UKBouldering.com

the shizzle => shootin' the shit => Topic started by: James Malloch on September 07, 2020, 02:25:19 pm

Title: Local Lockdowns
Post by: James Malloch on September 07, 2020, 02:25:19 pm
At the start of lockdown we decided to move off our boat and rented a property from some family. We're now in the process of buying a house, which we will hopefully be in by mid-November, and are considering moving back onto the boat for the last few months to save a bit of rent and get back to our old lives/community for a while.

However, the boat is in central Leeds which looks set for a possible local lock down, but I'm not quite sure what this means. Is there any consistency (lol) across what's been implemented in other areas so far?

We've now got an office space sorted so we could continue to work, but things like climbing walls would be our only form of sanity/exercise in the evenings. This would be the main thing for us as there just isn't the space to keep active whilst aboard.

It would be really useful to hear the experiences of those who've been subject to a local lockdown and what it meant you could no longer do.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: spidermonkey09 on September 07, 2020, 02:47:28 pm
In Leicester the lockdown meant pubs and gyms didn't reopen in line with everywhere else and for a while the line of 'essential travel only' was pushed. Pubs and the travel line were dropped swiftly but the gyms are only allowed to open from tomorrow. Visiting other peoples houses isn't allowed. It is by a distance the most stringent local lockdown yet.

Elsewhere the lockdowns have only included the element of not visiting other peoples houses with gyms and pubs remaining open and I can't see that changing in the event Leeds is classified in that group. I think you'd probably be fine on the boat.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: SA Chris on September 07, 2020, 02:52:07 pm
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Anti on September 07, 2020, 02:54:09 pm
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: SA Chris on September 07, 2020, 04:14:55 pm
This is Scotland, the Sturgeonator is in charge.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on September 07, 2020, 05:14:55 pm
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.

In Bolton I believe people are now advised not to use public transport except for essential journeys. Think it was the same in Leics. 
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: moose on September 07, 2020, 05:34:15 pm
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: James Malloch on September 07, 2020, 05:37:22 pm
Sounds like we should be fine on the whole then. 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.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Paul B on September 08, 2020, 03:23:19 pm
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.

As per the other thread, it's going to depend on the flavour of your particular restrictions:
https://twitter.com/JenWilliamsMEN/status/1303313921483378688?s=19
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: SA Chris on September 08, 2020, 03:42:23 pm
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: James Malloch on September 08, 2020, 03:52:24 pm
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.

Yeah that's the worry for us. We could cope with it for a bit but if the house was delayed or fell through and we were stuck in a 15sqm space we'd very quickly go mad. Starting to miss our normal (i.e. where we usually live) a lot...
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 11, 2020, 07:24:45 pm
Heads up for climbing walls: Sky news reporting now that the (presumed) Tier3 lockdown in Liverpool will also mean closing of Gyms - which probably means climbing walls too....

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-liverpool-faces-tier-3-lockdown-pubs-bars-and-gyms-expected-to-close-12101965

Not completely clear if this would be the same in other ‘Tier 3’ areas that will probably be Manchester and the NE too... but I’d suspect it will be...
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Andy F on October 11, 2020, 07:51:23 pm
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Will Hunt on October 11, 2020, 07:58:34 pm
I'm no Tory fan, Andy, but that is quite a stupid thing to say.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Andy F on October 11, 2020, 08:00:53 pm
Will, the Tories have underfunded Liverpool for decades, ever since the 'managed decline' of the 80's. The hatred runs deep around here.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Sidehaas on October 11, 2020, 09:52:45 pm
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.
I just hope they don't stop us leaving the area, which was rumoured yesterday/today. That would wind me up, I don't see it being a significant driver of infection (I suppose excluding the possibility that people decide to travel out for a group night on the piss). Closing hospitality and maybe shops/leisure is warranted, the infection is sky high round here at the moment. Rates are almost certainly higher than they were here in spring.

* The current 400 figure is a Sefton average that includes Southport and Formby where they have got off lightly, so rates from Crosby down to Bootle are probably more similar to the 600 in Liverpool and Knowsley.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: gme on October 11, 2020, 10:17:18 pm
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. 



Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: galpinos on October 12, 2020, 07:40:05 am
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.

 Using the MSOA data (Middle Layer Super Output Area, a geographical area with a mean pop of 7200), all the high student areas in Manchester are dropping very quickly after the initial outbreak and are lower than the Newcastle "City Centre and Arthurs Hill" area, for example, which is also on the rise.

The MSOA data shows Nottingham and Leeds are on the up......

https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1315332198606819329?s=20

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? That's over a week. My local area was pretty busy over the weekend, had a very "we'd better go out before it all closes again" vibe.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 12, 2020, 07:54:05 am
Exactly Nick. It’s like March all over - dither about for a week... and with cases doubling every 10 days that’s at least an extra 50% of cases. 🤦‍♂️
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Duncan campbell on October 12, 2020, 08:16:16 am
Anyone know where to find if your area is medium, high or very high risk?

Really worried about Sheffield being judged high risk and the walls closing. Think that might kill me at the minute.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: teestub on October 12, 2020, 08:23:01 am
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: chris j on October 12, 2020, 08:29:19 am

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...
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: chris j on October 12, 2020, 08:31:14 am
 :off:
Will, the Tories have underfunded Liverpool for decades, ever since the 'managed decline' of the 80's. The hatred runs deep around here.

I think that's a 'g' on ukb political buzzword bingo!
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Will Hunt on October 12, 2020, 08:36:08 am
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: galpinos on October 12, 2020, 08:52:38 am
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)

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.

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.

There's context here though. Quite a few contracts have been awarded, without a tender process, to new companies with connections to the tory party or their donors, when existing companies/organisations with competence in the field and a track record of delivery were overlooked.

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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: James Malloch on October 12, 2020, 08:57:03 am

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. 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.


Fixed that one for you, Will.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 12, 2020, 09:18:30 am
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.

This is a right dogs dinner of a pre announcement. Even by this governments dealings its a fucking shambles.

We only 'know' that Liverpool will be in Tier 3 because the mayor (I think) has said as much and what it will entail (pubs, bars - not restaraunts or takeaways, bookies and gyms). If you read sky news those same restrictions will apply to all tier 3 areas. If you look at the BBC, they;ve been 'briefed' that this will only happen in Liverpool and NOT manchester/NE. If you read the Manchester Evening News they say Manchester will be tier3 but the Mayor (Burnham) says there has been no discussion with the government since friday...

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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: teestub on October 12, 2020, 09:26:05 am
Agree TT, I thought Cummings was meant to be a data and information guy? When I was trying to work out if we were in the somewhat nebulous ‘Bradford’ lockdown area (we have a BD postcode) all I could find on the gov website was a pdf map with only the cities as identifying features. They’re going to need something better this time if you want to be taking localised areas in and out of lockdown. Surely they’ve got the GIS capabilities, or just a postcode searcher like the BBC one.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 12, 2020, 09:38:44 am
Maybe postcodes don’t work in Excel :D
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: iain on October 12, 2020, 09:41:11 am
Anyone know where to find if your area is medium, high or very high risk?

Really worried about Sheffield being judged high risk and the walls closing. Think that might kill me at the minute.
As teestub said because it's not been officially announced there's no current way to check official tier.

Obviously I'm a random Internet person but Sheff is arguing for tier 2 (high) with some extra support for specific outbreaks. Unfortunately it's a political decision and they may not get their way.


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.

This. ^^^

Whitty and Valance were arguing for a short full lock down 3 weeks ago and were ignored, and as you said something decisive 7-10 days ago would've really helped, instead we're back in March territory.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: iain on October 12, 2020, 10:21:33 am
To add, it's probable that gyms, and therefore walls, will be allowed to remain open under Tier 2, but until the government publishes clear guidelines we just don't know.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: galpinos on October 12, 2020, 10:27:44 am

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...

They haven't spoken to Andy Burnham since last week so Manchester are totally in the dark, Liverpool are making announcements based on what has been leaked to the Times/Telegraph, as that's more up to date than there briefings from the Cabinet and the actually briefing to "MPs and Leaders in the North" was run by Jenrick* and he cut the call when asked questions.

*Don't get me started on the "He approved the spending in my constituency and I approved the spending in his constituency" interview
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: ali k on October 12, 2020, 10:31:31 am
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: galpinos on October 12, 2020, 10:32:07 am
They are high in the north east as well but compared to Liverpool manchester and others we look good.

I should also add that Manchester numbers have been driven up by the decision to mass test thousands of students, whether symptomatic or not, to allow an effective isolation campaign. Many students were asymptomatic so would not have got tested in regimes who aren't testing the asymptomatic population. Manchester don't what to be punished for having high numbers when that may be the result of more testing.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Nigel on October 12, 2020, 10:42:31 am
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!
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 12, 2020, 10:46:20 am
I would still like to think that having a proper stockpile and using trusted domestic producers would have been preferable!

A stitch in time saves nine. As our beloved leader like to trope...
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Paul B on October 12, 2020, 10:58:37 am
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.

This is looking increasing like theory, with Merseyside/Greater Manchester seemingly negotiating/re-buffing the Government's offer.

I thought this was very interesting:

***actually that's the wrong clip from the same interview***
https://twitter.com/KayBurley/status/1315563705506115584?s=20

The one I was meaning:
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1315546002305228801?s=20

My take is that suggests that the measures wouldn't address the infection pathway(s) identified in Oldham (intensive workplaces). Is there now publicly available data on where infection occurs?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Will Hunt on October 12, 2020, 11:08:21 am
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.

I don't doubt that there is corruption going on and that contracts have been awarded to dodgy suppliers. There's a separate story about Cummings throwing contracts to his mates. The story I was referring to (it's actually quite old but popped up on social media today: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/15/firms-given-1bn-of-state-contracts-without-tender-in-covid-19-crisis) used the logos of Deloitte, Serco, Sodexo, PWC etc in its headline. The biggest contract mentioned in the article was for Edenred to set up and launch a voucher scheme for free school meals, reportedly in just 10 days. Edenred are something like the biggest provider of childcare vouchers so aren't exactly an unexpected choice. Had there been a tender process then it would have taken weeks or months more than that which would have been unacceptable.

Note: I absolutely despise this and the previous government for all that they have done with Brexit and more (particularly on things like the unlawful prorogation and a general disregard for the rule of law). I'm only pointing out the Catch-22 of their situation. Perhaps the contracts issue wasn't the best example to choose.

There is heaps of confusion around what the announcement tonight will look like, probably because it's still a work in progress (whether or not that should be the case is a different matter). 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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: galpinos on October 12, 2020, 11:19:12 am
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.

