[Will Hunt]

I suppose I don't think the public health issue can be totally outsourced to local leaders. Thats at least half on the government too, surely? Obviously Burnham should have that in mind, but the government should too.

I agree. I lay the majority of the blame with the government, but it irks me to see Burnham feted as a hero with no scrutiny on whether this was a good call. More and more people will be affected in the coming months so a huge political backlash against the government will build anyway. The only thing that I can see mitigating it is if a full-scale lockdown comes in with a return of the furlough scheme as was.



Back to the money. I think we all agree here, but basing the figure on a simple £x/head is a nonsense. Not everybody is going to be affected by T3 in the same way, regions with a higher proportion of service economy workers and low-paid workers will be disproportionately affected.

£60m equates to about 24,000 people's minimum wage topped up from 2/3 to full (I've assumed the >25 minimum wage at 40 hours per week for 5 months). I wonder how that number compares to the actual number of people who will be affected in Manchester - the place that is absolutely fucking teeming with restaurants, bars, cafes, gyms, etc etc etc (and that's before you consider that high-street shops live or die by how well they do at Christmas with this year looking especially bleak).


I think Pete's figues are based on last night's newsnight (skip to 8:22).

Nobody here seems prepared to recognise the fact that a week's delay to restrictions when the problem is growing exponentially necessarily means a higher body count (and more people with long COVID).

This argument would have some/more force if the Tier 3 measures were something other than toothless handwaving.
Is it just me that thinks they amount to more pain for no gain and an exercise in appearing to do something whilst we wait for things to get so shit that a full lockdown becomes politically unavoidable?
There's so many exceptions, loopholes and perverse incentives that in many case the measure will likely increase transmission. E.g. from our small perspective, more climbers choosing to climb indoors because they can't travel to outdoor venues.

Tier 3 doesn't involve travel restrictions for outdoor exercise, but it does involve shutting gyms etc. I agree that Tier 3 doesn't appear to be enough, but it will bring the R rate down somewhat (as per the SAGE document, shutting gyms gives you something like a 0.2 reduction in R, hospitality is something similar).

[tomtom]

But its not shutting Gyms any more Will.... Not in Lancs or GM - and its now been rowed back in Liverpool.

Flipflopflipflop

(edit - more happening below)
And there is more - Pete, brace yourself its based on tweets... but:

Gym rules for S.Yorks (seem subtly different)

Gym classes will not be allowed and social distancing guidelines should be followed between people from different households (but gyms will remain open).

All kicking off in meeting with Health Minister & S.Yorks MPs on restrictions. First told constituents can’t go on holiday in UK, but can go abroad - then changed their minds & said you can’t leave your area, now decided they’ll get back to us on it?! Why hasn’t this been sorted?

https://twitter.com/SarahChampionMP/status/1318860458959536128?s=20

[Will Hunt]

I can only assume that the government have appointed one Mr Fiend to sit on SAGE as their SWOLE IS THE GOAL, SIZE IS THE PRIZE Tsar.

[tomtom]

I can only assume that the government have appointed one Mr Fiend to sit on SAGE as their SWOLE IS THE GOAL, SIZE IS THE PRIZE Tsar.

Only if he marries Dido Harding.

[galpinos]

Pete, I actually have sympathy with your argument but maybe your, "I am right, you're all useless" rhetoric leaves other posters less sympathetic.......

What I'm baffled by is if there was a formula, why did the government even enter into "negotiations"? What was there to negotiate? Why give Andy Burnham the platform to become "King of the North"?

Also, now we know they have a formula which doesn't take anything into account anything apart from population, how come there is no criticism for this?

[TobyD]

Nobody here seems prepared to recognise the fact that a week's delay to restrictions when the problem is growing exponentially necessarily means a higher body count (and more people with long COVID).

This argument would have some/more force if the Tier 3 measures were something other than toothless handwaving.
Is it just me that thinks they amount to more pain for no gain and an exercise in appearing to do something whilst we wait for things to get so shit that a full lockdown becomes politically unavoidable?
There's so many exceptions, loopholes and perverse incentives that in many case the measure will likely increase transmission. E.g. from our small perspective, more climbers choosing to climb indoors because they can't travel to outdoor venues.

The whole system of tiered restrictions and the associated financial package is a total joke. A cafe or bar in tier 2 is never going to turn down business from people who obviously are from different households. Also, apart from getting the business, in tier 2 you get no assistance for the business reduced from people who are playing by the rules, and you have an incentive to be in tier 3 where you do get help, and therefore are effectively being incentivized financially by the government to spread coranovirus. I'm not saying that anyone actually thinks like this, or at least I really hope not, but if you have a business doing badly, at the moment, the harder the restrictions the longer you last out.

