We just had one in Aberdeen (I'm in Aberdeenshire).
In general, all "hospitality" was closed again, all non-essential services / shops closed again (climbing wall etc had not yet reopened anyway).
No non-essential travel into or out of the city was allowed, but everything outside of it was the same. We could go round the city on the bypass, but technically not got straight through.
We just had one in Aberdeen (I'm in Aberdeenshire).
In general, all "hospitality" was closed again, all non-essential services / shops closed again (climbing wall etc had not yet reopened anyway).
No non-essential travel into or out of the city was allowed, but everything outside of it was the same. We could go round the city on the bypass, but technically not got straight through.
My interpretation of the rules in England were that local lockdowns didn't impact travel for residents, but only the services etc. I may be wrong though.
I live in Ilkley, which was in the Bradford local lockdown, and did not notice any difference - streets and cafes thronged with people. I didn't try to visit any houses of friends / family, so it had no discernable effect on my life.
Main thing for us is having access to somewhere to exercise that’s not running through the city centre. We’re really close to city bloc so that should cover us for most things.
Main thing for us is having access to somewhere to exercise that’s not running through the city centre. We’re really close to city bloc so that should cover us for most things.
Assuming it doesn't get closed.
Let's be honest, if there were zero COVID cases in Liverpool then this bunch of Tory tw@s would still be looking for an excuse to shut the city down. COVID gives them the excuse.Economically, depending on the details of the financial schemes Tier 3 might be better than Tier 2. Around L22/23 where I am most places are relatively really quiet now and quite a few places already shut (mostly temporarily) when the current set of restrictions came in. There just aren't enough customers once people can't meet up with someone outside their household. Especially because if you are in a household, going out for dinner seems a silly idea when your area has 400+ cases per 100k* Covid that week. So forcing places to shut for a while and compensating them is probably better than the status quo.
It’s got nothing to do with the torys hating Liverpool. Comments like that perpetuate the wingeing we are so badly done to scousers stereotype.
It’s due to the fact that the numbers are high and getting higher quickly.
They are high in the north east as well but compared to Liverpool manchester and others we look good.
Anyone know where to find if your area is medium, high or very high risk?
What I find frustrating is if we need to lockdown, why the wait? The traffic light system was "pre-announced" last week, will be announced today and will be implemented Wednesday at the earliest?
Will, the Tories have underfunded Liverpool for decades, ever since the 'managed decline' of the 80's. The hatred runs deep around here.
I take the point, Nick, Tom, but the alternative would be that they make a snap announcement and are accused of lack of consultation.
(What Chris said)
In a similar vein there was a news story that popped up on my social media today about the value £1bn worth of contracts awarded without tender. The alternative is a tender process that delays the start date and might mean you end up working with someone new - not necessarily a bad thing but I can understand the desire to work with existing partners who you already have a relationship with if time is of the essence.
In a similar vein there was a news story that popped up on my social media today about the value £1bn worth of contracts awarded without tender. The alternative is a tender process that delays the start date and might mean you end up working with someone new - not necessarily a bad thing but I can understand the desire towork with existing partners who you already have a relationship with if time is of the essence.use the laws allowing you to act quickly to send hundreds of millions in the direction of your friend's companies knowing they wouldn't win a tendering process because they're an asset management company based in Bermuda or a veterinary supplies company with no stock.
Anyone know where to find if your area is medium, high or very high risk?
As far as I can see this is still in the ‘pre announced’ stage as Galpinos said, looks like it will be announced this evening.
Anyone know where to find if your area is medium, high or very high risk?As teestub said because it's not been officially announced there's no current way to check official tier.
Really worried about Sheffield being judged high risk and the walls closing. Think that might kill me at the minute.
This. ^^^
This is a right dogs dinner of a pre announcement. Even by this governments dealings its a fucking shambles.
...
In theory - the three tiers/traffic lights - whatever is a good idea - simplifying things. WELL DONE (NZ did this 6 months ago BTW...). But how its being brought in is a shit show of bad information/message management at the moment.
What I find frustrating is if we need to lockdown, why the wait? The traffic light system was "pre-announced" last week, will be announced today and will be implemented Wednesday at the earliest?
From what I've been reading over the weekend (in such reliable sources as the Guardian), it's because they've spent the last week negotiating with the local authorities to not have them respond with open revolt...
there was a news story that popped up on my social media today about the value £1bn worth of contracts awarded without tender. The alternative is a tender process that delays the start date and might mean you end up working with someone new - not necessarily a bad thing but I can understand the desire to work with existing partners who you already have a relationship with if time is of the essence.This defence of what’s been happening might wash if the contracts had been awarded to companies with even the vaguest experience of the relevant service, or if there wasn’t a long list of contracts going to Cummings/Gove’s pals.
They are high in the north east as well but compared to Liverpool manchester and others we look good.
In a similar vein there was a news story that popped up on my social media today about the value £1bn worth of contracts awarded without tender. The alternative is a tender process that delays the start date and might mean you end up working with someone new - not necessarily a bad thing but I can understand the desire to work with existing partners who you already have a relationship with if time is of the essence.
I would still like to think that having a proper stockpile and using trusted domestic producers would have been preferable!
In theory - the three tiers/traffic lights - whatever is a good idea - simplifying things. WELL DONE (NZ did this 6 months ago BTW...). But how its being brought in is a shit show of bad information/message management at the moment.
there was a news story that popped up on my social media today about the value £1bn worth of contracts awarded without tender. The alternative is a tender process that delays the start date and might mean you end up working with someone new - not necessarily a bad thing but I can understand the desire to work with existing partners who you already have a relationship with if time is of the essence.This defence of what’s been happening might wash if the contracts had been awarded to companies with even the vaguest experience of the relevant service, or if there wasn’t a long list of contracts going to Cummings/Gove’s pals.
As far as I can tell a significant portion of confusion has arisen because local council leaders/mayors have leaked information in a bid to get their own local restrictions relaxed.
In a similar vein there was a news story that popped up on my social media today about the value £1bn worth of contracts awarded without tender. The alternative is a tender process that delays the start date and might mean you end up working with someone new - not necessarily a bad thing but I can understand the desire to work with existing partners who you already have a relationship with if time is of the essence.
I guess the above take does have the virtue of common sense Will. Unfortunately what you described didn't actually happen.
£252 million contract awarded to Ayanda Capital - https://www.ayandacapital.com/. As you can see they are by their own description a currency trading, offshore property, personal equity and trade financing company. They are owned via a Mauritius company, which is a zero tax haven They were not "existing partners" with whom the DHSC / NHS "already have a relationship". They don't make PPE, they have never previously supplied PPE, they don't have a logistics operation, and have no connection to the medical sector. Via a roundabout route involving a member of the UK Board of Trade they had a promise to secure the full production of a Chinese PPE factory, which they did on a very favourable contract (to them) which appeared to involve no samples or any time stipulation / penalties. Half the masks provided were deemed unsuitable by the NHS due to the fastening, but may be useable in a non-medical setting. Which of course is not why they were bought.
There are other well known examples (Clandboyne Agencies, Pestfix, Luxe Lifestyle, etc.). What happened is that there was a rush by government to secure companies with strong contacts in China that could make sure that Chinese-made PPE would come to Britain in an environment described by one company director involved as "like the Wild West". All of this is well documented.
It may well be right to say that we were pushed for time and in a PPE crisis so that leveraging mates with the ability to open doors in China was justified, but lets at least recognise that was what happened to anywhere between £1bn and £5.5bn of taxpayer's money, rather than upping orders with existing NHS suppliers in the UK. Legal action is ongoing so the answers will come out in the fullness of time. I would still like to think that having a proper stockpile and using trusted domestic producers would have been preferable!
But it shouldn't be a snap announcement. They should be in constant conversation with local government, leaders and public health officials. There should be a clear "roadmap" as to what would trigger further restrictions so everyone knows what is going on. The "snap decision" scenario we are now in is because the government has been working in isolation, not listening to local leaders and making decisions off the cuff.
My real issue is that the government have burnt through the goodwill from the first lockdown. A lot was sacrificed to get the numbers down for the summer an, in simple terms, we've fucked it and are back to where we were at the start of the year. The public's appetite to lockdown again, only for the government to squander the gains is probably minimal.
There also doesn't seem to be any enforcement..
No idea about the other companies you mention, but Pestfix have been one of my suppliers for 3 or 4 years and I occasionally chat to their sales manager. I had an interesting conversation with them about the PPE contract.. sounded very much a case of small company done well due to their contacts in China.. no supporters of the government etc...
i.e. a very different version to what you read on here or in the press. Suppose we'll see what facts emerge down the line.
Eh? Unless you've been orbiting Pluto for the last 6 months then I'm pretty sure you don't need a constant conversation to know what's 'going on' and where cases numbers have been heading... first downwards as a result of national lockdown, now decidedly upwards. I don't get people criticising the lead-in time for consultation before this latest rule change as they're the same people who'd criticise a change of rules brought in 'without consultation'. The Mayor's of Liverpool and Manchester criticising the government's handling is hardly enlightening or evidence of anything - see Andy F's sentiment. Just wait for the announcement this afternoon FFS.
My real issue is that the government have burnt through the goodwill from the first lockdown. A lot was sacrificed to get the numbers down for the summer an, in simple terms, we've fucked it and are back to where we were at the start of the year. The public's appetite to lockdown again, only for the government to squander the gains is probably minimal.
On this I agree. I think if you could layer society into strata based on 'willingness to obey the covid rules' then the government has lost many layers of the public who were compliant during March lockdown. I'm in Conwy, supposedly the whole county is in lockdown yet people don't seem to give a shit about leaving and coming in to the county to go climbing or whatever else. I've been obeying the rules but it seems futile when so many are ignoring them. I suppose/hope the policies are based on knowing a certain proportion will ignore the rules. There also doesn't seem to be any enforcement..
Eh? Unless you've been orbiting Pluto for the last 6 months then I'm pretty sure you don't need a constant conversation to know what's 'going on' and where cases numbers have been heading... first downwards as a result of national lockdown, now decidedly upwards. I don't get people criticising the lead-in time for consultation before this latest rule change as they're the same people who'd criticise a change of rules brought in 'without consultation'.
The Mayor's of Liverpool and Manchester criticising the government's handling is hardly enlightening or evidence of anything - see Andy F's sentiment. Just wait for the announcement this afternoon FFS.
One good thing to take from this is the low increase in 0-15yo's...
One good thing to take from this is the low increase in 0-15yo's...
It would appear that the schools are doing a good job and the kids going back hasn’t been a big issue.
It's worth noting there are more patients in hospital with Covid than there were when we went into the last, national lockdown.
The statement doesn't seem to clarify "with Covid" or "because of Covid", nor compare ICU stats, but it is a worrying statistic.
It definitely appears to have a relation to indoor socialisation either in bars or houses. We have had a couple of cases at work but not a lot.
My lads school had a few issues at first but dropped off now with a few weeks of no cases.
Is there anywhere in the UK where the enhanced but short of total lockdown special measures have resulted in a sustained drop in case numbers? Aberdeen is down I think but that was more or less a complete lockdown wasn't it?
Luton and Leicester were used by Hancock as examples of local measures working (at the same time he suggested it was poor adherence elsewhere that was the main issue - this didn't seem to go down too well).
Is there anywhere in the UK where the enhanced but short of total lockdown special measures have resulted in a sustained drop in case numbers? Aberdeen is down I think but that was more or less a complete lockdown wasn't it?
Luton and Leicester were used by Hancock as examples of local measures working (at the same time he suggested it was poor adherence elsewhere that was the main issue - this didn't seem to go down too well).
Is there anywhere in the UK where the enhanced but short of total lockdown special measures have resulted in a sustained drop in case numbers? Aberdeen is down I think but that was more or less a complete lockdown wasn't it?
Luton and Leicester were used by Hancock as examples of local measures working (at the same time he suggested it was poor adherence elsewhere that was the main issue - this didn't seem to go down too well).
If as expected, Liverpool gets nailed with a load of restrictions this evening I really feel for them as it was horrible in Leicester when it started; a real feeling of being cut adrift from everyone else as they went to the pub in the sun. Obviously the national picture is a lot worse now but I'm sure it will still sting. Hopefully there will be proper support in place for businesses forced to close, because in Leicester there was fuck all.
There also doesn't seem to be any enforcement..Yes - this is an important/interesting point. UK has always been proud of policing by consent... maybe some of this needs to go now
Just learnt Greater Manchester will be placed into tier 2 restrictions via twitter. Apparently there was a government briefing for GM MPs but I can’t provide details because I wasn’t invited. I suspect this is because they don’t know where Wigan is. What an absolute shambles
Luton and Leicester were used by Hancock as examples of local measures working (at the same time he suggested it was poor adherence elsewhere that was the main issue - this didn't seem to go down too well).
