be quite shocked at just how many there really are!), we don't normally tell people that leaving their home or going near someone else could kill them for months on end. It's understandable to see why people are so scared, and I would argue we need just as big of a push to try and convince people it is, in fact, safe to go out again.

Back on topic. The website does indeed seem to be outdated, but for someone who doesn't check this, the message could easily be interpreted as 'I need to stay at home still', which is not true, and the government actually want to start actively discouraging to start the economic recovery effort we sorely need.

Indeed, for the last few days the average number of deaths per day is comparable to the number of deaths each day on the roads 20 years ago (10/day).

Whilst the number of deaths per day on the roads had fallen to about 5/day recently (and I suspect that 2020 will see this fall due to lower traffic volumes) if there was the same fear of it as Covid-19 then it would be much lower!

Anyway, back on topic, whilst there's no need to stay at home there's also no reason for everyone to crowd into work in offices when some* are able to work at home and have little impact on the economy by doing so.

As such, like most things, there's a balance to be had, with some extra staying at home helping reduce the spread, whilst some going out and about to help the economy; with both being good.

* some - that's some of those who are working in offices, as there's others for whom that's not viable (due to children, their mental well-being, lack of space, they need support from other staff, and many other reasons). Clearly there are also a load of other jobs which aren't possible to be undertaken from home.

 

[Richard Scott]

What replies have people had from emails about this message?

I think it’s well out of order for you to try to imply it's the fault of the general public for not understanding the government's communications tbh

I read it as Government's fault for not being clearer. Don't take it as a derogatory statement, to be honest.

 

[yorksrob]

What replies have people had from emails about this message?

I think it’s well out of order for you to try to imply it's the fault of the general public for not understanding the government's communications tbh

I'm not blaming the public. As I alluded to on here, had I not had the incredibly useful resource of this forum, I may well have been in the same boat.

I'm just noting that for the past month and a bit, my requirements have largely been there, buried in the guidance. I wonder how many other people could have benefitted from that, had the Government and other organisations not been so keen to obscure that guidance with innacurate messaging.

 

[yorkie]

I'm not blaming the public. As I alluded to on here, had I not had the incredibly useful resource of this forum, I may well have been in the same boat.

I'm just noting that for the past month and a bit, my requirements have largely been there, buried in the guidance. I wonder how many other people could have benefitted from that, had the Government and other organisations not been so keen to obscure that guidance with innacurate messaging.

Excellent point; I couldn't agree more.

 

[Starmill]

I'm not blaming the public.

I see, well this is quite fair enough then.