Do you mean the info leaked to the telegraph and times wasn't from the government source but was actually from the local mayors?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Will Hunt on October 12, 2020, 11:24:27 am
No. I'm not sure why you'd think I was suggesting that.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: petejh on October 12, 2020, 11:29:57 am
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!

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.



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.

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 following easing of rules and increased social mixing. It may be complex but any fool can see the pattern.
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..
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 12, 2020, 11:42:07 am
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, and we need a French/Spanish style of having to have a letter to show you are allowed out/to go to work etc...

BTW, Dyfed Powys have the highest ratio of CV19 fines given per population in the UK - by quite some margin!
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Nigel on October 12, 2020, 11:43:50 am
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.

Doesn't seem that different from what I wrote tbh! We used to buy pigeon spikes from them I think.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: galpinos on October 12, 2020, 11:44:13 am
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.

I was obviously unclear. By "what's going on" I meant the governments planned response to the inevitable "second wave" and what they had proposed to combat it. My criticism on the lead in time is not that they are getting local leaders on board (or not, as the case may be) but that this should have been sorted out over the summer, so when they sent everyone out to eat in restaurants, they schools reopened and they encouraged student to swarm back to the unis and office workers back  to their offices, they had a plan as to what they would do in the various scenarios of the infection rate rising, hospital admissions rising and deaths rising.

This harks back to my comment about wasting the goodwill from the first lockdown. We now hear they won't be announcing the areas that will be put into stricter lockdown today. Nightingale Manchester is being brought back online though, so..........


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..

Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Paul B on October 12, 2020, 11:53:06 am
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'.

Have to disagree strongly with this Pete. The last round of measures were brought in overnight and as of yet haven't been backed up by evidence (have I missed this?). The 'acceptance' at the time was very much based on the evidence following. As I've said (now numerous times on the other thread), the measures (for whatever reason, either poor adherence or they just aren't sufficient) are not working (also see the video I've posted); Pendle has been in local lockdown for ~7 weeks.

Likewise, if you now look at the rates per 100k, there doesn't appear to be a logical threshold to 'trigger' additional measures. This doesn't look good with all the talk of levelling up. There may be practical reasons why this is the case, but I've not heard them articulated by a Government Minister.

People's willingness to sit back and just take measures on the chin or accept that the Government is doing the best in bad situation is just completely broken. I went out for lunch on Thurs and the owner didn't know what to do with ordering for the next week as he has literally no idea if he'd even be allowed to open (and I'd wager he still doesn't).

Quote
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.

GM have been offering suggestions to try and improve contract tracing. As far as I'm aware, this has been the case (in various forms) since April.  Various local leaders have spoken out since Fri saying that the suggestion that there's consultation/engagement is false and they're being told of what the restrictions may/will be and prevented from asking questions. These are the same people who were quite rightly saying that the range of restrictions across GM were completely unworkable (was it Bolton that had ~6 sets of rules in ~8 days?). There's plenty of scope for fair criticism in there.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: galpinos on October 12, 2020, 11:55:50 am
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 12, 2020, 12:00:29 pm
(https://e3.365dm.com/20/10/2048x1152/skynews-coronavirus-covid-19_5136436.jpg?bypass-service-worker&20201012112223)

Good graphic from Van Tam https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-more-covid-deaths-baked-in-due-to-creep-from-young-to-old-deputy-chief-medical-officer-warns-12102431

One good thing to take from this is the low increase in 0-15yo's...
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: gme on October 12, 2020, 12:06:37 pm

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 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.

My oldest at uni in London appears to be out every night on the piss so expect an increase down there.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 12, 2020, 12:08:35 pm

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.


Yes - possibly better controlled having them in one controlled (as much as you can!) place for most of the week... I was deeply sceptical of opening schools earlier in the year and it looks like I was wrong about that (and I'm pleased to be wrong).
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: chris j on October 12, 2020, 12:23:40 pm
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.

I don't know what the situation is elsewhere in the country but as of last week in devon half of those in hospital with Covid had been admitted for another reason. Which rather begged thequestion whether they were not showing symptoms on admittal or if they were infected while in hospital.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: petejh on October 12, 2020, 12:31:36 pm
On 'planned phased responses and clear road maps', I find it hard-to-impossible to get too worked up about the nature of this or most other government's responses in the face of covid. Except for Bolsonaro and Trump who are obviously negligent and uncaring, most western democracies' responses appear to me to be quite predictably a bit chaotic and a bit shit. Clearly major health and economic impacts need to be balanced, as well as political considerations. Cue the noise and chaos of conflicting opinions and agendas with all the usual voices saying most of the usual things.
Throw into the mix the positive or negative effects of geography and exposure to travel for business or tourism. The preferable situations as far as modern western democracies go seems either to be a sparsely-populated country in a remote region (Norway, Sweden, Finland, New Zealand, Canada, Australia), ideally one with natural sea or land borders which make rapid closure to travel relatively easy (Austria/Switzerland, Norway etc., New Zealand/Australia), ideally relatively low travel numbers initially (Norway etc., Austria, NZ/Australia), or a dictatorship to stamp on the mole's head (China).

Either that or a less dysfunctional society than is the norm for our times.. Germany buck the trend - high travel, not remote nor sparsely-populated, and make us all look terrible. Perhaps because they are a very unchaotic society..
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Paul B on October 12, 2020, 12:38:30 pm
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.

What the video I posted says is that in Oldham, their data analysis suggests that it's work-place transmission which is then taken home and spread quickly in areas of multi-generational households.

The caveat here being I haven't seen such data (which is the same for "most transmission in households").

Quote
My lads school had a few issues at first but dropped off now with a few weeks of no cases.

Whereas today I'm cancelling a training event for Wed as an employee has tested positive (following his wife, who is a teacher) and thus the majority of our fairly small office (6 people) are now self-isolating. I think this is the second time the teacher has been required to self-isolate (the first time she tested negative).
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 12, 2020, 12:42:07 pm
Our headteacher is self isolating - but (fingers crossed) so far only one class bubble in the whole school has had to isolate for two weeks...
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: chris j on October 12, 2020, 12:43:59 pm
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?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Paul B on October 12, 2020, 12:49:26 pm
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).
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: fatneck on October 12, 2020, 12:50:15 pm
The school I'm a governor at has two year groups and 4 teachers self-isolating.

Foodbank deliveries are ramping up again and we are in discussion with the council about the possibility of re-opening Shielding which, though not our remit, would make a massive difference to a lot of people and considerably reduce the load on us as a small charity. As it stands, vulnerable people are being told to stay indoors but not to "Shield", thus handily removing the need to reinstate the government parcel delivery process...

The Climbing Hangars have closed down their booking system and sounds like they're preparing to close on Wednesday (this is grapevine info - not confirmed or from an official source).

Thankfully PEX was in good nick last night but who knows whether I'll be able to drive there...
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: chris j on October 12, 2020, 01:09:19 pm

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
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: spidermonkey09 on October 12, 2020, 01:10:55 pm
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).

https://www.ft.com/content/48fae206-6d85-46f0-9ee8-ecb5163411a7

This article is quite good on Leicester; tldr is we cant know for sure whether the lockdown worked or not as cases were falling before it started. Also despite having been under restrictions since March now the rate in Leicester is back around 140, so basically what it was when the first local lockdown was announced and everyone else went to the pub. Meanwhile, anecdotally there are next to no covid patients in the Leicester hospitals.

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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Fiend on October 12, 2020, 01:25:50 pm
(https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/120882548_10159275636618623_2677669600232112290_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&_nc_sid=8024bb&_nc_ohc=lPeGua29eIMAX_Uwgvr&_nc_ht=scontent-lht6-1.xx&oh=6f0a85827e629873a3a834e13240b009&oe=5FAB57D6)
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Paul B on October 12, 2020, 01:27:36 pm
To be clear, I wasn't commenting on the veracity of Hancock's assertions!
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Sidehaas on October 12, 2020, 01:36:36 pm
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.

Your last sentence is nail on head. The local restrictions will sting but not as much as it might have done if we had just been left to rot with no concrete action. Apart from people dying, some places here are already shutting as I said above - whether told to or not - and infection rates are so high that very few people are now behaving normally anyway. There's been a massive change in behaviour since about 3 weeks ago when it became clear the wheels had come off. My biggest worry was that this would continue but no actual forced closures would happen and the government would therefore justify not paying the area or affected workers any extra cash. This could have led to everywhere shutting permanently. If there is a reasonable furlough-light and a clear set of goals for coming out of lockdown then it won't be pretty but it'll be the least worst option from the point we are now at.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: ali k on October 12, 2020, 02:22:15 pm
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

Enforced by who, though? The police were stretched enough as it was before Covid hit, no thanks to a decade of cuts. The only reason lockdowns worked last time was a result of good will and solidarity among the majority. Now that’s been pissed up the wall and the rules were shown to be a bit...let’s say...flexible by Cummings it’s going to be harder to get any buy in from the public, which is what policing by consent relies on.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Paul B on October 12, 2020, 02:46:56 pm
GM Manchester to go into Tier 2:

https://twitter.com/lisanandy/status/1315636400293806082?s=20

Quote
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
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: gme on October 12, 2020, 03:15:22 pm
Andy Burnham was just on the news saying as much. He says they fought hard to stay in tier 2 and keep the pubs open as there was no evidence that them being open was causing the rates to go up.

Would be nice to see what data he’s working on that shows that.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 12, 2020, 03:36:16 pm

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

Chris - I think there’s legs in my Barbers plan...

He suggested rolling 2 week closures of all shops (except essential) and full lockdown then 2 weeks off. He recons he’d do the same business but not lose any customers that way. He suggested most of the small shopkeepers felt the same.

But yes - I agree the only thing that seems to work is severely restricting any contact between people. And if folk are not clever enough to figure out what that means - or ignore it - then you have to shut down as many opportunities for it to happen as possible.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 12, 2020, 03:42:33 pm
Sorry - lots of posts from me. The whole teir 1-3 messaging is crap too - case in point that I’m having a WhatsApp discussion at the moment and none of us are sure it 1 is bad or 3 is bad.

Why not traffic light colours? That’s pretty clear right?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Nutty on October 12, 2020, 03:54:18 pm
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).
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: gme on October 12, 2020, 03:54:45 pm
I can’t believe you just said that. It’s so fucking simple if people stop looking for faults.

Just look it up.

You know what the tiers are your just being provocative.

Show me anything that the number reduces as the risk goes up.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: gme on October 12, 2020, 03:56:49 pm
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???
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Will Hunt on October 12, 2020, 04:08:12 pm
Show me anything that the number reduces as the risk goes up.

DEFCON levels...