This piece on the BBC seems to suggest it's only the stricter lockdown period that had any sustained effect in Leicester and the various graphs tbh make me think any lesser efforts are pissing in the wind. Belgium's numbers certainly suggested their rule of 5 had little effect. Which begs what the endgame is - bounce in and out of lockdown until a vaccine arrives? total lockdown until cases are low enough and beg Germany to run our T&T system? What's the collateral damage to society going to be for probably decades to come in any outcome? Who outside nurses, teachers and supermarket delivery drivers will have steady job at the end of it? I genuinely don't know what to think...
Edit - forgot the link
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54239538
Why not traffic light colours? That’s pretty clear right?I think that not having traffic light colours is probably because they didn't want the default national level to be green = ok. From what I've read, tier 1 is 'medium risk', so extrapolate from that that tier 2 is 'high' and tier 3 'very high' - for a traffic light this would be amber, red, :shrug:? Same way as the the NHS Covid-19 app doesn't have an area risk level below medium in England (though it doesn't have a very high either).
Why not traffic light colours? That’s pretty clear right?I think that not having traffic light colours is probably because they didn't want the default national level to be green = ok. From what I've read, tier 1 is 'medium risk', so extrapolate from that that tier 2 is 'high' and tier 3 'very high' - for a traffic light this would be amber, red, :shrug:? Same way as the the NHS Covid-19 app doesn't have an area risk level below medium in England (though it doesn't have a very high either).
Show me anything that the number reduces as the risk goes up.
Show me anything that the number reduces as the risk goes up.
DEFCON levels...
Tier 2 = current measures in Merseyside, Warrington and North East. IE like GM but also no socialising with non household members indoors (pubs etc, but will probably also have some effect on walls.)In walls it will be totally absurd - you'll be allowed to go to the wall and climb on the board taking turns with your mate, but only if you don't talk to them too much. Should shut the fuckers up about me kneebaring or toe hooking on the School board at least :tease:
Last week the Hangar put up a post saying they could no longer accept groups of mixed households coming in because of the rules that are now Tier 2 - but I don't know if or how they were enforcing it once inside.Show me anything that the number reduces as the risk goes up.
DEFCON levels...
Oh come on Will, it's not like that's probably the most famous alert system in the world or anything :lol:
But yes, I also think it will be pretty easy to understandTier 2 = current measures in Merseyside, Warrington and North East. IE like GM but also no socialising with non household members indoors (pubs etc, but will probably also have some effect on walls.)In walls it will be totally absurd - you'll be allowed to go to the wall and climb on the board taking turns with your mate, but only if you don't talk to them too much. Should shut the fuckers up about me kneebaring or toe hooking on the School board at least :tease:
Why not traffic light colours? That’s pretty clear right?I think that not having traffic light colours is probably because they didn't want the default national level to be green = ok. From what I've read, tier 1 is 'medium risk', so extrapolate from that that tier 2 is 'high' and tier 3 'very high' - for a traffic light this would be amber, red, :shrug:? Same way as the the NHS Covid-19 app doesn't have an area risk level below medium in England (though it doesn't have a very high either).
Thankyou.
Also I don’t think tier 3 will be the top. What happens if more controls are added. Green amber red and purple???
Should shut the fuckers up about me kneebaring or toe hooking on the School board at least :tease:
So places like Leeds and Manchester with lockdowns already, move straight into High (tier 2), as that's pretty much what they're doing now anyway.
I predict an increase in scouse accents at the Beacon after Wednesday if the Welsh government don't lockdown Gwynedd...
That's the absurdity of different rules between England and Wales/Scotland, as if the virus gives a shit about which country it spreads in.
I think we're going into Tier 2. I'm really confused as to which way round the tiers are? Are we in the middle or the centre?
There'll be tiers before bedtime.
Suspect the thinking is to keep back the 2-week ‘circuit breaker’ for use later. Don’t want to be seen by the public to have exhausted all options at the beginning of what will be seen to be a long autumn/winter.
This might be of interest (possibly should be in the main CV19 thread)
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/925856/S0770_NPIs_table__pivot_.pdf
Sage notes/analysis of the impact of different lockdown/mitigation measures. Gives the estimate impact on the R values. Notably, complete lockdown most effective by a long way with total lockdown doing the mostand the Circuit Breaker (2 weeks) setting the virus progression back by 28 days. Next, closing HE and Schools reduces R by 0.2-0.5 respectively (not together). Then various other measures including hospitality closure...
Quite clear from this why SAGE and CWiddy were pushing for the circuit breaker.
Suspect the thinking is to keep back the 2-week ‘circuit breaker’ for use later. Don’t want to be seen by the public to have exhausted all options at the beginning of what will be seen to be a long autumn/winter.
I think they have to have been seen to have tried, and failed, before they reach for the big guns.
Unfortunately, that’s probably correct, since (complaints about the government’s handling so far, not withstanding) because the Great British Public, include a good number of, what’s the word? Ah, yes... Wankers.
Suspect the thinking is to keep back the 2-week ‘circuit breaker’ for use later. Don’t want to be seen by the public to have exhausted all options at the beginning of what will be seen to be a long autumn/winter.
I think they have to have been seen to have tried, and failed, before they reach for the big guns.
They strongly advised it 3 weeks ago didn't they? But good old BJ just wanted a good while to argue with his party, and flit about fucking up Brexit, trying to install Charles Moore at the BBC, trying to take down the civil service etc. It's not like he could ever do one thing competently, let alone ten.
This might be of interest (possibly should be in the main CV19 thread)
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/925856/S0770_NPIs_table__pivot_.pdf
Sage notes/analysis of the impact of different lockdown/mitigation measures. Gives the estimate impact on the R values. Notably, complete lockdown most effective by a long way with total lockdown doing the mostand the Circuit Breaker (2 weeks) setting the virus progression back by 28 days. Next, closing HE and Schools reduces R by 0.2-0.5 respectively (not together). Then various other measures including hospitality closure...
Quite clear from this why SAGE and CWiddy were pushing for the circuit breaker.
The gov have an impossible balancing act to perform and are bound to fail.
. ...And also really invest to get it working properly. And provide proper support for this period to employees and businesses.
The loss of international visitors can't hurt the economy that much at this stage, surely, and if life could return to some normality in the medium term I'm sure that the UK public could prop everything up for quite sometime.
Surely it would be great for Boris to give everyone a low-risk Christmas and start 2021, and Brexit, in as normal way as possible...
I predict an increase in scouse accents at the Beacon after Wednesday if the Welsh government don't lockdown Gwynedd...
That's the absurdity of different rules between England and Wales/Scotland, as if the virus gives a shit about which country it spreads in.
Nah, we'll all be at the Depot or Boulder UK...
We were at low numbers and TTI didn't work, why do you think it would now?
Also, we're near the worst in Europe so importing some negative cases might help dilute the UK! https://www.statista.com/statistics/1139048/coronavirus-case-rates-in-the-past-7-days-in-europe-by-country/
We came to Germany at the start of Sept and both UK and Germany were on 11 per 100k in last 7 days.. both have gone up, but one to about 30 and the other to 180! don't know what Germany does that the UK is shit at..
Postcode checker for Tiers from the beeb (the govt are meant to be doing this at some point I think) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54373904
Are the areas based on council local authorities? I get a bit confused as ours has the same name for several things. Some of the areas stretch further than you might expect, Otley is in the ‘Leeds’ area for example.
It's not really a slackening in GM though? I know you can now have people to visit in your garden. But all social mixing indoors is now banned, whereas previously this was only the case in Merseyside and the NE. In Manchester the mixing ban was in private dwellings - you could meet up with friends in a pub, restaurant (or leisure venue like a climbing wall) as long as there were fewer than six of you and the venue was "Covid secure". Now you can't.
Edit to add, I highlight this because it was the measure that felt like it made the most difference and was most onerous when it came in here a fortnight ago. When the weather is bad it makes any form of socialising impossible.
We were at low numbers and TTI didn't work, why do you think it would now?
Also, we're near the worst in Europe so importing some negative cases might help dilute the UK! https://www.statista.com/statistics/1139048/coronavirus-case-rates-in-the-past-7-days-in-europe-by-country/
We came to Germany at the start of Sept and both UK and Germany were on 11 per 100k in last 7 days.. both have gone up, but one to about 30 and the other to 180! don't know what Germany does that the UK is shit at..
I think if you invested in T&T more, made it more localised, put money aside to ensure those isolating didn't lose out through work etc it might have a better outcome than it currently seems to be having.
I don't know how much difference it makes, but on the whole german rules are run by the individual states. Perhaps these work better than rules being imposed by central government and there's better adherance? Better messaging too, perhaps?
We're out in Germany now and each state is quite different.For example we're out of quarantine in Saxony having tested negative last week. However (most) other states won't allow us to visit unless we re-enter quarantine (as it's <14 days since we arrived from the UK) and take another test in their state, or if we were tested in a different state, but it has to be within the 48 hours prior to arrival.Organising all this is also a massive pain (we weren't allowed to leave quarantine for 4 days after testing negative as we had so much back-and-forth getting the correct evidence to the state government).
If you visit Berlin (or other high-risk areas in Germany) you're also not allowed to stay in any hotels, airbnb etc for 14 days throughout the rest of the country. This was imposed last week as a reaction to the increasing cases. This rule is imposed when cases are >50 per 100,000 in an area whereas we didn't make changes until things were much worse. And people can still travel and stay in accommodation under our highest Tier - they just might not be able to go into a pub.
We're not in a high-risk area now so I'm unsure how different it is, but I think they have been stricter earlier then the UK in risk areas too (e.g. Berlin and bars closing/time changing).
In general, adherence is much better in terms of mask use compared to the UK (from what I've seen) and there's a lot more outside drinking/dining in the city squares than the UK, even when it's cold out.
I think they're dangling contract tracing as a carrot to Burnham.
If you visit Berlin (or other high-risk areas in Germany) you're also not allowed to stay in any hotels, airbnb etc for 14 days throughout the rest of the country. This was imposed last week as a reaction to the increasing cases. This rule is imposed when cases are >50 per 100,000 in an area whereas we didn't make changes until things were much worse. And people can still travel and stay in accommodation under our highest Tier - they just might not be able to go into a pub.
Yes - as I posted earlier. This is really bad IMHO... like holding back medicine or treatment..
As this thing drags ever on I get more and more of the mindset that I’m going to do what I deem low risk if the law doesn’t strictly prohibit it and possibly where it does if I personally risk assess it to be fine and I know I can get away with it.I'm hearing this from a lot of friends and family.
Does anyone know where to look at case data plotted over time for the area to see whether cases have remained level or gone up/down with these restrictions?
Okay so this is me thinking aloud and playing devil’s advocate to an extent, but I’m voicing it because I’m interested to hear if other people are drifting in the same direction. A direction which is very worrying if extrapolated across the whole population as not everyone has the rarified levels of good judgment routinely displayed by the average UKB poster.
As this thing drags ever on I get more and more of the mindset that I’m going to do what I deem low risk if the law doesn’t strictly prohibit it and possibly where it does if I personally risk assess it to be fine and I know I can get away with it.
This grows out of a feeling that if I’d mindlessly followed the guidance about what is safe I’d probably have caught COVID by now and it’s my own hypervigilance that has kept me virus free so far not the blunt instrument of politically/economically driven ever changing rules. I know how to keep myself virus free as far as practically possible and quality of life considerations dictate I trust my own judgement. During lockdown there was a strong argument that you had to go along with nonsensical measures in the name of social cohesion and unity of purpose, but at this stage it feels like this has largely gone to rat shit and middle class dads sticking rigidly to the rules is not going to save the world after all.
In short I didn’t ‘eat out to help out’ but I might go on my remote and isolated holiday in Scotland if it’s not strictly illegal.
Going into stricter lockdowns through winter.. I'd find it completely unacceptable if outdoor leisure in the hills and mountains was actively discouraged, when it's proven to be such a low risk way to rejuvenate and so many other leisure activities were banned. If the BMC were to end up in the position again of advising against people spending time recreating in the outdoors due to lockdown rules - either local or national - then IMO their advice should be resolutely defied, their whole management voted out at the earliest opportunity, and the organisation ridiculed for being more concerned with obtaining government funding then promoting the healthy interests of its members.
Indoor climbing I'd view in the same bracket as going for drink indoors at an averagely busy pub, so I think that if pubs in higher risk areas are going to close then unfortunately walls and gyms probably should too.
Another +1 here for broadly agreeing with Bonjoy
I don't agree with the idea of a national circuit breaker right now as there are plenty of areas with lower case numbers where businesses could remain open - why shut?