I think that national lockdown is now almost impossible, politically, for Johnson since Starmer called for it, the longer he leaves it, the worse it would look. He probably wants to force the decisions onto local leaders as much as possible, so at least    he can claim he didn't really do it.

I noticed the tweet (quoted in the Guardian i think) from the young conservative association in manchester last night calling for Johnson to go.

[Johnny Brown]

What I'm baffled by is if there was a formula, why did the government even enter into "negotiations"? What was there to negotiate? Why give Andy Burnham the platform to become "King of the North"?

From Twitter:

Sheffield MP (and former council leader) Clive Betts tells me the South Yorkshire Tier 3 deal was:

-Take it or leave it.
-There was no choice.
-This is absolutely not enough.
-More help is needed to support people isolating and businesses affected but not closed.

It's pretty clear Burnham is getting respect because he stood up to them. As Nigel points out, they've had no problem finding money for other Covid projects. Whatever happened to the 'moonshot' btw?

[petejh]

Pete, I actually have sympathy with your argument but maybe your, "I am right, you're all useless" rhetoric leaves other posters less sympathetic.......

....

Also, now we know they have a formula which doesn't take anything into account anything apart from population, how come there is no criticism for this?

I suppose the rhetoric comes from being appalled at people's lack of objectivity around figures and facts as soon as things become political. Basically comes across to me as people bullshitting, which I hate. It drives me mad. Sorry.

I do think there's plenty of criticism of the per-head formula. It's all the many people saying 'the funding isn't enough and should be 80% furlough' etc. Which I completely agree with. I wouldn't be that surprised to see mass public disobedience of the rules this winter if things worsened to a point and the gov didn't alter it's support offer. It appears we're very close to being back where we were in March discussing the dilemma between economic damage versus damage to health, except now the public know more about the risks and it feels far harder to accept economic ruin. Plus large numbers of the public have now had a crash course in various monetary policies and are beginning to glimpse behind the curtain to see there's nothing there to be scared of - we can print our way through for now. That raises prospects governments are wary of obvs..   

[Johnny Brown]

I wouldn't be that surprised to see mass public disobedience of the rules this winter

I'm afraid that is already on the cards. Boris lost the moral authority with that pathetic statement from Cummings in the Rose garden, and nothing he has done since has helped regain it. The latest restrictions lack clarity or logic and will be generally disregarded.

[petejh]

I'm afraid that is already on the cards. Boris lost the moral authority with that pathetic statement from Cummings in the Rose garden, and nothing he has done since has helped regain it. The latest restrictions lack clarity or logic and will be generally disregarded.

Yes, I mean businesses refusing to close, whole neighborhoods or cities becoming unpoliceable very quickly, at which point the gov would have a hard choice.. back down or try to enforce more strongly. Wouldn't be pretty in a country like the UK that doesn't normally go in for heavy-handed law enforcement.

[Nigel]

Yes, I mean businesses refusing to close, whole neighborhoods or cities becoming unpoliceable very quickly, at which point the gov would have a hard choice.. back down or try to enforce more strongly. Wouldn't be pretty in a country like the UK that doesn't normally go in for heavy-handed law enforcement.

Well if that comes to pass, probably around Christmas (but it'll be over by then right? As BJ suggested?), then to think a lot of it will, at root, be over 13.333333...% of wages of people on low incomes. Of course, Sunak has had "a good crisis" and hasn't put a foot wrong 

[Fiend]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-54628770 for pete to get his teeth into.

[ali k]

Pete you still haven’t indicated where or when these clear announcements about the financial settlements by the govt were made (i.e. if or how the £29/head figure was arrived at or how it’s tied to the restrictions).

I follow the news and parliament pretty closely and they passed me by. Even today at PMQs Johnson used a figure of £60m in relation to GM and nothing about a per head calculation.

[Johnny Brown]

I see Boris is taking the opportunity to mention all the other funding they've provided.

One of these funding lots, announced back in July I think, was one-off grants of ~£3000 to help small businesses to adapt to working in a covid secure manner. I think South Yorkshire was promised ~£1million total. I have been trying to access one of these grants since they were announced and as of Monday the local entity tasked with distributing them still has no idea when the money will arrive or even when they will be able to open for applications. It is pathetic.

Meanwhile, anyone who registered their second home/ holiday let in Gwynedd as a business to avoid paying the 50% premium on council tax has been given £10,000.

[petejh]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-54628770 for pete to get his teeth into.

It's already been done to death Fiend.

22m test, track & enforcement + 60m business relief = 82m total.
= same per head as all other tier 3s (£28 per head).