Honestly though I agree that this is a non-issue. There will be accompanying visuals and even the thickest will have got their heads round it in a day or two.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Sidehaas on October 12, 2020, 04:15:03 pm
Just watched BoJo's statement.
Tier 1 = current national measures.
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.)
Tier 3 = Tier 2 measures plus pubs and bars closed, plus other measures as agreed with local authorities. See below. Basically this means Tier 3 is open-ended so there is no need for a Tier 4.

Only agreed Tier 3 place is Merseyside. As well as the above, some other stuff will be shut which included gyms and leisure centres, also betting shops, gaming centres and casinos (but not restaurants or cafes). So you would have to assume climbing walls will be shut. Nothing was said about non-essential travel so I think that must be remaining just as guidance and we can at least keep climbing outside. All of this may or may not be replicated for other areas that become Tier 3.

Tier 2 is everyone else currently under any local restrictions, plus Nottinghamshire, East/West Cheshire and some undefined part of High Peak.

BoJo strongly implied he wanted to put GM, NE and Yorkshire/Humber in to Tier 3 now too but negotiations with local authorities about what that meant in their areas were ongoing. (I didn't think Yorkshire/Humber was currently under any local restrictions?)
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: abarro81 on October 12, 2020, 04:22:39 pm
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 understand

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:
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: UnkArl on October 12, 2020, 04:25:20 pm
I agree the concept of traffic lights is much more simple and clear. However, I heard on the radio this morning that the “levels” 1-3 are supposed to be “medium”, “high” and “very high”. I wouldn’t equate a green traffic light with “medium”. Surely a green light indicates “f*cking go for it”  ;D
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Sidehaas on October 12, 2020, 04:34:45 pm
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 understand

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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 12, 2020, 04:46:24 pm
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???

Calm down everyone - Flashing red obvs :)

I dunno - Tiers are something on a cake in my mind not a grading of a level of national restrictions :)

Anyway - given the general confusion about what means what where and whether there are travel restrictions - or how much food a pub has to serve to remain open... etc.. etc... and it sounds like local areas can haggle whether things like gyms and restaurants can remain open or not. 

Sorry to go on Gav - but the government have had a good few months to think about this - to strategise or ‘war game’ what might happen and how to respond.

I was really hoping this would make things clearer but I’m not sure it really does.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: petejh on October 12, 2020, 04:53:12 pm
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. 
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: mark20 on October 12, 2020, 05:29:13 pm
From BBC news= "The prime minister confirms that most areas already subject to local restrictions - on top of the national rules - will automatically move into the "high alert" category - that is, tier 2.
In addition Nottinghamshire, east and west Cheshire, and a small area of the High Peak will also move into that tier, he says, after a rise in cases in those areas."

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.
Nottinghamshire and East/West Cheshire will join them - these have around 100-150k cases in the last week https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/11/covid-cases-and-deaths-today-coronavirus-uk-map

Sheffield has 350+ cases in the last week. Roughly the same, if not more, than the Leeds and Manchester areas. But no mention of Sheffield even moving into High (tier 2) - presumably because the Gov are still discussing with local leaders to put Sheffield straight into Tier 3 ?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Duncan campbell on October 12, 2020, 05:36:13 pm
Nooooo  :(
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Paul B on October 12, 2020, 05:37:41 pm
Should shut the fuckers up about me kneebaring or toe hooking on the School board at least  :tease:

This is just the reverse of #biggradesforbadsequences. Nobody would care if you took #appropriategradesfortheeasiestsequence (although I'll admit the 'tag needs work). It's like that time you told me that it felt 'natural' to try and wrap your leg around the back of the board  :tumble:.

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'd suspect this will be used against Andy Burnham in the (near) future. I think the main argument against Tier 3 in GM was simply that the measures to support businesses weren't viewed as sufficient and the Gov. didn't want an open revolt/legal challenge etc.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: teestub on October 12, 2020, 05:38:27 pm
https://mobile.twitter.com/SCR_Mayor/status/1315651555195060224?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

This was on Graun live blog thing earlier, would seem to confirm Tier 2
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Andy F on October 12, 2020, 05:40:41 pm
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...
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Will Hunt on October 12, 2020, 06:04:43 pm
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?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 12, 2020, 06:30:13 pm
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?

You’re in Yellowty-two-ish(with red undertones and a hint of burgundy), just below Amberish-2.01-andabit (subtle hints of cherry and burnt umber).

Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: petejh on October 12, 2020, 06:40:25 pm
There'll be tiers before bedtime.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 12, 2020, 07:27:55 pm
There'll be tiers before bedtime.

Tiers of a Clown...?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Paul B on October 12, 2020, 08:51:42 pm
I missed the announcement earlier but having watched it now I thought it was well delivered.

I'm slightly surprised to see Lancashire effectively having easing (I'm allowed to have people in my garden now) given the way the rates are heading.

Likewise, the clusterfuck that was local variations gone mad has just moved to Tier 3 so hopefully they listen to local leaders and the same situation doesn't end up getting punted 'upwards'.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 12, 2020, 09:05:48 pm
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: petejh on October 12, 2020, 09:14:11 pm
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 12, 2020, 10:19:49 pm
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: TobyD on October 12, 2020, 10:39:13 pm
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.

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.

They seem to have misconstrued the WHO advice to manage the pandemic at a local level as keep trying to manage it centrally but divide the country as much as possible
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: petejh on October 12, 2020, 11:23:51 pm
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.

You can call the public wankers but the reality is many people including many of us on here want to enjoy going to the wall for a climb, the pub for a pint, a meal in a restaurant, go to the coffee shop, or get on a plane/train for a trip - the sorts of activities that increase spread of the virus. We’re all part of the problem just by wanting as nice as possible a life.
The gov have an impossible balancing act to perform and are bound to fail.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: sdm on October 13, 2020, 01:25:43 am
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.

The problem with waiting before bringing out the big guns is that the longer you wait, the bigger the gun you need to bring out.

I think most people would have preferred a 2 week lockdown in September/October if it was explained that the alternative is probably a 4 week or 6 week lockdown in November/December.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: galpinos on October 13, 2020, 06:54:41 am
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.

The gossip in the tory circles is that BJ was keen for the circuit breaker but Rishi vetoed it, at the same time he vetoed closing pubs to leave us with the ridiculous 10pm closure compromise. Who knows what the true story is.....
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: galpinos on October 13, 2020, 07:03:08 am
Personally, I think the Tier system is fine and the info is out there in a clear manner, the gov.uk page is clear on what the Tiers mean and who's in which Tier.

Being in Manchester, it feels weird that the restrictions are slackened slightly and I do think Andy Burnham is going to have a battle on his hands when the blame falls on his shoulders if the numbers go up as he seems to have pushed against Tier 3 for GM. I'm not sure it will have done Steve Rotheram much good to be seen to be in cahoots with BJ though.....
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Sidehaas on October 13, 2020, 07:18:23 am
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: sdm on October 13, 2020, 07:30:29 am
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 numbers regarding the impact on Rt are interesting when compared with the narrative on transmission leading to the local lockdowns.

Behaviours that were apparently responsible for the rapid spread in the worst hit areas are shown here as having negligible impacts on transmission.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: James Malloch on October 13, 2020, 07:51:18 am
I feel like we should just go for some kind of NZ scheme. Mandatory 14 day quarantine for international arrivals in airport hotels paid for by the government, and a strict lock down for 1-2 months until transmission gets to low levels that are manageable by test and trace. 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...
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: abarro81 on October 13, 2020, 08:21:33 am
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..
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: abarro81 on October 13, 2020, 08:25:18 am
Also, does anyone else feel like tier 2 is just "carry on as per since May" for them? Or are we weird in having only socialised with friends and family outdoors over the summer?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 13, 2020, 08:26:48 am
One thing that’s not been picked up on in the national press is that additional funding for local TTI is only ‘allowed’ if you are tier 3.

TTI is a preventative measure and should be encouraged/enhanced in every tier not just the worst! Hence this measure being seen as a political measure to make those rebellious northern mayors tow the line.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: TobyD on October 13, 2020, 08:40:45 am

The gov have an impossible balancing act to perform and are bound to fail.

They have a difficult job to do,  but they can't ignore their advisers,  and claim to be guided by the science. Then try to say they are working locally when what they've done is told local authorities what to do.

. ...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...

The issue with t&t isn't money,  you can give your school chum from the jockey club as much cash as you like and shell she'll still do a shit job. 
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: TobyD on October 13, 2020, 08:57:23 am
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...

I think you're joking here, but that would be extremely irresponsible wouldn't it? I am posing the question, not judging you.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: James Malloch on October 13, 2020, 09:01:00 am
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 13, 2020, 09:03:27 am
I wondered if the release of the SAGE notes (albeit after BJ's presser) was forced by SAGE - not wanting to be blamed/hung out if it all turns to shit again... A "we told you so" for the record as it were.

Certainly CWiddy seemed more rebellious than usual - and I'd bet if those notes were not released they would have been leaked....
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: teestub on October 13, 2020, 09:14:07 am
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Sidehaas on October 13, 2020, 09:27:24 am
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 local authorities, except in High Peak whete it's electoral wards. This is the legislation for Tier 2 - see page 27 for the list.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1104/contents/made
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: galpinos on October 13, 2020, 10:00:52 am
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.

Mixing ban was in public as well as private dwellings for all of GM, however it was only a restriction and not made law, so many decided to ignore it. However, all restaurants near me for example were turning away any obvious mixed household groups as that was the guidance.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Offwidth on October 13, 2020, 10:15:37 am
Some info in Nottingham showing the geographical and numerical effect of students in the data last week

http://documents.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/download/8715

Scary numbers from Nottingham University yesterday of 1500 +ves... they have their own testing system so don't rely on the less reliable government systems. Private reports from Nottingham Trent Uni (who are not being very open about numbers) as being "not far behind " look worrying in that context.

https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/local-news/university-nottingham-confirms-more-1500-4597860

This all indicates most of the Nottingham problem is with students but obviously it will spread fast.


Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: James Malloch on October 13, 2020, 10:22:11 am
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.

The struck-out part may not be true having just spoken in broken German to the corona-line from a different state. Though the actual regulation suggests this is the case.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Paul B on October 13, 2020, 10:52:30 am
The Lancashire Telegraph are reporting that discussions are continuing today with the very real possibility of being in Tier 3 by the end of the week. This is the problem, yesterday it was Tier 2, my MP is sharing the Tier 2 Government information, the Government website says Tier 2 but that's likely to change before the ink even dries.

I think they're dangling contract tracing as a carrot to Burnham.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 13, 2020, 11:01:12 am
I think they're dangling contract tracing as a carrot to Burnham.

Yes - as I posted earlier. This is really bad IMHO... like holding back medicine or treatment..