Another +1 here for broadly agreeing with Bonjoy
Yup. Same here. The 'in it all together' avoiding crags mentality has evaporated for me... Lone bouldering outside is ridiculously low risk...
I guess the only potential residual argument is not wanting to turn up at A&E with a broken wrist when the hospital is overburdened with Covid patients, but on a risk basis the chances of this still seem low.
Going into stricter lockdowns through winter.. I'd find it completely unacceptable if outdoor leisure in the hills and mountains was actively discouraged, when it's proven to be such a low risk way to rejuvenate and so many other leisure activities were banned.
Another +1 here for broadly agreeing with Bonjoy
Yup. Same here. The 'in it all together' avoiding crags mentality has evaporated for me... Lone bouldering outside is ridiculously low risk...
Okay so this is me thinking aloud and playing devil’s advocate to an extent, but I’m voicing it because I’m interested to hear if other people are drifting in the same direction. A direction which is very worrying if extrapolated across the whole population as not everyone has the rarified levels of good judgment routinely displayed by the average UKB poster.
As this thing drags ever on I get more and more of the mindset that I’m going to do what I deem low risk if the law doesn’t strictly prohibit it and possibly where it does if I personally risk assess it to be fine and I know I can get away with it.
This grows out of a feeling that if I’d mindlessly followed the guidance about what is safe I’d probably have caught COVID by now and it’s my own hypervigilance that has kept me virus free so far not the blunt instrument of politically/economically driven ever changing rules. I know how to keep myself virus free as far as practically possible and quality of life considerations dictate I trust my own judgement. During lockdown there was a strong argument that you had to go along with nonsensical measures in the name of social cohesion and unity of purpose, but at this stage it feels like this has largely gone to rat shit and middle class dads sticking rigidly to the rules is not going to save the world after all.
In short I didn’t ‘eat out to help out’ but I might go on my remote and isolated holiday in Scotland if it’s not strictly illegal.
The government needs to have the confidence to just say that some businesses and indeed industries will not survive a pandemic world. Travel is knackered, at least one more airline will go before Christmas I'd guess; I can't see theatres surviving and many if not all cinemas look like going the same way.
Everyone’s defiance is admirable but it might be worth remembering we know a lot more now than we did the first time round. It’s extremely unlikely outdoor exercise will be curtailed completely.
More likely is that you’ll have to ignore advice such as that in-place now for Tier 3 locations, such as travelling into or out of such locations.
The government needs to have the confidence to just say that some businesses and indeed industries will not survive a pandemic world. Travel is knackered, at least one more airline will go before Christmas I'd guess; I can't see theatres surviving and many if not all cinemas look like going the same way.
The government needs to have the confidence to just say that some businesses and indeed industries will not survive a pandemic world. Travel is knackered, at least one more airline will go before Christmas I'd guess; I can't see theatres surviving and many if not all cinemas look like going the same way.
I can't work out if you're saying that you don't think these industries are viable post-pandemic, or just that keeping them afloat through a pandemic (in which they're not viable) isn't a prudent use of money?
I don't really know the ins and outs of trying to keep things afloat vs letting them go bankrupt and then emerge from the ashes as those with capital buy up the assets (the latter sounds a bit wank and will exacerbate wealth disparity, but I guess is way cheaper for the gov)... but if you were saying the former then I disagree. Travel market will be a little smaller, but IMO there'll be plenty of both business and leisure travel coming back post-pandemic
I think the only thing which is likely to regain the consensus support for lockdown (given the existing agitations for light restrictions/personal choice/let it rip) is deaths, lots of them, at which point measures will have to be severe, broad brush and probably indiscriminate. And I think Boris is too weak and desperate to be loved to actually lead and outpace the consensus.
I'd largely defer to the economists on whether accepting mass unemployment is a wise idea, or whether it's better to borrow to attempt to mitigate it and avoid all the cascading impacts. No doubt they all disagree anyway. Clearly some things would be worth supporting for strategic reasons, in order to maintain expertise in certain areas.
I'd largely defer to the economists on whether accepting mass unemployment is a wise idea...
I always think of economists as ideologically driven mathematicians. They have a political view just like the rest of us, which explains why they band together in like minded think tanks, are funded by people who would benefit from their ideas, and are quoted by people who align with them politically because it lends a veneer of objectivity to their ideas, whatever their politics.
I'd largely defer to the economists on whether accepting mass unemployment is a wise idea, or whether it's better to borrow to attempt to mitigate it and avoid all the cascading impacts. No doubt they all disagree anyway. Clearly some things would be worth supporting for strategic reasons, in order to maintain expertise in certain areas.
I always think of economists as ideologically driven mathematicians. They have a political view just like the rest of us, which explains why they band together in like minded think tanks, are funded by people who would benefit from their ideas, and are quoted by people who align with them politically because it lends a veneer of objectivity to their ideas, whatever their politics.
I'd largely defer to the economists on whether accepting mass unemployment is a wise idea...
Its not a wise idea, it never has been, and it never will be in future, except in the scenario where we are either all hunter gatherers or have a UBI that covers all essential living costs and sufficient public services. Is that not self evident? Signed, a non-economist.
No doubt qualified economists will disagree, but I would check their allegiances first before quoting.
Is this not the same train of thought Trump and his ilk used to debunk everything he doesn’t agree with. Fucking scientists and there environmental doom and gloom etc.I'd largely defer to the economists on whether accepting mass unemployment is a wise idea, or whether it's better to borrow to attempt to mitigate it and avoid all the cascading impacts. No doubt they all disagree anyway. Clearly some things would be worth supporting for strategic reasons, in order to maintain expertise in certain areas.
I always think of economists as ideologically driven mathematicians. They have a political view just like the rest of us, which explains why they band together in like minded think tanks, are funded by people who would benefit from their ideas, and are quoted by people who align with them politically because it lends a veneer of objectivity to their ideas, whatever their politics.
If I remember my studies correctly unemployment being too low is considered a negative in some models/to some economists. Essentially if the rate goes below 5% (in the US?) then it can have negative effects on wage inflation and labour force productivity (pretty sure this is referred to as slack). I imagine that in the UK the rate is above this so its probably a none factor really
If the BMC were to end up in the position again of advising against people spending time recreating in the outdoors due to lockdown rules - either local or national - then IMO their advice should be resolutely defied, their whole management voted out at the earliest opportunity
Is this not the same train of thought Trump and his ilk used to debunk everything he doesn’t agree with. Fucking scientists and there environmental doom and gloom etc.
You could argue this if economics was a hard science, where you could make a hypothesis, run an experiment, collect data, write up, have it peer reviewed etc. But it isn’t.
You can see this easily with politically driven research in harder sciences such as tobacco company funded research into smoking, or oil company funded research into climate change, it always gets debunked when the data is open to scrutiny.
QuoteIf the BMC were to end up in the position again of advising against people spending time recreating in the outdoors due to lockdown rules - either local or national - then IMO their advice should be resolutely defied, their whole management voted out at the earliest opportunity
I've got a lot of sympathy with your position Pete but the BMC will continue to put more value on advice from actual legal experts on what is legal. And likewise you'll find the idea that you could vote them out for doing so would find surprisingly little support (though that's not to say you couldn't waste a lot of their time with such a campaign). If you feel your position is under-represented I'm sure the invite to the Covid committee would still be open.
Are we now getting into the hierarchy of scientists and which is more important.
At what point does a science become a "hard" science and which has most value.
Are we now getting into the hierarchy of scientists and which is more important.
At what point does a science become a "hard" science and which has most value.
Not at all, just pointing out that conflating Trumpesque climate change and biology denial with taking issues with economics is inaccurate. Covid doesn’t care who you vote for, nor does a rising sea level.
Economics, and particularly the economics of govt spending, fiscal policy, corporate bailouts etc. I’d inherently political in a way that biology isn’t. What the ‘right’ answer is to an economic argument will largely depend on your political starting point.
I’m not sure this is entirely true. If day you want to look at the impact of a fiscal stimulus on output - which is an extremely hard thing to do - then the techniques and data are what they are. They present certain technical challenges and I’m not entirely sure there is a right wing or left wing way of approaching those problems.
I was aiming my discussion more following Barrows saying that we should ‘defer to economists’ about the best way to spend money (or not) to solve the issues around Covid.Sorry, I probably didn't make my thoughts very clear - I wasn't suggesting that "we" (society) should necessarily do that, just that it's what I'd personally do because I feel too uneducated on the subject to have an opinion worth listening to.
If you take post 2010 austerity measures, a lot of economists thought they were a terrible idea and would lead to very low growth for years. Of course politicians, journalists and think tanks could find experts who said what they wanted to hearI guess this is the problem - I feel like it's easy to know what scientific consensus is on climate change, but I have much less awareness of what economic consensus is on job retention, state support, unemployment and their interplay in a crisis such as this. Nor do I know if there even is a consensus, and if there is then whether that's based on anything other then stick your finger in the air and guessing (unlike with most science, where if there's no consensus there'll at least probably be a consensus that the jury is still out).
No travel to wales from any UK hotspot.
Just announced but which areas are classed as hotspots isn’t mentioned.
It's all moot if everyone's in a two week circuit breaker starting at half term...
The government needs to have the confidence to just say that some businesses and indeed industries will not survive a pandemic world. Travel is knackered, at least one more airline will go before Christmas I'd guess; I can't see theatres surviving and many if not all cinemas look like going the same way.
That's the rhetoric of the fiscal Conservative, but it's tantamount to economic vandalism without funding in place to help these people. An extra 20 quid a week on universal credit is simply not going to cut it and is frankly insulting. What jobs are they supposed to go and get? Airily saying "they just won't survive" doesn't really suffice. 2/3 of minimum wage if you end up on the local furlough scheme is going to leave people going hungry.
The government not supporting the arts and the numerous other industries affected is a political decision. There is no reason debt built up can't be treated as wartime debt and paid off over many years. Even some conservatives are beginning to argue this, but Sunak is a slave to fiscal conservatism in the face of all the evidence (see his recent conference speech). This might belong in the old "how to pay for the crisis" thread.
Teestub saw the future by selling is NWB guidebook earlier in the week!
Very much UKB nomenclature and other 80s sites. Wasn’t something I had heated mentioned for years so I asked a group of 25 17/18 year olds last night and only two knew what it was. Ex boys brigade lads.
Teestub saw the future by selling is NWB guidebook earlier in the week!
You say that, but I think it’s still theoretically possible for me to drive from N Yorks to Gwynedd to go climbing! (Provided I don’t stop in any of the Covid wastelands I pass through!)
Dang. I was going to ask you for your October stock market picks 😀
Dang. I was going to ask you for your October stock market picks 😀
That’s Pete’s job! Buy Vit B3, Patio heaters and bog roll, sell popcorn and opera glasses.
The government needs to have the confidence to just say that some businesses and indeed industries will not survive a pandemic world. Travel is knackered, at least one more airline will go before Christmas I'd guess; I can't see theatres surviving and many if not all cinemas look like going the same way.
That's the rhetoric of the fiscal Conservative, but it's tantamount to economic vandalism without funding in place to help these people. An extra 20 quid a week on universal credit is simply not going to cut it and is frankly insulting. What jobs are they supposed to go and get? Airily saying "they just won't survive" doesn't really suffice. 2/3 of minimum wage if you end up on the local furlough scheme is going to leave people going hungry.
The government not supporting the arts and the numerous other industries affected is a political decision. There is no reason debt built up can't be treated as wartime debt and paid off over many years. Even some conservatives are beginning to argue this, but Sunak is a slave to fiscal conservatism in the face of all the evidence (see his recent conference speech). This might belong in the old "how to pay for the crisis" thread.
National debt is never repaid, and likely never will. At present, the cost of borrowing is basically nil, that said...there's an argument for not even borrowing the required money, but just creating it. The usual downside of money creation is inflation, but in the current climate inflation is highly, highly unlikely.
It really is the time for UBI to be properly explored. If peoples basic needs were covered, then businesses could effectively lie dormant until demand picked up. (as long as rates, rents, and interest payment were all frozen).
No idea about the other companies you mention, but Pestfix have been one of my suppliers for 3 or 4 years and I occasionally chat to their sales manager. I had an interesting conversation with them about the PPE contract.. sounded very much a case of small company done well due to their contacts in China.. no supporters of the government etc...
i.e. a very different version to what you read on here or in the press. Suppose we'll see what facts emerge down the line.
No idea about the other companies you mention, but Pestfix have been one of my suppliers for 3 or 4 years and I occasionally chat to their sales manager. I had an interesting conversation with them about the PPE contract.. sounded very much a case of small company done well due to their contacts in China.. no supporters of the government etc...
i.e. a very different version to what you read on here or in the press. Suppose we'll see what facts emerge down the line.
https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1317017160779288576
The contract values look consistently huge. The delivery looks 'less good'?