Burnham originally wanted 90m + 22m = 112m total. Would have been massively more than other tier 3 regions were being given.
Then he wanted 65m + 22m = 87m total. Would still have been more than the other tier 3 regions.
Gov spat their dummy, Burnham threw his teddy. 

The rest is history.

Ali, nothing in the figures above isn't easily available to you or anyone else, just DYOR.

[Fiend]

I just posted that because it was the latest news that the 60m part had gone through.

[ali k]

Ali, nothing in the figures above isn't easily available to you or anyone else, just DYOR.

I get that the information is out there to find. I just don’t understand why you were getting angry with people discussing the most widely used figures on here or blaming ‘the media’ for obfuscation by using figures that were briefed to them by errrm the govt.

And if the govt originally offered £50m to GM that’s less than £29/head so how does that work in terms of being equitable? Or is it just fun to introduce a bit of haggling for shits and giggles?

[Paul B]

https://twitter.com/AndyBurnhamGM/status/1318793797019500546?s=19

Apologies for the link and run but I'm currently parked somewhere on the UK's motorway system.

I think that gives context to the figures. £90M being the 80% furlough equivalent.

[tomtom]

Interestingly my employer (in a T1 area) is due to announce tomorrow that any staff or students coming to campus from a T3 area should quarantine first for ten days.

[chris j]

It appears we're very close to being back where we were in March discussing the dilemma between economic damage versus damage to health,   

On this, I have to ask what the collective view is on the Welsh firebreak given the Assembly's own figures predict it will result in only 750 fewer deaths between now and March.

[lagerstarfish]

Interestingly my employer (in a T1 area) is due to announce tomorrow that any staff or students coming to campus from a T3 area should quarantine first for ten days.

It will be less than 10 days before your employer finds their area to be a T3 (probably)

[Nigel]

It appears we're very close to being back where we were in March discussing the dilemma between economic damage versus damage to health,   

On this, I have to ask what the collective view is on the Welsh firebreak given the Assembly's own figures predict it will result in only 750 fewer deaths between now and March.

By referencing the 750 as "the Assembly's own figures" is it from the Firebreak evidence doc here - https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2020-10/technical-advisory-group-fire-breaks_2.pdf ?

If so below is the relevant data table (copy pasted as text):

                                                     Modelled estimate of deaths                   
                                           No Change        2 weeks          3 weeks
12 October - 31 Dec               2,500               1,540               1,200
12 October - 31 March            4,890               4,140               3,770

So inspired by this thread's thirst for clarity on figures (!), some reflections on that data:

+ You are correct that the projection for a single 2 week firebreak now, then "as you were" until March, is 750 fewer deaths (4890 - 4140)
+ It is also evident that a single firebreak now, then back to previous regime until new year is projected to result in 960 fewer deaths (2500 - 1540)
+ The Welsh CMO has stated that it is probable they will have multiple of these firebreaks between now and next spring
+ If that is the case then the 750 figure will be an underestimate, and a more likely figure would be more or less additive to the 960 (i.e. 960 +++) if a subsequent firebreak was timed correctly.

I realise that this does nothing to answer the thrust of you question! But it may help inform.

[tomtom]

Lockdowns, total and fire break are so far the only measure that has been shown to work wherever it has been applied (TTI maybe - but has to be on a small number else overwhelmed).

Some smaller nations - notably NZ and Ireland locked down fast and early - because their health service didn’t have the capacity. Back in March I read a bit about this - and England, Germany, Italy, France have large fairly well resourced and organised health systems - so could ‘afford’ (in terms of patient numbers) to try lesser measures abs see what happened until numbers got too high. Took longer for the system to get to capacity in other words.

I suspect that’s what will lead to full lockdown here in England - when we get to this point. 

[chris j]

@Nigel Yes those are the numbers, though I just cribbed them off the BBC or Guardian (I forget which).

[chris j]

I don't have any good answers. I was surprised at the low number of lives predicted not to be lost as a result of the firebreak, I'd expected the estimate to be well into the thousands to justify shutting down a country! Playing devil's advocate, it's hard not to think given the political will you could reduce deaths elsewhere in society by 750 for a much lower cost.

By coincidence this popped up in my linkedin feed 5 minutes ago

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/09/k-overlooked-variable-driving-pandemic/616548/

It's a long read but concentrates mostly on the super-spreader clustering nature of spread of the virus. It looks at the different strategies, especially the likes of Japan (where lockdown was apparently legally not an option), and suggests that the UK in general has an ineffective testing strategy with the worst of all worlds in terms of restrictions (both harsh and ineffective).