Wankers... (and Burnham is playing a bit of a game too..)
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: galpinos on October 13, 2020, 11:02:03 am
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.

Tier 3 you shouldn't leave you area:


I doubt the law will reflect the guidance though.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 13, 2020, 11:03:44 am
'should' = ignore for many people....
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Will Hunt on October 13, 2020, 11:12:02 am
Tier 2 isn't much (any?) different for Bradford than the restrictions that we've had in place now for something like two months (that's what it feels like anyway, time has become meaningless). 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? Mind you, I'm not even sure if I'd bother trying to make sense of it from case numbers alone. There are so many complicating factors regarding how people live/work/play/interact that make it difficult to fully make sense of things without having vast amounts of data.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Paul B on October 13, 2020, 11:17:31 am
I'll save you the bother, they've gone up. We (Pendle) entered local lockdown at 50 per 100k, we're now around 300 per 100k.

https://twitter.com/LancsResilience/status/1313830825411084288/photo/1

Yes - as I posted earlier. This is really bad IMHO... like holding back medicine or treatment..

Sorry Tom, it was a lazy reply via mobile (to avoid the quoting system).
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Bonjoy on October 13, 2020, 11:49:28 am
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Anti on October 13, 2020, 11:58:50 am
Very much feel the same way (even as far as planning a trip up the West coast of Scotland for November). During lockdown in Wales I was keen to follow the rules. I felt it no great hardship. Now we're at a point where I feel I'm one of the only people who seem to care. I don't want to go to the pub, restaurants or shopping. I want to go bouldering, outside, in the fresh air. I deem it very low risk and unless I am specifically prohibited from it I think this time I'd carry on in spite of a lockdown, regardless of whether the BMC decides it's morally wrong. Hell, I'm even contemplating traveling out of Gwynedd into Conwy just to hop on a project because an arbitrary line drawn down Ogwen Valley, about 5 miles from my house doesn't seem to make sense to me, when people from across the country can drive here, or when I could drive to the Peak, without issue...
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: sdm on October 13, 2020, 12:10:39 pm
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.

I think most people have worked out how much personal covid risk they are willing to accept and have worked out what activities they are willing to spend their personal covid risk budget on.

Having worked that out, they then aren't too concerned with whether they are following the letter of the current guidance/restrictions.

This is from people who generally went above and beyond the original restrictions.

If future changes were to ban outdoor bouldering, while still allowing other higher risk activities, I'm not sure that I would avoid bouldering this time.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: chris j on October 13, 2020, 12:33:22 pm
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?

The BBC link i posted yesterday had some example graphs.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54239538

To me, from the examples, only Leicester really went down and that was under the highest level lockdown
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: petejh on October 13, 2020, 06:21:48 pm
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.

That's the sentiment among a number of people I know here in N.Wales. We aren't supposed to leave Conwy county, and people aren't supposed to enter the county. But climbers are just ignoring the rules to come climbing on the Orme and elsewhere. I haven't ignored the local rules yet but am tempted to, both because there's close to zero risk of contributing in any meaningful way to transmission from me bouldering outside, and because the rules aren't even applied to those from high-risk areas of England with far higher case numbers who can travel to Wales - so what's the point of me obeying them when I live in a relatively much lower-risk area with far lower case numbers? I feel like the country-specific regulations and the politics that result are making a mockery of the rules and diminishing people's willingness to comply with them.

As far as risky leisure-time activities, the data is pretty clear about where the risk lies - indoors, crowded, long-term and poorly ventilated. Outdoor activities, either individually or in household groups, are relatively safe and should be actively encouraged as one means to reduce the widespread unhappiness and frustration resulting from this mess. If ever there was a good year to discover spending time in nature as an adjunct to mental health, it's 2020.
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.

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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: abarro81 on October 13, 2020, 07:03:56 pm
Another +1 here for broadly agreeing with Bonjoy
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Bradders on October 13, 2020, 07:08:13 pm
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.

This, 100%.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Bradders on October 13, 2020, 07:21:33 pm
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.

Don't really agree with this though - for one, there's no alcohol and the loosening of inhibitions it involves in a gym, climbing or otherwise. I really don't see any issue with going to the gym and staying 2m from everyone else, keeping good hand hygiene, everyone wearing masks, etc. Seems far less likely to transmit the virus than people getting pissed together.

Let's also not forget that not everyone can, or likes to, exercise outdoors - for many going indoors is really important for mental and physical health generally, and people getting fitter and healthier through exercise is only ever going to be helpful in a pandemic.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: petejh on October 13, 2020, 07:57:33 pm
I'm more on the fence for gyms and walls then I am for pubs. But I think in highest risk areas they should try to stamp out spread as quickly as possible. In the hope that in other lower risk areas they can remain open to business.

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?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Fiend on October 13, 2020, 08:06:09 pm
The local gym I use has (deep breath):

2 rooms worth of machines spread out to 3 rooms.
Limited numbers well below the government maximum.
Masks in all corridors and non-workout areas.
One way systems in and out of rooms.
A pre-booking system with 45 minute timeslots (can book up to 3 back to back),
15 minute cleaning break every 1:30, and 1 hour cleaning break early afternoon.
Hand sanitiser and disinfectant wipes everywhere and much (and successful) encouragement to use them.
No sharing of machines nor equipment.

All quite manageable and we can still go in and properly :weakbench: (yup it's weakbench at the mo, well my bench is fine but deadlifts are a shambles).
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 13, 2020, 08:39:53 pm
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...
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 13, 2020, 08:44:11 pm
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?

Yes - why not a regional circuit breaker...

My bar owning next door neighbour Brian (who is resurrecting his bars kitchen....) told me today he was totally in favour of a 16-18 day circuit breaker. Thursday night to Monday morning two weeks later.... then open again. He could run a business like that and (like me) felt that without it a full on 2-3 month lockdown was coming in early Nov.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: teestub on October 13, 2020, 08:45:42 pm
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 13, 2020, 08:54:52 pm
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.

True - IF it gets as bad as it was (it may well do up here - if it goes the way of London in March/April)...
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: mrjonathanr on October 13, 2020, 08:58:34 pm

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.

You can add Outdoor Ed to that, residential trips are not permitted when 30 hours a week in close proximity in school is ... a lot of children would benefit, and the sector and freelance instructors are in real trouble.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Will Hunt on October 13, 2020, 09:34:24 pm
With the circuit-breaker, the SAGE document says that it delays the disease's progress by 28 days. I assume it's 28 days from the start of mini-lockdown. It sounds like a great way to buy time while you put something else in place (I don't think that a "something" exists), but if you end the circuit-breaker and relax things again then you'll be in the same situation in a fortnight's time. So two-weeks-in then two-weeks-out of lockdown, cycling through to the spring when climatic conditions are more favourable. In such a cyclic routine the two weeks of relative freedom would be marked by greatly increased risky activity - everyone piling into pubs/gyms/cinemas/climbing walls etc to pack 4 weeks of fun into 2. Those businesses would be less able to spread trade thinly and keep risk low.

But... just having Tier 2 doesn't work. The only option left is long-term shutdown of risky activities (indoors, poorly ventilated spaces for prolonged periods).


On another note, today I saw two climbers share a post on social media by a gym on the Wirral (Merseyside) stating that the gym would be staying open in defiance of the new rules.

NSFW  TL;DR = We're staying open:
WE ARE STAYING OPEN TO OUR MEMBERS
Today the UK’s Government has took it upon themselves to close gyms in the North West, despite the overwhelming evidence that gyms are not a major spreaders of COVID.
.
We respected the last lockdown although we financially suffered and only survived because of our amazing members. However they now want us to close, with minimum financial support for 6 months. We get no rent break, bills break both personally and as a business.
.
We are not staying open for financial gain but more for our members mental and physical well-being. Gym’s should be supported in fighting against COVID, obesity, mental health and many other conditions and diseases. So let’s look at the facts and evidence that has lead us to this decision and what the Government should be looking at:
.
UKActive published this study - https://www.ukactive.com/.../fitness-and-leisure-sector.../
- 22,000,000 (22 million) gym visits resulted in a mere 78 Covid cases
- Uk gyms showing just 0.35 cases per 100,000 visits
.
Then we have the latest (unpublished study) since the increase in positive tests https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-54464470
- Gyms are still only showing 1.7% percent of cases, but they want to close us and keep restaurants open which have a higher rate of 9.6% cases, which is still CRAZY LOW so these should also stay open.
.
Mental health - the gym helps so many people with their mental health daily.
- Male suicide is now at an all time high -  https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3431
Data published by the Office for National Statistics on 1 September showed that in 2019 the suicide rate among men and boys was 16.9 deaths per 100 000, the highest since 2000 and slightly above the 2018 rate of 16.2 per 100 000. The suicide rate among women and girls was 5.3 deaths per 100 000 in 2019, up from 5.0 per 100 000 in 2018 and the highest since 2004.
Overall, 5691 suicides (4303 in men and boys) were registered in England and Wales in 2019, giving an age standardised rate of 11 deaths per 100 000 people. A total of 5420 were registered in 2018 (10.5 per 100 000).
.
Further supported by this https://academic.oup.com/qjmed/article/113/10/707/5857612 which discusses suicide, mental health and COVID
.
The Government has ignored all the above facts and evidence and even ignored the calls of the Great Barrington Declaration 7,000 scientists & medics worldwide calling for a new strategy to allow us to live our lives. https://www.independent.co.uk/.../coronavirus-lockdown...
.
Joe Anderson, the Mayor of Liverpool has also today, stated he does not agree with the measures the government are enforcing on Merseyside  and they did not let him have a say about HIS REGION and that the government are “more interested in what they look like, rather than the evidence” .
So Joe I ask you to stand with us, stand with our members, our members who have worked the front line throughout who need a place to escape, to turn off and look after both their body and mind.
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/.../liverpool-mayor-joe...


The "science" behind their decision doesn't stand up to much scrutiny, but the widespread approval in the comments section was telling. People are determined to carry on doing the stuff that they like and will come up with justifications accordingly. Surface transmission isn't likely to cause a problem in gyms - it's the fact that the gym in an enclosed space that people have gone to with the specific intention of breathing heavily for a prolonged period!

Reading the SAGE PDF this morning was eye-opening. There isn't one setting which you can point to and say with confidence that it is the root of the issue. Closing schools completely looks to have the biggest impact but we don't really understand why because we don't fully understand transmission between children and stopping education is commonly understood to be a complete last resort. Transmission is spread relatively thinly across many different types of settings. If schools are to stay open AND R is to be driven to less than 1 then lots of indoor stuff is going to have to shut. No idea how deep the government's pockets are to fund the recovery packages though.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: moose on October 13, 2020, 09:37:23 pm
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...