I see: 'small company wins various large contracts due to links with Chinese PPE suppliers'.
Jo Maugham QC sees: 'small company = incompetent, therefore contracts must be corrupt'.
I'm not clear what he's saying or what evidence he's putting forward? Other than conflating something about FFP1 sold to private clients, which provides no evidence of anything (and I actually wonder if he's seen 'type II' and - being a bellend - assumed they are FFP1 and unsuitable?), and making jibes about 'Pestfix not knowing anything about PPE'... which just make him look like a clueless idiot because he mustn't know anything about pest control - an activity that begins with donning pretty much the exact PPE used by heath workers dealing with covid. Bellend.
Show me the evidence of corruption and incompetence, please, and I'll alter my view.
I didn’t see evidence Maugham accuses Pestfix of being frauds, or that he has some agenda beyond highlighting the lack of accountability around PPE contracts.
Those £346m of contracts awarded to a tiny entity with materially no assets and (on its own admission in now deleted crowdfunding text) no particular experience in PPE, which admits to supplying faulty PPE are not the only contracts it has received.
Pete asked whether the contract should've instead gone to Serco (tongue firmly in cheek I'm assuming). Perhaps if it had been tendered the alternatives (or even lack thereof) might be more obvious?
Another involves a pest control company in Sussex called PestFix, which has listed net assets of only £18,000. On April 13, again without public advertisement or competition, the government awarded PestFix a £32 million contract to supply surgical gowns. PestFix is not a manufacturer, but an intermediary (its founder calls it a public health supply business): its role was to order the gowns from China. But, perhaps because of its lack of assets, the government gave it a deposit worth 75% of the value of the contract. The government’s own rules state that prepayments should be made only “in extremely limited and exceptional circumstances”, and even then must be “capped at 25% of the value of the contract”.
If the government had to provide the money upfront, why didn’t it order the gowns itself? And why, of all possible outsourcers, did it choose PestFix? In the two weeks before it awarded this contract, it was approached by 16,000 companies offering to supply protective equipment (PPE). Some of them had a long track record in manufacturing or supplying PPE, and had stocks that could be deployed immediately.
Again, the government relies on the emergency defence to justify its decision. But it issued its initial guidance on preventing infection among health and care workers on January 10. On February 14, it published specific guidance on the use of PPE. So why did it wait until April 13 to strike its “emergency” deal with PestFix? Moreover, it appears to have set the company no deadline for the delivery of the gowns. Astonishingly, even today only half of them appear to have reached the UK, and all those are still sitting in a warehouse in Daventry. On the government’s own admission, “none of the isolation suits delivered so far has been supplied into the NHS”. So much for taking urgent action in response to the emergency.
I’m surprised the Govt have been this petty TBH - I think there is a risk they will appear mean and petty - at a time when (for the same value of a small no checks PPE contract) people genuinely will need support.
Now they’re not giving the 60m. Nothing extra (that Liverpool and Lancs have got)
Clearly the messaging to other councils is play ball or lose out. But,
I’m surprised the Govt have been this petty TBH - I think there is a risk they will appear mean and petty - at a time when (for the same value of a small no checks PPE contract) people genuinely will need support.
Then talks broke down over a 5m difference apparently.
My gut feeling is that Burnham has thrown a lot of people under the bus in a bid to score some political points (mayoral elections are next May).
My gut feeling is that Burnham has thrown a lot of people under the bus in a bid to score some political points (mayoral elections are next May).
My gut feeling is that Burnham has thrown a lot of people under the bus in a bid to score some political points (mayoral elections are next May).
I doubt many round GM will share your gut instincts.
My gut feeling is that Burnham has thrown a lot of people under the bus in a bid to score some political points (mayoral elections are next May). But to really understand whether that stacks up I think we need to know what the money is intended for. Obviously it can't be to pay people who's business is affected, because £60m is less than fuck all in a place like GM. Does anybody know or have a link?
What's happening in parliament on Thursday? Bill and debate to enact the restrictions?
Do some more reading Will - there’s plenty about what was on the table. About how GM came to the meeting with costed plans and the government had nothing. No reason or calculation for the govt offer - nothing ever given on paper by Westminster.
It was bleeding obvious that there was going to be a second wave combined with the usual winter pressures. It should have been planned for. It shouldn't have had to start before people started to come up with the three tier approach (which SAGE clearly don't have faith in). There should be an adequate financial provision for those whose jobs are affected or who have to temporarily close their businesses. It shouldn't be down to regional leaders to hash out an agreement such that Mancs might end up with a better or worse deal than Scousers. As more and more regions go into Tier 3 the workload will become unmanageable so the process drags out and regional inconsistency emerges. And that negotiating time is precious time lost when what we know about anti-COVID measures is that they need to be enacted rapidly. The proposed help fund seems incredibly small. £60m dropped into the Greater Manchester area is a fraction of fuck all.
That much is on the government, who are not only cruel but also feckless in their cruelty. Rest assured, I vote against them at every opportunity.
What's on Burnham (who I am normally a fan of, and who I haven't made up my mind out about this) is that he was asked to go into Tier 3 restrictions and it is now a week later and that still hasn't happened. He is right to challenge the government - it is his duty to protect the interests of his citizens - but by the same token he needs to consider their health and there will, without doubt, be a lot of people in Manchester who will become acutely or chronically unwell and will die because the restrictions have been delayed. What's more, this has now become (in the eyes of many) an issue of the North vs Whitehall as opposed to a public health measure. I expect there will be a lot of non-compliance in Manchester in defiance of the government (a bloke walked into the charity shop where my mother volunteers in Liverpool and said he wasn't wearing a mask because "I'm not doing anything the government tell me"). Tier 3 is of limited enough effect; who knows how ineffective it might be with poor compliance?
That's why it's important to understand what exactly was on the table and what that might be used for. Without that information we can't really understand whether Burnham's demands were worth the increased risk to the population. If it were to come down to a quibble over £5m (I doubt it did) then it should end him. Even the difference of £60m is paltry. It's hard to express just how microscopic that is in the context of local spending in the area. The annual spend of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (the bit that Burnham leads) is around £1.3 billion. Then there's the Manchester City Council which has an annual spend of around £1.8 billion - that is just one of the ten councils in the Combined Authority area.
Will, Andy Burnham was presenting and negotiating for the combined costed plan put together by the individual GM councils which came to £90m. I believe £65m was their absolute bottom figure. In the context of the other "recent" deals:
Liverpool: £44million, 1.5million people
Lancashire £42million, 1.5million people
Greater Manchester: £22 million, 2.8 million people
Will, Andy Burnham was presenting and negotiating for the combined costed plan put together by the individual GM councils which came to £90m. I believe £65m was their absolute bottom figure. In the context of the other "recent" deals:
Liverpool: £44million, 1.5million people
Lancashire £42million, 1.5million people
Greater Manchester: £22 million, 2.8 million people
So, is anybody going to post the true facts about the figure offered then? It was on newsnight last night.
Or is the point of this to make arguments based on incorrect assumptions?
I think part of the issue here Pete is there is nothing on paper from the govt. Jenkins says one thing, Boris then can’t answer the question (asked 5 times) in his presser and Hancock is equally opaque on ££ in parliament after.
If there were a formula that the govt were using (population or breakdown of businesses/people affected) then this would be a lot clearer. But there isn’t.
Burnham did what he had to do as this argument is all about politics after all and little to do with controlling the virus.
Have a read of George Monbiot’s article in the Guardian today. There is a lot that is not new, but pulled together in one place it is uncomfortable reading. I have held his final conclusion for some time now. It’s the only rational reading of events.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/21/government-covid-contracts-britain-nhs-corporate-executives-test-and-trace
Will, Andy Burnham was presenting and negotiating for the combined costed plan put together by the individual GM councils which came to £90m. I believe £65m was their absolute bottom figure. In the context of the other "recent" deals:
Liverpool: £44million, 1.5million people
Lancashire £42million, 1.5million people
Greater Manchester: £22 million, 2.8 million people
So, is anybody going to post the true facts about the figure offered then? It was on newsnight last night.
Or is the point of this to make arguments based on incorrect assumptions?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54624575
This says £22m for ‘enforcement’ and test and trace, with the offer of £60m for business support ‘still on the table’. On a brief search I couldn’t find whether the figures for Liverpool and Lance were a combined sum for these two things it just for business support.
So no-one’s interested in fact checking themselves then?
TT?
Teestub?
Galpinos?
Jonathanr?
Spider?
GME?
No-one?
So no-one’s interested in fact checking themselves then?
TT?
Teestub?
Galpinos?
Jonathanr?
Spider?
GME?
No-one? The figures were detailed in black and white on newsnight. Is one of you going to realise your facts are wrong?
But the media in this case have obfuscated as well - which worries me a lot that they would play the 'outcry' game with public health.
Sheffield and S Yorks going into T3 on Saturday night. https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-sheffield-city-region-gets-tougher-restrictions-as-1-8-million-people-head-for-tier-3-12109984
Meanwhile Gyms can open now in Liverpool...
Last week Government imposed Tier 3 restrictions on our region – forcing our gyms to close.
Since then we've been in constant dialogue to make them provide evidence for that decision - or reverse it.
They have now agreed to reverse their original decision and let gyms open.
Figures are there in plain sight for anyone to see. Many are choosing not to see.
There are two funding packages:
1. TTTI, Enforcement. (TTI/E)
2. Business Relief. (BR)
Liverpool: £44million
£14m TTI/E, £30m BR
1.5million people £29 per head
Lancashire £42million,
£12m TTI/E, £30m BR
1.5million people, £29 per head
Greater Manchester:£22 million,£82 million
£22m TTI/E, £60m BR
2.8 million people, £29 per head
Burnham was fighting for £90m total, but would have settled for an extra £5m on top of the £60m. To make £87m total.
It really isn't difficult unless you're myopic. Sure the government are totally wank at communication, no arguments there from me.
But the media in this case have obfuscated as well - which worries me a lot that they would play the 'outcry' game with public health. It's actually there in some of the news report if you really pay attention to the small print at the bottom of some BBC articles.
You lot are idiots for going along with the outcry based on incorrect figures.
8mins 30secs.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000np5f/newsnight-20102020
::)
If there were a formula that the govt were using (population or breakdown of businesses/people affected) then this would be a lot clearer. But there isn’t.
Figures are there in plain sight for anyone to see. Many are choosing not to see.
There are two funding packages:
1. TTTI, Enforcement. (TTI/E)
2. Business Relief. (BR)
Liverpool: £44million
£14m TTI/E, £30m BR
1.5million people £29 per head
Lancashire £42million,
£12m TTI/E, £30m BR
1.5million people, £29 per head
Greater Manchester:£22 million,£82 million
£22m TTI/E, £60m BR
2.8 million people, £29 per head
Burnham was fighting for £90m total, but would have settled for an extra £5m on top of the £60m. To make £87m total.
It really isn't difficult unless you're myopic. Sure the government are totally wank at communication, no arguments there from me.
But the media in this case have obfuscated as well - which worries me a lot that they would play the 'outcry' game with public health. It's actually there in some of the news report if you really pay attention to the small print at the bottom of some BBC articles.
You lot are idiots for going along with the outcry based on incorrect figures.
8mins 30secs.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000np5f/newsnight-20102020
::)
I think part of the issue here Pete is there is nothing on paper from the govt. Jenkins says one thing, Boris then can’t answer the question (asked 5 times) in his presser and Hancock is equally opaque on ££ in parliament after.
If there were a formula that the govt were using (population or breakdown of businesses/people affected) then this would be a lot clearer. But there isn’t.
You lot are idiots for going along with the outcry based on incorrect figures.
But bullshitting around incorrect figures is inexcusable.
Seriously?!
'We'll take the offer' would be my suggestion...
The point is: the figures of 22m, 60m, 65m are all incorrect figures to base arguments on.
The true figure is as per the Liverpool and Lancashire figures per head. So Manchester's support is at least equitable in the context of what other areas have received. Which is exactly what the government said if you listened.
Whether or not it's a 'fair' figure is an entirely different debate..
I don't actually think it is 'fair'. I think we should be supporting people to a far greater extent then what's on offer. The 80% figure for all affected by the covid legislation is closer to my idea of fair.
But bullshitting around incorrect figures is inexcusable.
It was bleeding obvious that there was going to be a second wave combined with the usual winter pressures. It should have been planned for. It shouldn't have had to start before people started to come up with the three tier approach (which SAGE clearly don't have faith in). There should be an adequate financial provision for those whose jobs are affected or who have to temporarily close their businesses. It shouldn't be down to regional leaders to hash out an agreement such that Mancs might end up with a better or worse deal than Scousers. As more and more regions go into Tier 3 the workload will become unmanageable so the process drags out and regional inconsistency emerges. And that negotiating time is precious time lost when what we know about anti-COVID measures is that they need to be enacted rapidly. The proposed help fund seems incredibly small. £60m dropped into the Greater Manchester area is a fraction of fuck all.
That much is on the government, who are not only cruel but also feckless in their cruelty. Rest assured, I vote against them at every opportunity.
What's on Burnham (who I am normally a fan of, and who I haven't made up my mind out about this) is that he was asked to go into Tier 3 restrictions and it is now a week later and that still hasn't happened. He is right to challenge the government - it is his duty to protect the interests of his citizens - but by the same token he needs to consider their health and there will, without doubt, be a lot of people in Manchester who will become acutely or chronically unwell and will die because the restrictions have been delayed. What's more, this has now become (in the eyes of many) an issue of the North vs Whitehall as opposed to a public health measure. I expect there will be a lot of non-compliance in Manchester in defiance of the government (a bloke walked into the charity shop where my mother volunteers in Liverpool and said he wasn't wearing a mask because "I'm not doing anything the government tell me"). Tier 3 is of limited enough effect; who knows how ineffective it might be with poor compliance?
That's why it's important to understand what exactly was on the table and what that might be used for. Without that information we can't really understand whether Burnham's demands were worth the increased risk to the population. If it were to come down to a quibble over £5m (I doubt it did) then it should end him. Even the difference of £60m is paltry. It's hard to express just how microscopic that is in the context of local spending in the area. The annual spend of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (the bit that Burnham leads) is around £1.3 billion. Then there's the Manchester City Council which has an annual spend of around £1.8 billion - that is just one of the ten councils in the Combined Authority area.
I still fundamentally disagree with your premise that quibbling over £5m somehow reflects worse on Burnham than the government. If its such a piddling amount then its the government who should have wound their neck in and stumped up for the sake of compliance and public health, rather than flouncing out and briefing the media. You're applying higher standards to local leaders than you are to government; reading between the lines your argument seems to be 'this government are shit and cruel, but instead of challenging their shitty behaviour Manchester should simply take the paltry money on the table as its all they are going to get anyway.' You might be right from a pure politics perspective (although I'm not convinced) but if a local leader doesn't stand up for their constituents then there is no point to them. By contrast, Sadiq Khan (who is obviously still the best person for the job regardless of this criticism) has rolled over and had his tummy tickled by the government, who have since doubled down and threatened to take control of TfL. It makes perfect sense to me that Burnham has stuck to his guns.
Whats interesting is that there seems to be significant cut through and there is no massive backlash against Burnham, because they know he has a point. Theres a few Tory MPs briefing against him but not brave enough to go on the record because they are swimming against the political tide. https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1318805466995097600
there's no reason that they couldn't have taken it to the Tories and whipped up a storm in the press at the same time that the extra restrictions went through. 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). The question I originally posed is whether the additional money was worth the delay.
Pete, I'm directly quoting your source back at you which makes the same point as others have now done a matter of seconds later.
Local journalists who have been excellent throughout this have the same question. It's difficult to say something (+£60M) is still on the table when there's currently no table.
Also it being equitable hasn't been the aim (from the offset) that I've seen, it's about it being sufficient and GM being more questioning than other regions after spending a significant amount of time already in T2. If the £ per head is set, then why the pretence of negotiations?
Anyway, I've got to drive a long way now so over to others...
- the sum per head offered to GM is the same sum per head offered to all other tier 3 regions. This was made clear by the government if you listened to what they said, but not made clear in the media.
You seem to accept tweets from everyone else as evidence TT?Now you're trolling properly Pete..
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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"?
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.
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 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.
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.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-54628770 for pete to get his teeth into.
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.
It appears we're very close to being back where we were in March discussing the dilemma between economic damage versus damage to health,
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 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 ?It's interesting that some of the benefit of the 2/3 week lockdown over the rest of the year is lost in the first 3 months of 2021. So for the 2 week lockdown you get 960 less deaths over the remainder of the year, but 750 until March 2021 (so 210 more deaths over Q1 2021 as a result of lockdown). Or am I misreading it?
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.
Crazy how fast the purse strings can open when it’s London that might suffer!
It's interesting that some of the benefit of the 2/3 week lockdown over the rest of the year is lost in the first 3 months of 2021. So for the 2 week lockdown you get 960 less deaths over the remainder of the year, but 750 until March 2021 (so 210 more deaths over Q1 2021 as a result of lockdown). Or am I misreading it?
Crazy how fast the purse strings can open when it’s London that might suffer!
@ Nigel/Stabbsy - the piece in the Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2020/oct/19/uk-coronavirus-live-wales-short-fire-break-lockdown-manchester-boris-johnson-covid (item at 17:31) has a chart which shows a lower peak pushed to the right by the firebreak, followed by a more gradual decline. They assume R goes back up after the firebreak but the piece talks of a 'new simpler national approach to behaviours and restrictions' with 'sustainable changes in behaviour in many areas of life'...
The second phase is a new, simpler, national approach to behaviours and restrictions.
Simpler messaging and regulations are expected to be easier to understand and comply
with. Some existing restrictions may be removed if they are shown to be less effective or
more harmful than originally expected, such as the Local Authority travel boundary
restrictions. However, there would need to be sustainable changes in behaviour in many
areas of life in order for Rt to remain as near to 1 as possible.
11. Conclusion
Without intervention, continued increase of cases of Covid-19 in Wales, in hospitals and in
ICU will be too high for the NHS to sustain. In order to balance the four harms effectively,
TAC recommends urgent consideration and execution of a hard national fire break to
massively reduce transmission for a period of weeks, reduce the number of cases to a
sustainable level and then a set of sustainable, national interventions to keep Rt around 1
while maximising social, economic and health benefits.
Any thoughts on ‘trying to avoid’ travelling out of Sheffield or other tier3 areas into Derbyshire? Impression I’m getting is that most climbers still plan to go climbing in the Peak as it’s not a legally enforceable instruction.
9997 words to go...
Just go climbing, don’t ask on here mate. You’ll get 10’000 words of flatulenceAre you one of those Qanon guys?
Very good indeed
Woah there control your steed Holy PaladinAwesome.
You might have more joy with the tin hat brigade over at https://lockdownsceptics.org/
You might have more joy with the tin hat brigade over at https://lockdownsceptics.org/
OK, I'll admit, I clicked on the link. My favourite bit of the first post:
"COVID-19 isn’t the only respiratory disease around of course. But this year the rest are being strangely timid."
Hmmm, it's almost as if there are a load of measures in place that are preventing the spread of viruses :-\
You might have more joy with the tin hat brigade over at https://lockdownsceptics.org/
Matt - link doesn't work. Bit like the Neurons in the muscle brain.
Now they've refused to extend it, reverting to "dependency on benefits / balancing the books arguments". Is there really that much of an audience nationwide that this will play well with?
So hard to know what to think in general about the Welsh lockdown without being able to know the data for all the different variables and different options.
Matt - link doesn't work. Bit like the Neurons in the muscle brain.
Newsflash - germs found in mound of turds shock. Anal hygiene essential to stop the spread.It’s called a “Newspaper”. They’re something that grownups read, a bit like a meme for people who can think.
What’s the thing with the Guardian links?
QuoteNow they've refused to extend it, reverting to "dependency on benefits / balancing the books arguments". Is there really that much of an audience nationwide that this will play well with?
I'm afraid having spent the first half of my life entirely surrounded by tribal Tory voters I can assure you that it will. Those two points are right at the heart of small 'c' conservatism. These are not bad people but typically they have next to no experience of poverty, deprivation or plain bad luck, and were born at a time when a little hard work and fiscal responsibility brought rapidly compounding rewards which they now attribute entirely to their own merit. You get an insight into this with the oft-repeated assertion that they themselves would find accepting handouts demeaning and would prefer the opportunity to work. Ignoring of course the facts that feeling demeaned rather takes a back seat to not eating and that in-work poverty is now the greater problem anyway. Meanwhile any benefits they receive are framed as 'tax windfalls' etc and somehow not comparable.QuoteSo hard to know what to think in general about the Welsh lockdown without being able to know the data for all the different variables and different options.
Completely agree Pete. From the beginning we've been treated as children who must be shielded from the data and accept diktats appearing as if at random. If the tiers had been introduced much earlier with clearly communicated data triggers they might have had a chance.
I know Elfyn has put in a huge amount of work trying to get the Welsh government to accept that hillwalking and climbing are low risk both generally and for transmission. They simply aren't interested while bigger, better-funded and connected lobby groups have managed to catch their ear (remember golf courses opening first?). In Wales obviously it does appear to be being conflated with other issues too and there seems to be a priority on broadly visible measures that will dissuade incomers.
Newsflash - germs found in mound of turds shock. Anal hygiene essential to stop the spread.
What’s the thing with the Guardian links?
Newsflash - germs found in mound of turds shock. Anal hygiene essential to stop the spread.It’s called a “Newspaper”. They’re something that grownups read, a bit like a meme for people who can think.
What’s the thing with the Guardian links?
You don’t need to worry about it.
QuoteNow they've refused to extend it, reverting to "dependency on benefits / balancing the books arguments". Is there really that much of an audience nationwide that this will play well with?
I'm afraid having spent the first half of my life entirely surrounded by tribal Tory voters I can assure you that it will. Those two points are right at the heart of small 'c' conservatism. These are not bad people but typically they have next to no experience of poverty, deprivation or plain bad luck, and were born at a time when a little hard work and fiscal responsibility brought rapidly compounding rewards which they now attribute entirely to their own merit. You get an insight into this with the oft-repeated assertion that they themselves would find accepting handouts demeaning and would prefer the opportunity to work. Ignoring of course the facts that feeling demeaned rather takes a back seat to not eating and that in-work poverty is now the greater problem anyway. Meanwhile any benefits they receive are framed as 'tax windfalls' etc and somehow not comparable.QuoteSo hard to know what to think in general about the Welsh lockdown without being able to know the data for all the different variables and different options.
Completely agree Pete. From the beginning we've been treated as children who must be shielded from the data and accept diktats appearing as if at random. If the tiers had been introduced much earlier with clearly communicated data triggers they might have had a chance.
I know Elfyn has put in a huge amount of work trying to get the Welsh government to accept that hillwalking and climbing are low risk both generally and for transmission. They simply aren't interested while bigger, better-funded and connected lobby groups have managed to catch their ear (remember golf courses opening first?). In Wales obviously it does appear to be being conflated with other issues too and there seems to be a priority on broadly visible measures that will dissuade incomers.
It seems borderline insulting to me if the BMC were to take a stance against hillwalking and being in the mountains again. The Welsh Government think that in order to protect the NHS I shouldn't drive 15 minutes up road into the mountains but instead drive to the off-licence and buy some vodka, cigarettes and chocolate and stay at home. Think I'll be making my own decision on this one.
Newsflash - germs found in mound of turds shock. Anal hygiene essential to stop the spread.It’s called a “Newspaper”. They’re something that grownups read, a bit like a meme for people who can think.
What’s the thing with the Guardian links?
You don’t need to worry about it.
Ah, guardianista’s a cult in its own right. Get yer tinfoil out....
https://off-guardian.org/2020/10/19/this-week-in-the-guardian-15/
Newsflash - germs found in mound of turds shock. Anal hygiene essential to stop the spread.It’s called a “Newspaper”. They’re something that grownups read, a bit like a meme for people who can think.
What’s the thing with the Guardian links?
You don’t need to worry about it.
Ah, guardianista’s a cult in its own right. Get yer tinfoil out....
https://off-guardian.org/2020/10/19/this-week-in-the-guardian-15/
Can I borrow some of your tin foil? Sure you have plenty...
QuoteNow they've refused to extend it, reverting to "dependency on benefits / balancing the books arguments". Is there really that much of an audience nationwide that this will play well with?
I'm afraid having spent the first half of my life entirely surrounded by tribal Tory voters I can assure you that it will. Those two points are right at the heart of small 'c' conservatism. These are not bad people but typically they have next to no experience of poverty, deprivation or plain bad luck, and were born at a time when a little hard work and fiscal responsibility brought rapidly compounding rewards which they now attribute entirely to their own merit. You get an insight into this with the oft-repeated assertion that they themselves would find accepting handouts demeaning and would prefer the opportunity to work. Ignoring of course the facts that feeling demeaned rather takes a back seat to not eating and that in-work poverty is now the greater problem anyway. Meanwhile any benefits they receive are framed as 'tax windfalls' etc and somehow not comparable.QuoteSo hard to know what to think in general about the Welsh lockdown without being able to know the data for all the different variables and different options.