Same here. I was a good boy: I worked from home since mid-March, and for the 8-9 weeks of "proper" lockdown my only exercise was walking on the moors over the weekend and finger-boarding in my attic.  To me, the main driver behind the block on leisure activities other than walking or cycling was a desire to reduce the load on the NHS from accidents.  When the NHS seemed at risk of collapse that seemed fair enough.

After the relaxation of lockdown, the only significant change in my life was bouldering outdoors on my own.  I've admittedly rarely walked away if others have arrived at the same crag, but I reckon any increase in my exposure to viral load has been minimal.  I have not been to a pub, eaten out, or been to a friend's house since March. I have seen my parents once since Christmas.

Now, I am very ill inclined to give up what little freedom I have as a completely token step to mitigate a crisis due to other factors (a complete failure to test & trace, crowded workplaces, Universities needlessly repopulated, pubs etc.).  Whatever the intricacies of rules for Tier 2 and 3 etc. Unless the NHS again nears collapse, so that risking a broken ankle seems unconscionable, I am minded to continue my programme of low ball bouldering until fined / punished into compliance.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Stu Littlefair on October 13, 2020, 10:00:30 pm
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: petejh on October 13, 2020, 10:14:36 pm
Stu, I already face risking a £60 fine simply for the heinous behaviour of going bouldering in the Pass. Doubling every subsequent time I'm stopped up to a maximum in the £thousands. We're past the point of ignoring 'advice' in Wales, due to the Welsh government restricting travel in law not guidance.
For this reason I don't feel very relaxed that the powers that be won't once again introduce (even more) ridiculous restrictions, on activities that have zero impact, and that other 'powers that be' such as the BMC won't once again feel inclined to toe the government line and start trying to be authoritarian.   
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Stu Littlefair on October 13, 2020, 10:25:47 pm
Point taken, but surely once the travel band are in law and enforced by fines, the position of the BMC is frankly irrelevant?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: petejh on October 13, 2020, 10:35:35 pm
Said no trespasser ever.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: TobyD on October 13, 2020, 10:55:29 pm
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.

Yeah I'd agree , both that this is how I feel,  and that its extremely worrying.  Ukb users going bouldering on their own is likely to have no impact whatsoever,  on the other hand I think that people in general lost all faith and trust in the government,  starting with the Dominic Cummings incident,  and exacerbated by incompetence since then with the testing system,  and yoyo messaging like 'eat out to help out ' alongside 'everyone needs to lose weight so they have less chance of dying from CV 19'.

This will mean many people will just have house parties if all the pubs are closed,  which is likely to have a significant impact. 

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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: spidermonkey09 on October 14, 2020, 07:28:29 am

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.

Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: AJM on October 14, 2020, 08:29:58 am
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.

I hope you're right, although the fact that some of the enhanced regulations already apply to outdoor gatherings does make me worry that there's a risk that the sort of things we want to do fall foul of a need for simple broad brush measures to target other things.

I'm a pessimist, in that 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.

Probably in line with many others here in that I can see a lack of consensus nationally around new measures and can see it in myself - I'm far more likely to adopt an attitude of minimum compliance to any restrictions on access to the outdoors because I just don't believe in the risk but conversely (and I do appreciate this isn't that hard for me to say as a parent of young children) already don't really go into heavy socialising - ability to see our parents would be the biggest impact of renewed lockdown.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: abarro81 on October 14, 2020, 08:44:57 am

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
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: TobyD on October 14, 2020, 09:28:16 am

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 that for example, propping up an airline isn't good use of money, I agree that there will be a market again whenever 'after the pandemic ' is, but as noone knows if that will be six months,  six years or longer it just doesn't make sense to try desperately to keep companies afloat. If there is a market, new airlines will start up when they are viable. 

Spider monkey, I agree that people in the relevant industries need proper support,  and, having recently become unemployed,  and worked out what UC I would be eligible for,  that it isn't great. But it's all very well crying economic vandalism,  but how long would you pay a theatre to remain closed for? 6 months?  6 years? I'd be all for diversification,  using the theatre example,  perhaps by filming performances and putting them out on a streaming platform,  or the actors doing podcasts but trying to maintain everything as it was this time last year just isn't going to work long term.
Even if someone made a vaccine tomorrow,  it would be months before it had any effect,  and that just isn't likely.  I know this sounds very pessimistic,  but I think that you need to be realistic. 
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 14, 2020, 09:32:02 am
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.

This. He wants to be loved too much to make a really tough decision. We could have been coming out of a circuit breaker right now. Interesting MEN article today looking at how circuit breakers have worked around the world... inc most recently Israel.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: teestub on October 14, 2020, 09:34:18 am
You aren’t offering much in the way of an alternative for the interim period Toby, there’s only so many jobs in cyber for those ballerinas to train for!
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: spidermonkey09 on October 14, 2020, 09:42:58 am
Given that we've all just spent the last 6 months imbibing more of the arts and culture than ever before, they'd be approaching the top of my list for government support. In terms of timing, I'd have no problem with another 6 months of government support to be reviewed in due course. Ditto with regard to any industry forced to close; hospitality, leisure, whatever. The cost is a straw man as far as I'm concerned; if it was wartime they would find the money, and we can pay it off incredibly slowly for years to come. I don't particularly understand why the Tories aren't more keen on this view anyway as it would allow them to avoid controversial tax rises. Then again, maybe people would indeed begin to ask 'what is the point of you?' as Sunak's speech suggested.

I think that most of these jobs are viable even outside of a vaccine being available. NZ will have 47,000 people in a rugby stadium at the weekend. Cinemas and theatres should be able to reopen again as soon as the government pull their finger out and address test and trace. As Alex says, travel will be in high demand as soon as its allowed.The industries aren't unviable, the government strategy is.

If you take the view that a given industry is fucked and is not going to be viable in the short to medium term (perhaps nightclubs might fit this template) then I would look to how other countries approach unemployment benefit as a lesson. In Sweden you are entitled to up to 80% of your salary for 200 days after you are made unemployed. In Germany it is 2/3 of your salary for a year. If we are going to adopt a hardline view of stopping support for certain industries then proper individual support isn't a nice-to-have, its a necessity. What we cant do is adopt that hardline approach and then stick two fingers up at the newly unemployed offering them the pathetic excuse for support that UC represents. Its callous as well as economically illiterate.

Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: abarro81 on October 14, 2020, 09:56:21 am
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: spidermonkey09 on October 14, 2020, 10:02:24 am
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Nigel on October 14, 2020, 10:03:29 am
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: abarro81 on October 14, 2020, 10:05:48 am
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'll just defer to whatever Stu thinks then. Unless it's about footwork or tactics.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: petejh on October 14, 2020, 11:21:12 am
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.

This.

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.

And this.


Employment provides much more than just income, it provides purpose and community. Long-term unemployment is one of the biggest predictors of unhappiness. For most people even a job you dislike is better than no job.

I wonder if Toby saying airlines should be allowed to fold comes from a general sense of dislike for ultra-wealthy airline owners (Branson, for e.g.). If so it cuts off a lot of people's noses to spite one face.
Far better would be a government that thought outside the box and re-directed as many workers as possible from currently-defunct industries into some useful and productive work paid for in part by gov and part by the employer, with perhaps a future tax credit promised from the government for the employer to offset costs.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: yetix on October 14, 2020, 11:30:33 am
 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
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: gme on October 14, 2020, 11:37:58 am
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.
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: petejh on October 14, 2020, 11:46:20 am
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

Not knowledgeable on economics but isn't it the standard belief that employment and wages cycle in a similar way to other commodity markets, where human resource and jobs are seen as two commodities in a market? When there are jobs available for everybody wages rise due to demand (for labour) outstripping supply. When everyone's out of work due to job shortages wages drop due to supply of labour outstripping demand. Low wages allow some new business to be profitable and to grow creating more job supply, while high wages create barriers to new business growth and keep a cap on new job supply. Captured in the saying: 'the best thing for future high prices (wages), is current low prices (wages)'.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Johnny Brown on October 14, 2020, 11:58:58 am
Quote
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

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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: teestub on October 14, 2020, 12:43:55 pm
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: spidermonkey09 on October 14, 2020, 12:45:18 pm

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.

This, articulated much better than I would have done.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: gme on October 14, 2020, 01:07:53 pm
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.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2013/nov/06/is-economics-a-science-robert-shiller

Nobel seems to disagree as well and treats it fairly equally.

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/lists/all-prizes-in-economic-sciences/

Pretty sure i have heard this argument used by Trump, the same "Pseudoscience" argument re Covid and the environment. Which was my point about your dismissal of economists.

To me its just as much a science as any and all have a problem once politics get involved.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: petejh on October 14, 2020, 01:11:09 pm
Quote
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

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.

Lets hope it doesn't come to a situation where once again we're subjected to non-sensical restrictions on outdoor access (although in Wales we're unfortunately due to our government already seeing the beginning of them). Because I strongly doubt your thinking that if the BMC once again adopted a 'cover their arses' position over a 'fight for access to the outdoors' position that there'd be little support for voting out the current management and their strategy of focussing on protecting company law and government funding first before fighting for members' access interests.

I just don't see that the public will is there to comply with restrictions this time whether advisory or legal - we've only just started and already the law is being ignored in North Wales with people going inter-county to climb/walk. Will higher number of deaths focus minds, perhaps. But this time I doubt it.

As I said to Alex about the committee invite - I like getting things done not being on committees. The BMC don't need me on a committee to tell them what they should be doing.
 
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: teestub on October 14, 2020, 01:15:03 pm
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: seankenny on October 14, 2020, 01:54:44 pm
Quote from: teestub link=topic=30846.msg618596#pmsg618596 date=1602677703
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.

The history of minimum wage research is interesting. Traditionally a minimum wage was thought to reduce overall employment, then it turns out it doesn’t (going by memory here, or may be that the effect is very small). This was greeted with some incredulity but how much of that was politics and how much Kuhn-esque resistance to a paradigm shift?

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 hear, but we’re seeing that now with public health as we have also seen it with climate change.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: teestub on October 14, 2020, 02:02:26 pm

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.


Sorry yes I agree here I think, if you’re looking at events that have already happened in economics, then you are analysing data and everyone should come up with similar results.

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. On this front it seems that any answers about how best to spend govt money would be very difficult to disentangle from a political leaning.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 14, 2020, 02:05:10 pm
Asking an economist for an answer is like asking a physio for a diagnosis... :)
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: abarro81 on October 14, 2020, 02:10:44 pm
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 hear
I 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).

Thinking about it, given how many news articles there are pumped out every day on COVID, it's amazing that the media has done such a poor job of educating me* on this topic.
*yes, it's someone else's fault for not spoon feeding me
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: seankenny on October 14, 2020, 02:43:20 pm
Ask, and ye shall be given:

https://www.igmchicago.org/european-economic-experts-panel/

As to this: “if you’re looking at events that have already happened in economics, then you are analysing data and everyone should come up with similar results.”

Well, I wouldn’t go that far! I mean sure, but models are sensitive to assumptions and econometric techniques. And you might want to use different data, US vs European for example. Part of the problem is that data itself is often incomplete, or has to be estimated from other sources, and so on. The further back you go, or the further out from the US and Western Europe, the more this holds true, and the harder it is to tease out meaningful connections. By their very nature social sciences are more provisional than physics, but remember that the Hubble Telescope and CERN exist, reliable data describing how much of humanity lives doesn’t.

As for the original question, mass unemployment has well known long term scarring effects. (This is a different question as to whether there should be some unemployment - having a very tight labour market imposes costs on all of us.) Borrowing loads of money isn’t great but it’s not as if we are an outlier doing this. The difficult thing might be working out which firms are viable post-pandemic and which will fail then because we live differently, but personally I’m sceptical that those changes will be huge. Most firms have shut or are barely clinging on because we want them too right now, not because the products and services they provide are unwanted in general.


Letting the arts whither on the vine is just fucking vandalism, and pointless too because we are really good at it. Destroying theatres because they can’t pay the rent is, to me, a vile and short sighted policy that’s also economically illiterate.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 14, 2020, 02:50:03 pm
Diving in (quickly) I think that some industries/jobs/ways of making money will wither after the pandemic - ranging from Air travel, to Downtown Pret-a-manger etc... Quite simply - those parts of our lives will change and the demand will plummet.

Some (like music and many arts) will come back - when performing can be allowed again - people will want to see shows, bands, cinema etc... Maybe the format will change (large venues and mega tours out - smaller ones in etc...) but the demand will be there.

Whats needed now is either a crystal ball way of determining which will survive and backing them up or taking the way the Germans have (I think) of backing up the people rather than the business...
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: gme on October 14, 2020, 03:36:41 pm
No travel to wales from any UK hotspot.
Just announced but which areas are classed as hotspots isn’t mentioned.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: galpinos on October 14, 2020, 03:40:21 pm
No travel to wales from any UK hotspot.
Just announced but which areas are classed as hotspots isn’t mentioned.

Half term plans up in smoke for many I imagine...... All those empty Abersoch holiday homes......
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Bonjoy on October 14, 2020, 03:51:54 pm
It's  all moot if everyone's in a two week circuit breaker starting at half term...
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: galpinos on October 14, 2020, 03:54:12 pm
It's  all moot if everyone's in a two week circuit breaker starting at half term...

Not enough dead for Boris to make that decision imo.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Fultonius on October 14, 2020, 03:56:09 pm

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).

Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 14, 2020, 03:57:30 pm
Welsh govt clarifies English hotspots are a tier 2 And 3 areas.

Defcon 1 and 2 in UKB nomenclature 😀
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: petejh on October 14, 2020, 04:21:01 pm
See you in the spring losers.  :wave:

(tongue in cheek btw.. I expect the Welsh gov to impose further cuntisly nonsense restrictions on us in Wales.)
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 14, 2020, 05:00:44 pm
Teestub saw the future by selling is NWB guidebook earlier in the week!
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: teestub on October 14, 2020, 05:03:09 pm
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!)
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: gme on October 14, 2020, 05:20:08 pm
Quote from: tomtom link=topic=30846.msg618609#

Defcon 1 and 2 in UKB nomenclature 😀
[/quote

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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 14, 2020, 05:25:51 pm
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 😀
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: teestub on October 14, 2020, 05:32:49 pm

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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Paul B on October 14, 2020, 08:02:43 pm
https://twitter.com/AndyBurnhamGM/status/1316119353750937605?s=19

Looks like GM and Lancs will be in tier 3 by the end of the week. So much for more clarity in the messaging.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: petejh on October 14, 2020, 08:32:01 pm

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.


Oh that's simple. Just BTFD (and then STFR).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0akBdQa55b4
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: TobyD on October 14, 2020, 11:08:47 pm

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).

This sounds reasonable until you wonder about all the landlords who own business premises. I'm not objecting to UBI, it doesn't sound like a bad idea in many ways,  but propping up the businesses seems counterproductive. 
Would it not be better, as tomtom suggested to find a way of supporting people rather than business? Putting money into adult education,  reskilling etc, I'd imagine a lot of things really need to change drastically to survive,  to the extent that they may be better starting from scratch rather than trying to adapt a now defunct system. 
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Paul B on October 16, 2020, 04:34:47 pm
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'?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: petejh on October 16, 2020, 06:41:02 pm
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Paul B on October 16, 2020, 07:24:12 pm
I'm not trying to 'change your view' (per se) but I think the thread clearly highlights substantial contracts have been awarded to them without necessarily following due process (and the same continues with publication of the contracts).

You must know their scale better than me. Do the contract values look like what they can reasonably handle?

From what I've seen presented I'd be sceptical (and if my forward order book jumped that substantially I'd shit myself).

Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: petejh on October 16, 2020, 07:45:25 pm
No, they aren't a £130million contract type of company in my experience of them. (So award the contracts to Serco?). But they're also very far from the company Maugham is trying to portray them as for his own agenda. They're a successful SME with contacts in the far east via the PPE they import to retail for pest control works. It's all a load of agenda-driven bullshit, until some actual evidence emerges.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: sdm on October 16, 2020, 11:03:37 pm
Did they successfully deliver on the contracts? If not, were they still paid in full and will that money be returned?

I don't know anything about the company, these contracts, or whether the items were delivered. He seems to be implying that a large number of masks and suits were not delivered successfully?

Rushing out contracts without the usual scrutiny and bidding process seems reasonable* in the very early stages of the pandemic due to the unprecedented urgency.

*Provided the contracts are awarded to someone with either a track record of being able to supply the quantity and quality required or there being reasonable evidence that they have the resources and competency to be able to do so.

The terms of these contracts must also ensure that a substantial proportion of the payment is contingent on successful delivery.

If:
1) public money was used on contracts that were rushed through to companies who did not have the competency or resources to fulfill them, and
2) the contract terms do not allow for the money to be clawed back in the case of failure to deliver successfully,

Then that would be, at the very least, grossly incompetent.

If they successfully delivered at reasonable value to the taxpayer, or if payment was withheld for items not delivered, then it's a non-story.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: mrjonathanr on October 17, 2020, 10:33:36 am
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.

Not really sure what you draw your conclusions from here?

The issue the GLS is raising is the government repeatedly breaking the law in failing to disclose accounts for public scrutiny. When the govt spends over £12bn of my -and your- money and the law says they have to be transparent about where it has gone, I think they should comply.

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.

If there’s nothing untoward, making accounts public will put that to bed. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Paul B on October 17, 2020, 01:48:06 pm
TBF to Pete there are a few digs in there regarding Pestfix not being experts in supplying PPE (JM jokes that neither is he) which on the face of it isn't fair. PPE meeting a given standard is surely just that?

There's a recall notice letter buried in the threads regarding the FPP3/FPP1 masks in there too though.

I think from where I'm sitting the incompetence sits squarely with the Government. I've had similar scenarios at work where we've taken a good small supplier who has done their thing really well and then massively increased what we need from them. It didn't go very well and we should've realised that at the time (what it meant was a delay rather than something more sinister). Likewise, I'm delivering what I'm told is good work on a major national civils project ATM. There's 6 of us and as I said earlier, should my forward order book jump like that I'd crap myself and I'd expect my Directors to turn it down.

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?

Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: petejh on October 17, 2020, 01:52:38 pm
Quote from: mrjonr
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.

You didn't see evidence of him accusing Pestfix as frauds? He doesn't need to. All he needs to do in today's cess-pit of social media communication is drop a few jibes that portray his target in a certain light, and let his audience do the rest filling in the blanks of evidence. Read the comments - Mr 'I am disgusted at our government' and Mrs 'I am shocked and appalled about this' are more than adequately represented.
It's basically bear baiting entertainment for middle class people. Cunts. 

Maughham:
Quote
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.

Tiny entity? look into their books - tiny profit doesn't equal tiny entity, as any self-respecting tax dodging offshore L3 would know. I suppose on Maugham's logic any company that acted in this way is also a tiny entity - Amazon then.
No particular experience in PPE? see my comment in the posts above - 'this just make him look like a clueless idiot because he mustn't know anything about pest control in that case - an activity that begins with donning pretty much the exact PPE used by heath workers dealing with covid.'
Supplying faulty PPE? What evidence does he provide that Pestfix supplied faulty PPE to the NHS? Show me the evidence and I'll alter my view. Instead, he conflates something about them selling some FFP1s to a private client and lets his audience infer the rest and get outraged at the picture in their minds.

Bellend.




Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: mrjonathanr on October 17, 2020, 02:16:53 pm

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?

 Not the point. I understand why Pete is upset about how Pestfix look with JM quoting the contract values like that, but it’s easily resolved, and a complete distraction from the issue.

Why have the govt not published the accounting despite a) being legally obliged to do so within 30 days of awarding the contract and b) promising to do so in June?

Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: petejh on October 17, 2020, 09:24:08 pm
No you don't. I'm 'upset', as you put it - or pointing out bellendery behaviour by twats on twitter, as I put it - because it annoys me to see bully's trying to make a case for something without producing any actual evidence to prove their point, so instead of evidence they use bullshit rhetorical techniques such as inference, and other slights of hand.

If he produces evidence for the point he's trying to make - you know, the accepted method of showing something to be true - then I'll alter my view. It's very fucking simple.   
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: mrjonathanr on October 18, 2020, 06:27:06 pm
Your point about evidence is a good one. Sooner the govt publishes it, as they committed to do, the sooner he’ll stop finger pointing.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Anti on October 20, 2020, 04:00:17 pm
Love him or loathe him George Monbiot mentioned this in an article ages ago https://www.monbiot.com/2020/07/19/contract-killers/

At that point it looked like the attention was focussed on UK Govt. rather than PestFix themselves.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 20, 2020, 05:31:08 pm
No surprises Manchester in Tier3 on Thursday night.

Interesting that earlier Govt offered £60m to council for extra support for business. Then talks broke down over a 5m difference apparently.

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,

It’ll be interesting how this plays out amongst the local population here (manchester). Some will think Burnham over played is (weak) hand and has walked away with a worse deal - IE blame Burnham. Others will see the Govt as being petty and in effect punishing the region. I wonder which narrative will dominate.