Completely agree Pete. From the beginning we've been treated as children who must be shielded from the data and accept diktats appearing as if at random. If the tiers had been introduced much earlier with clearly communicated data triggers they might have had a chance.
I know Elfyn has put in a huge amount of work trying to get the Welsh government to accept that hillwalking and climbing are low risk both generally and for transmission. They simply aren't interested while bigger, better-funded and connected lobby groups have managed to catch their ear (remember golf courses opening first?). In Wales obviously it does appear to be being conflated with other issues too and there seems to be a priority on broadly visible measures that will dissuade incomers.
It seems borderline insulting to me if the BMC were to take a stance against hillwalking and being in the mountains again. The Welsh Government think that in order to protect the NHS I shouldn't drive 15 minutes up road into the mountains but instead drive to the off-licence and buy some vodka, cigarettes and chocolate and stay at home. Think I'll be making my own decision on this one.
It is easy to see it that way and I’m almost in agreement.
I went out and ran a loaded 15k across the moors yesterday (16 kg Bergan, 652 mtrs of ascent, all off trail, 3:07 hrs #quiteproudofthat) and I desperately don’t want to be locked up again.
But I can understand why we end up with broad brush measures and how a minority interest like ours can get lost in clamour. I also think we have an inflated idea of the BMC’s influence on the powers-that-be.
Don’t hold your breath for special treatment.
QuoteNow they've refused to extend it, reverting to "dependency on benefits / balancing the books arguments". Is there really that much of an audience nationwide that this will play well with?
I'm afraid having spent the first half of my life entirely surrounded by tribal Tory voters I can assure you that it will. Those two points are right at the heart of small 'c' conservatism. These are not bad people but typically they have next to no experience of poverty, deprivation or plain bad luck, and were born at a time when a little hard work and fiscal responsibility brought rapidly compounding rewards which they now attribute entirely to their own merit. You get an insight into this with the oft-repeated assertion that they themselves would find accepting handouts demeaning and would prefer the opportunity to work. Ignoring of course the facts that feeling demeaned rather takes a back seat to not eating and that in-work poverty is now the greater problem anyway. Meanwhile any benefits they receive are framed as 'tax windfalls' etc and somehow not comparable.QuoteSo hard to know what to think in general about the Welsh lockdown without being able to know the data for all the different variables and different options.
Completely agree Pete. From the beginning we've been treated as children who must be shielded from the data and accept diktats appearing as if at random. If the tiers had been introduced much earlier with clearly communicated data triggers they might have had a chance.
I know Elfyn has put in a huge amount of work trying to get the Welsh government to accept that hillwalking and climbing are low risk both generally and for transmission. They simply aren't interested while bigger, better-funded and connected lobby groups have managed to catch their ear (remember golf courses opening first?). In Wales obviously it does appear to be being conflated with other issues too and there seems to be a priority on broadly visible measures that will dissuade incomers.
It seems borderline insulting to me if the BMC were to take a stance against hillwalking and being in the mountains again. The Welsh Government think that in order to protect the NHS I shouldn't drive 15 minutes up road into the mountains but instead drive to the off-licence and buy some vodka, cigarettes and chocolate and stay at home. Think I'll be making my own decision on this one.
It is easy to see it that way and I’m almost in agreement.
I went out and ran a loaded 15k across the moors yesterday (16 kg Bergan, 652 mtrs of ascent, all off trail, 3:07 hrs #quiteproudofthat) and I desperately don’t want to be locked up again.
But I can understand why we end up with broad brush measures and how a minority interest like ours can get lost in clamour. I also think we have an inflated idea of the BMC’s influence on the powers-that-be.
Don’t hold your breath for special treatment.
I suppose I'm more on the side that the BMC shouldn't need to be involved at all. Last time they scolded us for thinking about being outside. That we were selfish and dangerous and incapable of judging risk. I'm happy with them sticking to access issues and leaving it to the individual to asses what they should and shouldn't be doing.
Given the ambiguity of the Welsh govt message if I think some (what I deem as) safe bouldering within a 15mi radius of my home is fine then I'm just going to do it until I'm explicitly told not to. None of it makes any real sense (see my off-licence rant, or the idea that remembrance day gatherings are somehow immune to COVID) if the goal is to stop the spread of a virus. I think we're (mostly) all reasonably sensible people capable of not being selfish. The rule breakers will in general continue to break the rules anyway.
Newsflash - germs found in mound of turds shock. Anal hygiene essential to stop the spread.It’s called a “Newspaper”. They’re something that grownups read, a bit like a meme for people who can think.
What’s the thing with the Guardian links?
You don’t need to worry about it.
Ah, guardianista’s a cult in its own right. Get yer tinfoil out....
https://off-guardian.org/2020/10/19/this-week-in-the-guardian-15/
Can I borrow some of your tin foil? Sure you have plenty...
I suspect that Muscle Coach's antagonistic use of the forum will wane when people stop taking the bait...
The sooner the better.
Just because you lads can’t suffer an alternative perspective without calling someone a loony. Look around and observe the madness ffs
Newsflash - germs found in mound of turds shock. Anal hygiene essential to stop the spread.It’s called a “Newspaper”. They’re something that grownups read, a bit like a meme for people who can think.
What’s the thing with the Guardian links?
You don’t need to worry about it.
Ah, guardianista’s a cult in its own right. Get yer tinfoil out....
https://off-guardian.org/2020/10/19/this-week-in-the-guardian-15/
Can I borrow some of your tin foil? Sure you have plenty...
I suspect that Muscle Coach's antagonistic use of the forum will wane when people stop taking the bait...
The sooner the better.
But I can understand why we end up with broad brush measures and how a minority interest like ours can get lost in clamour. I also think we have an inflated idea of the BMC’s influence on the powers-that-be.
I suppose I'm more on the side that the BMC shouldn't need to be involved at all. Last time they scolded us for thinking about being outside. That we were selfish and dangerous and incapable of judging risk. I'm happy with them sticking to access issues
I suspect that Muscle Coach's antagonistic use of the forum will wane when people stop taking the bait...Can't someone with admin privileges just get rid of them unless they start to write posts more than 1 line long?
The sooner the better.
Oh yes don’t engage with the idiot loonVery ironic. I'm waiting for an articulate (or even coherent) response to my points on the other thread. See also the other thread RE logistics of herd-immunity. If you want a discussion then plenty of people here are open to it, but you'll have to actually put in a modicum of effort to think about the points raised and respond to them.
Do we perhaps think Mr Coach may be a previous forum member who burned through several aliases, each one ending with a flounce off?Seems quite possible.
Newsflash - germs found in mound of turds shock. Anal hygiene essential to stop the spread.It’s called a “Newspaper”. They’re something that grownups read, a bit like a meme for people who can think.
What’s the thing with the Guardian links?
You don’t need to worry about it.
Ah, guardianista’s a cult in its own right. Get yer tinfoil out....
https://off-guardian.org/2020/10/19/this-week-in-the-guardian-15/
Can I borrow some of your tin foil? Sure you have plenty...
I suspect that Muscle Coach's antagonistic use of the forum will wane when people stop taking the bait...
The sooner the better.
Oh yes don’t engage with the idiot loon, we’ve got to get back to our sensible insular partisan debate on how everyone else should live their lives. 😆
Do we perhaps think Mr Coach may be a previous forum member who burned through several aliases, each one ending with a flounce off?
QuoteBut I can understand why we end up with broad brush measures and how a minority interest like ours can get lost in clamour. I also think we have an inflated idea of the BMC’s influence on the powers-that-be.
I think it's fair to say the BMC has repeatedly punched above it's weight in such areas but, as you say, there is a clamour of voices wanting to be heard currently and my impression is that those with the simplest job structure - say a health club chain employing 000's - get taken more seriously than the possible larger but rather more nebulous economy associated with the outdoors.
The irony of course is that Pete has repeatedly called for the BMC to be reduced in size and remit while now bemoaning it's lack of influence.QuoteI suppose I'm more on the side that the BMC shouldn't need to be involved at all. Last time they scolded us for thinking about being outside. That we were selfish and dangerous and incapable of judging risk. I'm happy with them sticking to access issues
Is this not the biggest access issue since Foot-and-mouth? You'll need to link to where they scolded people as I was actively involved in ensuring communications carried no such message.
The BMC sought and passed on expert legal advice on what we were allowed to do during the first lockdown. In some cases I thought that they erred on the side of caution but I am not a lawyer and they went with the experts. The way in which the government clearly lifted these restrictions rather suggested that unsurprisingly I had been wrong and the experts right.
Such restrictions have returned to Wales, and the BMC fought hard against them. That they lost is not evidence, as Pete put it, of them 'bending over' or embracing the restrictions. But once extant in law you have to concede the BMC have a duty to inform people of what the legal situation is. I suspect this time the BMC's dismay at the government's treatment may be more public, but we may equally find kicking back too hard is a stance that does not age well.
rant..QuoteBut I can understand why we end up with broad brush measures and how a minority interest like ours can get lost in clamour. I also think we have an inflated idea of the BMC’s influence on the powers-that-be.
I think it's fair to say the BMC has repeatedly punched above it's weight in such areas but, as you say, there is a clamour of voices wanting to be heard currently and my impression is that those with the simplest job structure - say a health club chain employing 000's - get taken more seriously than the possible larger but rather more nebulous economy associated with the outdoors.
The irony of course is that Pete has repeatedly called for the BMC to be reduced in size and remit while now bemoaning it's lack of influence.QuoteI suppose I'm more on the side that the BMC shouldn't need to be involved at all. Last time they scolded us for thinking about being outside. That we were selfish and dangerous and incapable of judging risk. I'm happy with them sticking to access issues
Is this not the biggest access issue since Foot-and-mouth? You'll need to link to where they scolded people as I was actively involved in ensuring communications carried no such message.
The BMC sought and passed on expert legal advice on what we were allowed to do during the first lockdown. In some cases I thought that they erred on the side of caution but I am not a lawyer and they went with the experts. The way in which the government clearly lifted these restrictions rather suggested that unsurprisingly I had been wrong and the experts right.
Such restrictions have returned to Wales, and the BMC fought hard against them. That they lost is not evidence, as Pete put it, of them 'bending over' or embracing the restrictions. But once extant in law you have to concede the BMC have a duty to inform people of what the legal situation is. I suspect this time the BMC's dismay at the government's treatment may be more public, but we may equally find kicking back too hard is a stance that does not age well.
Obviously COVID isn't spread in the same way as foot and mouth and poses no risk to livestock, so the issue becomes that of what we should and shouldn't be doing for the public good. The Welsh government haven't explicitly said anything on the issue, so if for example the BMC were to tell us we shouldn't be climbing it sort of pens us into a corner. I guess in a poorly, long winded way I'm saying its best if no-one says anything and we keep doing what we think is acceptable. I won't drive to Ysgo but I think Ogwen is okay.
Obviously COVID isn't spread in the same way as foot and mouth and poses no risk to livestock, so the issue becomes that of what we should and shouldn't be doing for the public good. The Welsh government haven't explicitly said anything on the issue, so if for example the BMC were to tell us we shouldn't be climbing it sort of pens us into a corner. I guess in a poorly, long winded way I'm saying its best if no-one says anything and we keep doing what we think is acceptable. I won't drive to Ysgo but I think Ogwen is okay.
I don’t think JB was trying to make a direct comparison to F&M except for the scale, what we saw last time was farmers ‘closing’ footpaths on their land and restricting access in other ways. If we are heading in a similar direction again towards a full lockdown, then there’s a lot the BMC could do on a local level to discuss any potential concerns with land owners.
Out of internet why wouldn’t you drive to the Lleyn? It seems you’re less likely to interact with people there than you would be in the valley.
I suspect that Muscle Coach's antagonistic use of the forum will wane when people stop taking the bait...Can't someone with admin privileges just get rid of them unless they start to write posts more than 1 line long?
The sooner the better.Oh yes don’t engage with the idiot loonVery ironic. I'm waiting for an articulate (or even coherent) response to my points on the other thread. See also the other thread RE logistics of herd-immunity. If you want a discussion then plenty of people here are open to it, but you'll have to actually put in a modicum of effort to think about the points raised and respond to them.Do we perhaps think Mr Coach may be a previous forum member who burned through several aliases, each one ending with a flounce off?Seems quite possible.
Why do I need to write an essay mate? Masks n social distancing = poor health and welfare. Now join the dots.
Now join the dots.
Now join the dots.