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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: abarro81 on October 20, 2020, 05:33:26 pm
As someone not in Manchester (and thus not affected by the outcome), it's the gov that look like  :wank: from here... but then Bojo and his mates always look like twats to me, so I may not exactly be objective on the matter
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Pope B on October 20, 2020, 06:08:25 pm

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.


I'd have thought the Tories are rubbing their hands in glee, they get to be both petty and mean, they have an extra £65mil to give to their mates, and they get to blame someone else for it all. It's Dominic Cummings wet dream. 
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Paul B on October 20, 2020, 06:45:54 pm
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,

Whether or not this is more obfuscation still remains to be seen but they're saying that the £60M is still on the table if AB will take it.

I think the Gov (Gove especially) has done a fantastic job of muddying the waters about how these local lockdowns have been presented (both in Liverpool and GM) which will mean the blame will be directed at local leaders more than it should IMO. If I wasn't driving all day Thur I think I'd have BBC Parliament on to see how their actions go down.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: mrjonathanr on October 20, 2020, 06:47:53 pm
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.

Think you may have answered your own question there tt.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Will Hunt on October 20, 2020, 06:52:12 pm
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?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Nigel on October 20, 2020, 07:01:43 pm
Then talks broke down over a 5m difference apparently.

8 times less than the 40m for affordable housing that Jenrick helped pound-shop pr0nographer Richard Desmond swerve. Its an embarrassingly small sum for a national government to quibble over.

Zooming out, Johnson is playing a dangerous game with his regional strategy given that Wales and Northern Ireland are having circuit breakers. The UK media don't really do news from abroad, but they are unlikely to ignore any potential yawning gaps between the home nations. Time will tell on that. All his eggs are in this basket and you'd think he'd find a way to sneak an extra 5m to GM behind the curtain in order to get local buy in for added compliance, regardless of whether you think Burnham is right or wrong in his stance. In Johnson's own words they've spent 190 billion on Covid already so what difference would it make?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Nigel on October 20, 2020, 07:06:27 pm
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).

If that is your gut feeling then you can console yourself that BJ is putting his arms around the people of GM, indeed the whole country, so I'm sure they will all "prosper mightily".
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: mrjonathanr on October 20, 2020, 07:14:14 pm
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 20, 2020, 07:30:39 pm
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.

Interestingly the national media have not (yet) castigated Burnham as I might have expected. I was expecting a full Derek Hatton job on him.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: spidermonkey09 on October 20, 2020, 07:35:37 pm
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?

Bloody hell Will, that's your first instinct?

I don't know what the 60m is specifically for and I don't doubt that there is some political mileage in this, but Burnham donates 15% of his mayoral salary to homelessness charities and has demonstrated his principles over a long career. On the other side, we have what exactly? The only principle this government is steering by is its dogmatic obsession with needlessly making peoples lives more difficult than they need to be. They spunked away 12 billion on a non functional test and trace system but can't top people's salary up to 80%? They're a disgrace.

 There is no redeeming aspect of this government's negotiation on this. 5m quid is fuck all to them, but it's quite a lot in the context of topping up minimum wage salaries.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Paul B on October 20, 2020, 08:13:14 pm
Will, you do know there was cross party unilateral objection to T3 restrictions just last week?

This isn't simply just about Burnham (who received the backing of Liverpool after they realised they'd been shafted having been 'told' when others were negotiating).
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: teestub on October 20, 2020, 08:20:48 pm
Will I’ve got to say your gut feelings smell like shit!
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Will Hunt on October 20, 2020, 10:34:13 pm
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 20, 2020, 10:47:34 pm
Still smells...

Interesting again that none of tomorrows papers are ‘taking Boris side” here. Surprising.

The tiers system lost most of its credibility to me when it became apparent you could do side deals on what was in or out - or how much ££ you could get by toadying up/not causing a fuss.

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.

My crystal ball says: Full lockdown by mid November. Probably taking out Xmas & new year...
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Will Hunt on October 20, 2020, 11:00:11 pm
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.

Gizza link? This is what I google but stuff was either paywalled or just talking vaguely about £5/60m.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: galpinos on October 21, 2020, 07:54:45 am

I found Hancock's comments interesting, that they will negotiate with each borough separately. The fact Burnham was negotiating on behalf of the GM councils did not go down well, hence Leese's comment in the big press conference that they are going to try to "pick off" individual councils.

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

Personally, I do wonder whether they are regretting the amount given to Liverpool as they started to realise a lot more areas are going into tier 3, were tied to an ok deal with Lancashire as it's a Tory Council but wanted to set a firmer tone with GM. Combine that with the fact that Burnham, the man who lost to Milliband and Corbyn, who was deemed too vanilla and boring for Westminster and who's career had "run its course", is suddenly looking statesman like and is the new Messiah compared to everyone in the Cabinet, and they are panicking. Surely even the Tories can see how bad it looks when you compare Jenrick sneering down his nose about cosy funding deals with colleagues* on the BBC and Burnham talking with sense and passion and finding out about the governments decision via Twitter.

*£25 million from the Towns fund for Newark anyone? If I sign off your bid, will you sign off mine?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: galpinos on October 21, 2020, 08:21:10 am
Will, re your, “quibble over £5m” comment, this was Burnham’s response:

https://twitter.com/beardedgenius/status/1318580467151548422?s=21
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: spidermonkey09 on October 21, 2020, 08:28:01 am
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
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: petejh on October 21, 2020, 08:39:11 am
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?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 21, 2020, 08:47:00 am
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: gme on October 21, 2020, 08:50:56 am
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 believe 60 million is still on offer and what they will end up getting. However if the above figures are correct for merseyside and Lancs this sworks out at less per person.

Not sure how its calculated but maybe its down to people working in the affected sectors.

Burnham did what he had to do as this argument is all about politics after all and little to do with controlling the virus.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: petejh on October 21, 2020, 08:58:05 am
The figures were put up in black and white on newsnight last night. They aren’t the figures people are using here.

To be fair, the media seem to be revelling in providing opaque explanations of the true figure, almost as if designed to provoke outcry.. and it’s easy to get the wrong idea.

Do I need to put up the correct figure, or is one of you making arguments on false info going to fact check yourself?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: teestub on October 21, 2020, 09:11:27 am
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 21, 2020, 09:15:46 am
Pete - you're sounding a bit like a FAKE NEWS screaming survivalist with a MAGA hat on there... :D

AFAIK the confusion is - because no-one knows! I watched Burnham and Johnsons presser last night - and thats where I got my figures from. Nothing on the BBC about Newsnights figures (wherever they came from ). Stubbs post above shows its as clear as mud...

As I said 20 min ago....
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: mrjonathanr on October 21, 2020, 09:16:59 am

Burnham did what he had to do as this argument is all about politics after all and little to do with controlling the virus.

What does that mean Gav? If you are saying he is just posturing for political advantage, I do not agree.

I grew up on free school meals. The idea of cutting 30% of the budget for people on the breadline is disgusting. I do not doubt that he desperately wants funding to support the people on the lowest wages, many of whom are already struggling with food, heating and rent, to not be plunged into crisis.

In comparison, the no-expense-spared mentality of pouring public money into failing private business is ruining the pandemic response. To insult to injury, that is why these semi-lockdowns are imposed; they are a crisis measure because TTTI has failed.

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

Edit ‘do not’ missing :(
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 21, 2020, 09:24:19 am
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

God I hate reading Monbiot...

But the last page and a half of that are quite striking - where he pretty much just puts down the links beween the people and the companies and the government....
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: galpinos on October 21, 2020, 09:30:43 am
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 my numbers are correct? They asked for £90m, absolute min was £65? Government wouldn’t go above £60m, Burnham said he’d have to take it back to the council leaders, government pulled the deal?

Government then announced via social media that there was £22m available and the rest had been withdrawn and Hancock said he would only deal with individual councils. They then rolled back on that and said the £60m is still on the table.

The numbers I posted above with populations were reflective of where we were when the plug was pulled. If the government had a consistent line of communication and weren’t briefing all and sundry differing “facts”, we wouldn’t be arguing over them.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: mrjonathanr on October 21, 2020, 09:31:25 am
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.

Sean Fielding repeatedly insisted on Newsnight he needed to see the figure in writing, and had not yet. In other words, he did not trust the statement made by Hancock.

There are 10 councils in GM. I suspect that Jenrick will now embark on side deals with individual councils to undermine Burnham and make a saving on his nominal £60m budget. And why is the extra funding for track and trace even a figure? It should not be needed, because there ought to be an effective local system, but if it is needed surely it is basic firefighting which is the government’s fundamental duty of care to the public anyway? Not to mention good economic sense to prevent the loss of revenue from damaged local economies.

We are governed by a campaign group which appears to think the virus will be amenable to the divide and rule tactics that got it into power.

One place Jenrick might find £5m would be the £25M hardship fund given to his Newark constituency, 270th least deprived in the country. https://inews.co.uk/news/robert-jenrick-probe-towns-fund-constituency-711476
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 21, 2020, 09:37:02 am
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...
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: petejh on October 21, 2020, 09:43:49 am
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?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Bonjoy on October 21, 2020, 09:50:23 am
Looking from the sidelines on this debate it looks like at this point in time there are no facts regards the GM figure beyond the £22m, just vague and contradictory hearsay. I don't care which side tells me different but I'd be interested to hear if this impression is wrong. That said "still on the table" is next to utterly meaningless, I think we can all agree on that much.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 21, 2020, 09:53:41 am
So no-one’s interested in fact checking themselves then?

TT?
Teestub?
Galpinos?
Jonathanr?
Spider?
GME?


No-one?

As Bonjoy mentions - and for the 3rd time from me Pete... it appears there are no facts here. Just several accounts (some of which tally).

I am, however, hopeful I am wrong and waiting eagerly for you to post up your fact checked figures on this. Then we will all know definitively. Hopefully.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: spidermonkey09 on October 21, 2020, 09:55:09 am
Go on then Pete, I can tell you're itching to do it and prove how clever you are.

The £22m is separate to the £60m is the only thing I'd want to add before you enlighten us all...
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: galpinos on October 21, 2020, 10:00:35 am
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?

I'm currently trying to write a narrative justifying a £770k overspend on my current project so haven't got time to watch a whole episode of newsnight. The project control software delays allow for a quick browse of UKB only, though I am looking forward to seeing the FACTS and the source.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: petejh on October 21, 2020, 10:03:51 am
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. I await you're admissions of being too easily misled by the media (especially 'social' media) but won't hold my breath.

In fact, as Will posted, Burnham has been haggling over 5 - 8 million pounds. Neither side look great but..

8mins 30secs.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000np5f/newsnight-20102020

 ::)
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: mrjonathanr on October 21, 2020, 10:10:05 am
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.

Care to explain this?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: James Malloch on October 21, 2020, 10:13:22 am
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...