The only dots I’m joining here pal, is that either you’re trolling or not got a clue what you’re on about.
we should all be working anyway
So if you wanted to get all nerdy about it, you could argue against social distancing because there have been some studies (https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/112/49/15142.full.pdf) showing that loneliness can change gene expression in leukocytes and they start to down-regulate their anti-viral response. Tho it's not a real issue, it'd be a fun way to baffle people with your anti-distancing argument.
Or turning the conversation back to shit again, the re-configuration of the workforce (city centre >> suburbs) has led to changes in demand for sewage processing.
Seems to paint a pretty clear picture, while you pally matey buddy boys chat on and onYou forgot 'chum'.
At the height of the pandemic back in days of yore, pre covidian medieval psychotic states. Sheffield teaching hospitals made 240 beds ready for the covid tsunami, I understand 34 were used. Now I believe that is a similar figure despite lockdown, distancing, muzzling and self isolating and general bollocks. Seems to paint a pretty clear picture, while you pally matey buddy boys chat on and on
Just to add I believe all theatres and non essential services were closed for months and anyone who could be discharged to a nursing home was packed of to die. Leaving a shit load of people worse of than if they caught covidYes, I think it's broadly acknowledged that the impact on non-COVID care has been pretty terrible. I'm well aware of this given my dad being in-and-out of hospital multiple times over Spring/Summer. I could certainly believe that the health service response could have been better managed, and hopefully it is currently being better managed. But these arguments all weigh on why minor inconveniences like masks are well worthwhile - because reducing COVID-related pressure on the health system is important for a myriad of non-COVID health treatments. I'd love to hear about how not wearing masks in the shops or at work would reduce the pandemic-related challenges for the NHS...
Let's be honest, we set the bar pretty low here - you don't even really need to provide evidence (digging through stuff can be time consuming and we should all be working anyway), just a moderately well-reasoned argument that people can explore/critique (as per the discussion with Bradders on the other thread).
This is getting boring now, it's like talking to a 5 year old.
You and that TT fellah seem pretty genned up to me so I’ll take your word for it. Ever feel like a a bloke with one bollock in a 2 bollock race, well I do now.
Thanks man, I'll take moderately well reasoned any day :lol::lol: I disagreed too much to write anything nicer ;)
Christ I just read your paragraph on shaming, mate I’ve gotta say, if that’s serious it’s the ravings of a massive twat.If (as I explicitly caveated) masked are effective at reducing COVID spread, and if (as caveated) the downsides are minor in comparison, then avoiding wearing one for no reason (exclusions for certain issues obviously excepted) seems to be quite comparable to speeding, drunk driving or anything else that could lead to manslaughter. Hence why, under those caveats, people no wearing them should be shamed, and are massive twats. Feel free to produce a reasoned an coherent argument to the contrary, I'm sure there may be some, but "mate, I'm too lazy to interrogate anything with reason" doesn't quite cut it
muzzle up and save the lives of your loved ones.Well my dad is already dead. Who knows, maybe if fewer twats had spread COVID around then the hospitals would have had more resources available and he wouldn't be.
When it’s published
Hopefully this pragmatic RCT of 6000 participants on the effectiveness of masks will help answer that question. When it’s published
https://www.transcend.org/tms/2020/10/the-suppressed-danish-mask-study/
Most people are relatively sensible.
Most people are relatively sensible.
Technically this may be correct, but there is an awful lot of idiots out there
Fuck me you’re on the payrollAnd you’re on Trumps?
Ah, the standard comparison turned to by the pseudo left when attempting to discredit. Well done matey boy
Simply questioning the narrative here chaps
Simply questioning the narrative here chaps
I’m sure the mask discussed in that article offers a level of P3 protection tested under lab conditions where as the standard surgical masks are P1-2 and the home mades germ ridden face cloths. A HSE report from 2008 states that under lab conditions a P3 mask will provide up to a 100 fold protection compared to 6 fold protection from a P2 mask or below. Taken out of the lab and into the community the variables involved in human behaviour which I’d imagine are huge are likely to lead to zero or negligible difference and I wonder even worsen the situation via creating hundreds of thousands of viral cloths being handled by wearers touching surfaces etc. All it then takes is the surface to be touched by another and then touching their face or other portal of entry. Yes under lab conditions wearing a P3 respirator mask and full head shield is gonna stop the virus, pragmatically with what’s going on in the community I seriously doubt it. Hand washing and avoiding touching your face and eyes in the community setting is of course helpful and reducing risk of any Coronavirus. So really the sensible choices are stay at home and avoid all others or wear a space helmet which are being advertised to buy commercially now, just in time for Christmas for you ‘new normal’ covidians out there. Funnily enough it doesn’t really matter now, if there is less Coronavirus around in 6 months the message will be keep doing more of the same it’s working, if there is an escalation in reported cases then it will be more of the same plus further restrictions on liberty. Masks are now here to stay, enjoy the the feeling of security they afford as you peep out at the deadly air around you.
It sounds like you're using the phrase "psy-op" because it sounds scary and fits with your conspiracy theory narrative. You could just as easily refer to it as "advertising" or a "public awareness campaign".
Gruesome photos on packs of cigarettes, videos of kids getting run over by speeding drivers on TV, or billboards encouraging drivers to THINK BIKE: are these also psy-ops?
Simply questioning the narrative here chaps
Fuck me you’re on the payroll
Ah, the standard comparison turned to by the pseudo left when attempting to discredit. Well done matey boy
Masks are now here to stay, enjoy the the feeling of security they afford as you peep out at the deadly air around you.
Simply questioning the narrative here chaps
Which part of what is going on currently do you have have an issue with? Do you think if everyone just went back to acting as normal then there wouldn't be 100k's more deaths, or is it that you think that is acceptable? Is it just the masks? Do you need a hug from someone who insists on keeping 2 m from you?
From your posts it's very hard to tell where your issues actually lie, and it just somes accross as v poor trolling.
(ironically you’re more likely to die in a car accident on your daily commute than get killed by covid)
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/882722/25-options-for-increasing-adherence-to-social-distancing-measures-22032020.pdf
“The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging.”
Reads like psy-ops to me
No that’s just being a dick.
Always happy to join in a bit of mildly insulting banter e.g ‘jog on sunshine’ etc,
However I maintain I came back on the forum to post some links and raise some questions.
It deteriorated because you chaps didn’t agree / like what I said. Funny that
Like clockwork, do you lads operate a tag team system or are you all the same government bot?
I have to admit those responses were more fun than reading your shite.
I have to admit those responses were more fun than reading your shite.
As if you could.
If you pop upstairs, your mum might be able help you with the longer words, like “fact” or “logic” (assuming you can manage “the” or are you already getting assistance with this)?
I have to admit those responses were more fun than reading your shite.
As if you could.
If you pop upstairs, your mum might be able help you with the longer words, like “fact” or “logic” (assuming you can manage “the” or are you already getting assistance with this)?
Take it steady fellah. No need to bring my mum into this.
To be honest the whole shielding the vulnerable etc thing seems attractive on first pass. To extend the logic, surely the whole thing would work better i. e. Natural Herd immunity if we deliberately infect people? Is there acceptance that this is the ideal for this methodology? If not, then why would we waste taxpayers money unnecessarily on stringing it out needlessly? As a matter of intellectual honesty - should we not be deliberately infecting the under 65's?You know the “herd immunity” thing is almost completely debunked and undermined by the almost certain lack of said immunity? That antibodies disappear in around four months for most people? That, it would take around that long to infect everybody in the first place and might really just turn into some glorious round robin of infection, recovery and reinfection?
Praise be a voice of reason in this quagmire of narrow minded covid jihadis.Yeah, I'm an expert on virology too.
since first coming on hear I’ve done lots of reading and could certainly give some of you boffins and dr’s a run for your money
I’ve done lots of reading and could certainly give some of you boffins and dr’s a run for your money
Makes sense to me pal, and all the evidence points in that direction. Don’t apologise to this lot. They haven’t got a clue
Apologies I've had quite a few beers so perhaps my point was lost. In basic terms - anyone who believes in natural herd immunity i. e. Let the young do what they will + shielding the vulnerable, must surely advocate deliberate infection to get the whole thing over and done with. And if not, why not? Its the logical thing to do as it is what the desired end result is anyway, and would get us there quicker. We'll be creating a two tier society for a long time otherwise. I have yet to hear this argument, but surely if you hold the position then it at least has the virtue of honesty?
What’s ironic? Apart from your knob size.... and cheesy bell
Can we have the funny one back please? This chump persona is a bit of a tedious self referential screed of ejaculate
My diver buddies yadda yadda
You're predicting they'll prevaricate? As sure a bet as you'll ever place!
My prediction - incremental addition to tier 3 until things get so bad that everywhere in England is in at least tier 3 over Christmas and New year. That way they avoid a vote on it in Parliament, dodge a difficult fronting up about the realities of Christmas (which they are currently dodging but should come clean about), plus they can delay the downsides of brexit day as it will happen while everyone is effectively locked down.
Another lockdown should help us jog along towards the great economic reset. Possibly worth some short term misery for the huge opportunity that awaits us. I’m surprised this forum doesn’t use the ‘build back better’ slogan on the lips of politicians around the world
https://www.weforum.org/great-reset/
You're predicting they'll prevaricate? As sure a bet as you'll ever place!
My prediction - incremental addition to tier 3 until things get so bad that everywhere in England is in at least tier 3 over Christmas and New year. That way they avoid a vote on it in Parliament, dodge a difficult fronting up about the realities of Christmas (which they are currently dodging but should come clean about), plus they can delay the downsides of brexit day as it will happen while everyone is effectively locked down.
Perhaps delay into January - to minimise interference with the January sales - "Keep Safe. Keep Spending".
You're predicting they'll prevaricate? As sure a bet as you'll ever place!
My prediction - incremental addition to tier 3 until things get so bad that everywhere in England is in at least tier 3 over Christmas and New year. That way they avoid a vote on it in Parliament, dodge a difficult fronting up about the realities of Christmas (which they are currently dodging but should come clean about), plus they can delay the downsides of brexit day as it will happen while everyone is effectively locked down.
Perhaps delay into January - to minimise interference with the January sales - "Keep Safe. Keep Spending".
Another lockdown should help us jog along towards the great economic reset. Possibly worth some short term misery for the huge opportunity that awaits us. I’m surprised this forum doesn’t use the ‘build back better’ slogan on the lips of politicians around the world
https://www.weforum.org/great-reset/
You are getting closer to funny.
Unfortunately you seem to have arrived at “Jim Davidson”, level 1, which has been comprehensively debunked in several major studies. Around 25 years ago.
The most widely cited paper on this (with a sample cohort over almost 6 billion at the time) was Dr O.M.G. Everybody, Et Al, 1997.
Do you believe that ‘sub-plot’ was planned in advance, or do you think of it as something that emerged out of a natural crisis?
What’s your point mate, cut the smug BS for a change eh
The virus presents lots of opportunities. My point before was governments have been known to cover up and manipulate for many reasons. Civilian deaths in Iraq and the wikileaks being one. Why wouldn’t they.
Bless your little cotton socks.
You tell me, it could be anything from simply lacking honesty about the long term plans for the economy to population reduction and behaviour control.
Like in Mad Max? (Not fussed which one... though prefer #1)
It might just be easier to kick Muscle Coach from the forum? I don't mind seeing alternative views but there's no coherence or sense to the posts. If their first post hadn't been admiring Whillance's biceps I'd suspect they were a chat bot.
The world economy, cashless society, the control of people based on covid vaccine delivery, global hegemony, etc etc
Like in Mad Max? (Not fussed which one... though prefer #1)
Bollocks.
Road Warrior was way better.
Nice. A little touch of incipient homophobia.
Nice. A little touch of incipient homophobia.
Not on any conscious level
there’s something fishy in the air
Thank fuck
there’s something fishy in the air
OK, so nail that down, produce a coherent argument: what's fishy, what are the mechanisms, who are the actors, what has been the timeframe? If you want to posit a plot ("something fishy") then you need to get concrete. Explain, for example, the very long process through which we moved somewhat in the direction of cashless society?
It’s just that it doesn’t actually tally up with my experiences as an adult. It’s all way more fractious and far more about individual greed/selfishness than that.
Also, far more frightening. There really is no plan.
I know it's against the spirit of the thing, but is it against the law to travel for one tier 3 area to an adjacent tier 3 area in England?
For exercise, not essential work.
If my Instagram is anything to go by then it is not advice many people seem to be following...
I’ve done some research on things loosely like this - to do with how scientists come to their decisions - and great phenomena like apophonia where people see patterns in random things. What a lot of this comes down to is that people want to believe that things happen for a reason - that there is a cause of the effect. Whereas in reality - there are lots of things that are totally random (like a virus mutating or evolving etc..) and people seem to find it really hard to accept that. Its got to be someone’s fault - ‘they’ did it to us - there’s some great master plan behind all this. In my view - this is why religion is so successful around the world, because it comes up with a load of stories (often thousands of years old) to explain events and outcomes that no-one else can explain* - and make everyone feel happier.
Sometimes shit just happens.
*I am pretty agnostic about god(s) in case you hadn’t guessed.
If my Instagram is anything to go by then it is not advice many people seem to be following...
If my Instagram is anything to go by then it is not advice many people seem to be following...
We covered this on the climbing thread though; surely driving by yourself to go climbing outside is not a transmission risk, so it seems completely excessive / disproportionate to stop people from doing that.
I'm surprised the French have gone hardcore (or hardcore retard) with their new lockdown (1hr exercise within 1km of your house).. be interesting to see if people ignore it. If they do that again here I would...
A pad party with clearly more than 6, 20 somethings on Instagram doesn’t send a clever message about this though (which is what I think most people are saying)
A pad party with clearly more than 6, 20 somethings on Instagram doesn’t send a clever message about this though (which is what I think most people are saying)
Jeez who do you imagine is looking at these climbers’ Instagram? The local Neighbourhood Watch?
I think ‘the public’ have bigger fish to fry than worrying about climbers.
I take it you've not seen a copy of the front covers of the weekend papers?Obviously getting bad enough in London that they’ve started to give a shit.
National lockdown, briefing on Monday etc.
I'm surprised the French have gone hardcore (or hardcore retard) with their new lockdown (1hr exercise within 1km of your house).. be interesting to see if people ignore it. If they do that again here I would...
That’s what they had before...
I'm surprised the French have gone hardcore (or hardcore retard) with their new lockdown (1hr exercise within 1km of your house).. be interesting to see if people ignore it. If they do that again here I would...
That’s what they had before...
Yeah, my point was just that I'm surprised they've gone back to that, given we seem to know that going out walking or running or climbing is low risk. If the UK goes "full lockdown" again I have no intention of following any restrictions on exercise and will go climbing in the peak, eastern lime etc (probably somewhere not super visible)
Brain dump follows: He’ll try and sell it as 4 weeks of lockdown to try and relax it at Christmas - but I can’t see it ending by then.
I take it you've not seen a copy of the front covers of the weekend papers?Obviously getting bad enough in London that they’ve started to give a shit.
National lockdown, briefing on Monday etc.
Pretty gutted that it appears in N Yorks we will be going straight from Tier 1 to Lockdown!
Pretty gutted that it appears in N Yorks we will be going straight from Tier 1 to Lockdown!
Yes, similar for where I am in Devon. Other than Exeter uni which is dying down (& Torbay?) things are generally simmering along slowly down here. Mind you, you have to feel for mid-Wales as well, when the hot spots are in the south and north east...
Interesting one I read yesterday the the predominant strain being found across Europe now originated among Spanish field workers earlier in the summer. The inference being we can thank everyone who went on holiday to Spain and then went to the pub with their mates after returning rather than following the travel isolation...
Then speaking of compliance, i think Chris Whitty said that they aren't seeing any decrease in people's activity in Tier 3 areas. Which suggests either the restrictions are poorly designed or compliance is minimal (or both).
National lockdown, briefing on Monday etc.It’ll be interesting to see how this is announced and what it’s described as (National Tier 4, circuit break, blah blah) given that up until yesterday the govt have been defending the local approach as the right strategy and one that was working effectively. I imagine 99% of the conversation among Johnson’s circle this weekend will be the politics of how to sell it above all other considerations.
Devon is doing ok as a whole:
Torbay is actually calming down after a surge around two weeks ago:
It was dark blue two weeks ago, with 100+ new cases/wk. We’ve had less than 10 deaths in Torbay hospital since August, but I’m told there are several critical.
According to the rolling news sites the leak was a genuine leak
#10 is fuming etc...
National lockdown, briefing on Monday etc.It’ll be interesting to see how this is announced and what it’s described as (National Tier 4, circuit break, blah blah) given that up until yesterday the govt have been defending the local approach as the right strategy and one that was working effectively. I imagine 99% of the conversation among Johnson’s circle this weekend will be the politics of how to sell it above all other considerations.
According to the rolling news sites the leak was a genuine leak
#10 is fuming etc...
Probably SAGE getting worried they’re being ignored and getting on the front foot to avoid being set up again like they were during the first wave.
Pretty gutted that it appears in N Yorks we will be going straight from Tier 1 to Lockdown!
Yes, similar for where I am in Devon. Other than Exeter uni which is dying down (& Torbay?) things are generally simmering along slowly down here. Mind you, you have to feel for mid-Wales as well, when the hot spots are in the south and north east...
Interesting one I read yesterday the the predominant strain being found across Europe now originated among Spanish field workers earlier in the summer. The inference being we can thank everyone who went on holiday to Spain and then went to the pub with their mates after returning rather than following the travel isolation...
Then speaking of compliance, i think Chris Whitty said that they aren't seeing any decrease in people's activity in Tier 3 areas. Which suggests either the restrictions are poorly designed or compliance is minimal (or both).
I wonder if they might do a national tier 2 / 3 coupled with a Tier 4 / fuller lockdown for areas already at Tier 2/3. They could still claim that was different to what labour have proposed and it might work.
I'd be surprised if they completely ditched the regional approach given how much they have been wedded to it to now.
Pretty gutted that it appears in N Yorks we will be going straight from Tier 1 to Lockdown!
Yes, similar for where I am in Devon. Other than Exeter uni which is dying down (& Torbay?) things are generally simmering along slowly down here. Mind you, you have to feel for mid-Wales as well, when the hot spots are in the south and north east...
Interesting one I read yesterday the the predominant strain being found across Europe now originated among Spanish field workers earlier in the summer. The inference being we can thank everyone who went on holiday to Spain and then went to the pub with their mates after returning rather than following the travel isolation...
Then speaking of compliance, i think Chris Whitty said that they aren't seeing any decrease in people's activity in Tier 3 areas. Which suggests either the restrictions are poorly designed or compliance is minimal (or both).
For what it's worth the importance of that Spanish strain is maybe over emphasised. This Bloomberg link is an interview with the author, she's fairly clear that it isn't responsible for driving the current waves around Europe.
Taking Devon as an example, I'm afraid 80 per 100k (which excludes Exeter and Plymouth) is not simmering along slowly, it's just earlier on the upward trend. Most places in the north west passed through that level in the first half of September is 6 weeks ago. You might be expected to see rates increase more slowly out on the moors and localities will have fluctuations (as has happened everywhere) but they will definitely continue to go up generally unless something significant changes.
@OMM
Could you please link to the source of the maps/data you used. Cheers.
The meanings of what is due to be announced at 5 will doubtless be subject to some interpretation- but from Peston it sounds like exercise outside is to be encouraged. Which is hopeful for climbing.
Shark has at least 10 years experience as a semi professional redpointer!
The meanings of what is due to be announced at 5 will doubtless be subject to some interpretation- but from Peston it sounds like exercise outside is to be encouraged. Which is hopeful for climbing.
Not if you are booked to go to Kalymnos
“Outbound international travel will be banned, except for work”
:'(
I can’t imagine how pissed off Muscle Coach is right now 😂
Assume we will get some more guidance on what constitutes reasonable travel for exercise. At least we can have an out of household spotter!
I can’t imagine how pissed off Muscle Coach is right now 😂
Yes indeed Moose. The only difference this will make to our family life over what we’ve been doing so far is (a) my wife is annoyed she won’t be getting her haircut and (b) our nipper won’t be able to meet a pal or two on the park. Neither are a great hardship to miss..I noticed that the guidance says play areas can stay open. It's not easy keeping 3yos apart!
Yes indeed Moose. The only difference this will make to our family life over what we’ve been doing so far is (a) my wife is annoyed she won’t be getting her haircut and (b) our nipper won’t be able to meet a pal or two on the park. Neither are a great hardship to miss..
And if not - what are the criteria for it ending. The answer was that R has to be pretty convincingly below 1. Enough to ‘halve cases per week’ which I believe is an R of 0.5.
Is this really achievable with schools and many work places still open? Basically we’re just closing pubs, restaurants, Gyms and ‘non essential’ shops etc... and according to the earlier Sage forecasts of R impact - these didnt make that much difference (they could be wrong of course).
Yes indeed Moose. The only difference this will make to our family life over what we’ve been doing so far is (a) my wife is annoyed she won’t be getting her haircut and (b) our nipper won’t be able to meet a pal or two on the park. Neither are a great hardship to miss..
On the national lockdown, glad my prediction was wrong and they are doing something, albeit very late. I suppose the reason I thought they wouldn't do it was that bj said a week ago a national lockdown would be "an absurdity"The question is whether this would be happening if it wasn’t for the leaked reports on Friday. It’s clear the press conference last night and this lockdown has been a panic move in response to the leak, so how long would the pretence of the regional approach being the right one have been kept up in the absence of the leak and its dire warnings?
I imagine regional centres serve a large spread out population per available bed?
Sorry to hear you are so isolated Moose.
What happened is that there was a rush by government to secure companies with strong contacts in China that could make sure that Chinese-made PPE would come to Britain in an environment described by one company director involved as "like the Wild West". All of this is well documented.
It may well be right to say that we were pushed for time and in a PPE crisis so that leveraging mates with the ability to open doors in China was justified, but lets at least recognise that was what happened to anywhere between £1bn and £5.5bn of taxpayer's money, rather than upping orders with existing NHS suppliers in the UK. Legal action is ongoing so the answers will come out in the fullness of time. I would still like to think that having a proper stockpile and using trusted domestic producers would have been preferable!
But it now turns out that projection was out-of-date.
It was based on figures from the start of October, which show by now there should be 1,000 deaths a day. The current average is a quarter of that number.
What is more, the Public Health England and the Cambridge University team that produced it have since published reports based on the more recently available data.
Grilled by MPs on this on Tuesday, chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance said he apologised if it caused confusion.
Meanwhile, none of the scenarios factored in the regional restrictions that the government has imposed since mid-October.
by now there should be 1,000 deaths a day
This may be interesting:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54785032
Given that "numbers of deaths" was likely a major influence on and justification for the governments lockdown decision:QuoteBut it now turns out that projection was out-of-date.
It was based on figures from the start of October, which show by now there should be 1,000 deaths a day. The current average is a quarter of that number.
What is more, the Public Health England and the Cambridge University team that produced it have since published reports based on the more recently available data.
Grilled by MPs on this on Tuesday, chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance said he apologised if it caused confusion.
Meanwhile, none of the scenarios factored in the regional restrictions that the government has imposed since mid-October.
(Obviously there may be a lot more to it, other factors, alternate hypothesises etc etc)
It's worth pointing out, as a friend did for me, that that figure doesn't actually tally with the graph predictions. So either the wrong figures were wrong or the wrong graph was wrong. Or something.Quoteby now there should be 1,000 deaths a day
Fucking poor journalism. A month-old model of a worst case scenario, assuming we did nothing. Lots of things were done, a different result ensued. Still, not enough to avoid a lockdown.
It's worth pointing out, as a friend did for me, that that figure doesn't actually tally with the graph predictions. So either the wrong figures were wrong or the wrong graph was wrong. Or something.Quoteby now there should be 1,000 deaths a day
Fucking poor journalism. A month-old model of a worst case scenario, assuming we did nothing. Lots of things were done, a different result ensued. Still, not enough to avoid a lockdown.
OMM, I personally don't know. What I saw was those predictions being made very prominent at exactly the same time the leaked rumours of the lockdown were appearing, and I'm pretty sure a link between the two was being strongly implied. I'm sure others can investigate it more rigorously if they're interested.
.
Isn't it a peculiar coincidence that the lockdown sceptics are those very same people who derive their power and influence from capitalising on anti-establishment feeling? Toby Jones, Farage, et al. This is just another fertile field for them to reap. Whether or not what they're saying is true is immaterial to them, so they're quite happy to take a complex set of numbers and predictions and present them in the worst possible light.
TobyJonesYoung
TobyJonesYoung
the actor Toby Jones has not yet committed to the right wing grift as far as I know :lol:
Seeing as its national there will be a vote - it'll be interesting to see how many Tories vote against.
I’ve missed all the debates (been out climbing!!) but basically are a load of the ex ERG/1922 arguing that we’ve become a communist republic because Starbucks is going to shut for 4 weeks.
Maybe obvious, but for those in the North / North East of England, these should be some useful local crags:Surely that’s for climbers in the South East?
https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/map/?g=0&loc=barnard+castle&dist=20&km=0&q=&rock=0&dir=0&day=0&rain=0#main