This is one of the big issues I have with a lot of things going on at the moment... Lots of decisions going on without any evidence to back them up.

The mayor of Liverpool said:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: James Malloch on October 21, 2020, 10:15:56 am
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

 ::)

£29 per head seems very low, as an aside. Is there a time-frame that it's meant to cover? Or is that it for now until counties emerge from tier 3?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Nigel on October 21, 2020, 10:18:25 am
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.

Agree TT, this seems like the root problem. Ideal would be a transparent breakdown, in advance, of the public health data / calculation that prompts tier 3 measures, and a pre-agreed financial assistance package, broken down perhaps as you suggest. Then when its Tier 3 time everyone is already signed up and it just happens. The fact that there is a need for horsetrading is evidence enough of a poor strategy. That said I think Greater Manchester, and indeed everyone, would accept the current way if financial assistance was 80% full stop, rather than 67%. That is the other root problem. Looked at that way the fact that the difference amounts to somewhere in the low millions is just penny pinching.

On the time front it has always been within the government's gift to impose Tier 3 at any time, they are also culpable for dragging this out. Apparently the situation is now urgent. Begins on....Friday.

There is also the added problem of lack of transparency on exiting Tier 3. When will the North leave these high restrictions? The way some people talk you'd think it'd be a matter of a couple of weeks. If its not (as is possible) then the government will have real problems with Christmas, New Year, and then the effects of Brexit. And because its a regional approach then they have dodged the requirement for parliament to vote on it as they have only promised a vote on national measures. So the North is relying on Tier 3 measures which even the scientists say are insufficient unless supplemented by extra measures from councils, which are being underfunded to take these measures, and with only the goodwill of the Tory party to allow them out of it. It doesn't look like a recipe for success.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: galpinos on October 21, 2020, 10:24:24 am
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 know you are saying these are the facts, but Andy Burnham might disagree. Just because it was said confidently on newsnight, doesn't mean that that is correct! You need to do some googling.....

 He was after £90m as business relief and the government offered £60. He had been given a bottom figure of £65m by the local councils. This was a "fully costed" figure, not a random per capita value. When the discussions broke down, the £60m offer was taken away and GM were told the government would negotiate with individual councils and NOT Andy Burnham.

The government then rolled back on that and said the £60m was available.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Stu Littlefair on October 21, 2020, 10:26:46 am
If the govt does actually provide the £60M business support to GMC, you can look at Pete's post and retro-fit the Govt's fiendishly complex formula to see it's.... £29 per person.

Which does rather beg the question of what all these "regional negotiations" are for?

On a related note, now that Sheffield is going into Tier 3, but Derbyshire is not, how many of us are going to be good boys and girls, follow the guidance, and not go climbing in the Peak? Edit: already being discussed elsewhere
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: galpinos on October 21, 2020, 10:29:29 am
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.

Jenrick says £8 a head test and trace, £20 a head Business Support.

https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1318835055217836032?s=20

(Edited to add the link)
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Paul B on October 21, 2020, 10:31:34 am
You lot are idiots for going along with the outcry based on incorrect figures.

:tumble:

So at ~9:30 when LG says "MH has said that the £60M for BR is 'still on the table'"... he goes on to say it's unclear as to what GM need to do to secure it.

Or is your point that the offer is 'fair' based on what others have received?

EDIT:  what galpinos said.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: petejh on October 21, 2020, 10:45:38 am
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 21, 2020, 10:53:07 am
But bullshitting around incorrect figures is inexcusable.

Why Pete - are we having to try and calculate the figures (TTI and per person) by back calculating from the governments awards to Liverpool and Lancs - rather than being told this is how this is calculated!!

If Boris - instead of blustering and not knowing the answer yesterday - had been on his brief yesterday and said "we offered what we had to the other areas - which equates to £29 per head for TTI and business relief - which for GM was £60m - and they refused this" then I think NONE of this faff about the numbers would have happened.

But that did not happen. And Hancock had the chance 2-3 hours later in the house to say as much.

From my perspective - the "bullshitting around figures" has originated from (a) people wanting to know what they are and (b) the govt not telling us how its worked out!!

FFS/Face Palm/etc...
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: petejh on October 21, 2020, 10:57:23 am
I can only assume you're joking or have had a memory-erasing episode TT?

In every news piece I read and every interview I watched yesterday, the government were saying, or were quoted as saying 'as per the other areas in Tier 3', 'in line with other tier 3 areas', 'don't want to be unfair to other tier 3 areas', 'equitable for all other tier 3 areas'.

But ah yes..... it's ENTIRELY the fault of a government for being shit at comms (which they are) and NOTHING at all to do with the story portrayed in the media outlets and on social media. Despite the media outlets actually knowing the true breakdown of the BR and TTI/E because, you know, they actually mentioned it in the small print that most people don't bother reading beyond the first paragraph, and then reported it on national TV at the end of the day.

Facepalm indeed. Idiots.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Paul B on October 21, 2020, 11:04:07 am
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...
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: ali k on October 21, 2020, 11:04:54 am
Pete - people are using these figures because they’re the ones that have been bandied about by politicians in the first place and then used by the media to report it. It’s not the fault of ‘the media’ or obfuscation by them if the government chooses to announce the financial settlements in those terms. Neither is it wrong for people to discuss on here based on the figures that have been widely used by the govt.

As TT says the govt have had ample opportunity to announce these financial settlements in whatever way they wanted to, or correct it if it looked like it was getting confused or misrepresented. £29/head is pretty simple to understand if that’s how it’s been decided. But for whatever reason they’ve chosen not to go down this route. Probably because £29 is a smaller number than £60million. Who is guilty of obfuscation here?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: galpinos on October 21, 2020, 11:07:18 am
Seriously?!
'We'll take the offer' would be my suggestion...

Kiss the ring and accept what your betters give you and be thankful?

The point is: the figures of 22m, 60m, 65m are all incorrect figures to base arguments on.

Really? You don't think they inform the debate? Is this just because you got the £90m number wrong?

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.

This I agree with and a lot of pain could have been avoided if the government had said this is the formula, there's no debate, that's it.

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.

One of Andy Burnham's main point, which seems to have been cut out of the national media debate, was just this, that the money available to the lowest paid is not enough. If both my wife and I ended up on a furlough style scheme on 60%, money would be tight but we'd be fine. At the minimum wage end of the scale, that's a loss of home/can't afford to eat scenario.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: spidermonkey09 on October 21, 2020, 11:14:26 am
I'm still not convinced this is the 'gotcha' that Pete thinks. Burnham and MCR are agitating for more than Liverpool, London, Lancs etc have got because they've stood up to the governments penny pinching, because it isn't enough. Its not an issue of it being equitable; I don't think I've made that argument?

The government's line seems to be 'we aren't just underfunding Manchester, we're underfunding everywhere else in the north west as well; so everything is nice and fair. Manchester isn't being singled out, we're doing it to everyone. I don't understand Burnham's problem?' He's made the argument consistently that this isn't about Manchester, its about every city because almost all of them are going to end up in Tier 3 eventually and this will set the precedent of support.

Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Will Hunt on October 21, 2020, 11:22:22 am
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


I think you misunderstand me, Jim. I'm not saying that the Tories aren't cunts, and I'm not saying that this reflects worse on Burnham than them. The scale of their fuck up is orders of magnitude higher than anything that Burnham might have done wrong. They should have a plan for business relief in place that is consistent and able to be delivered quickly. The business relief provision looks pathetic to me. How many people are employed in affected sectors in Greater Manchester? Thousands and thousands and thousands of people, many of whom will be expected to get through the winter trying to pay their bills and rents on 2/3rds of the minimum wage. The Tories shouldn't have just bunged them an extra £5m, the scale of the problem is so much greater than that.

Burnham and the leaders of all the local authorities should be challenging the government on this, but with Burnham being such a well-known and well-liked politician 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. Burnham's response to the BBC journo may have been impassioned and emotional, but it can't hide the simple maths that a £5m difference in Greater Manchester is incredibly small beer (my fag packet says somewhere in the region of 0.02% of the total annual spend of the CA and the ten local authorities).


Edit: apologies if this doesn't make complete sense. 13 replies posted since I began the reply!
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: spidermonkey09 on October 21, 2020, 11:33:38 am

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.


Thats a fair enough post, although I'm not sure Burnham would have had much of a leg to stand on had he accepted the money and restrictions and then gone on the warpath about it not being enough. I appreciate thats a point of opinion though.

Yeah, the body count issue is relevant. But then if it was that urgent, the government could have simple enforced things unilaterally. As it is, its so urgent they are bringing it in...in a few days.

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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: petejh on October 21, 2020, 11:33:52 am
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...

None of that alters the point I made. Which is: people are basing their arguments on incorrect figures - 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. Most media just reported misleading figures, you had to dig into the figures to discover the truth but it really isn't very complex as the breakdown I posted shows. Was that them whipping up a story...?

This mess partly contributed to public outcry over perceived inequity between GM and other areas, and delays in taking action. In a public health emergency that's inexcusable. This isn't a defence of the tories it's simply a defense of sticking to facts instead of hearsay. Typical bullshit when politics takes over.

All other points about the support not being enough are an entirely separate debate - see my answer above. I agree.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 21, 2020, 11:40:36 am
- 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.

Pete - please provide a link for this. Government press release, relevant section in Hansard please? I guess a tweet from a government department would count too...
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: petejh on October 21, 2020, 11:41:45 am
You seem to accept tweets from everyone else as evidence TT?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 21, 2020, 11:44:37 am
You seem to accept tweets from everyone else as evidence TT?
Now you're trolling properly Pete..
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: petejh on October 21, 2020, 11:47:26 am
It doesn't alter the point I've made that people have been using bullshit figures to base their opinions and arguments on.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Bonjoy on October 21, 2020, 11:47:44 am
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Will Hunt on October 21, 2020, 11:51:57 am
I suppose I don't think the public health issue can be totally outsourced to local leaders. Thats at least half on the government too, surely? Obviously Burnham should have that in mind, but the government should too.

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



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

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


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


Nobody here seems prepared to recognise the fact that a week's delay to restrictions when the problem is growing exponentially necessarily means a higher body count (and more people with long COVID).
This argument would have some/more force if the Tier 3 measures were something other than toothless handwaving.
Is it just me that thinks they amount to more pain for no gain and an exercise in appearing to do something whilst we wait for things to get so shit that a full lockdown becomes politically unavoidable?
There's so many exceptions, loopholes and perverse incentives that in many case the measure will likely increase transmission. E.g. from our small perspective, more climbers choosing to climb indoors because they can't travel to outdoor venues.

Tier 3 doesn't involve travel restrictions for outdoor exercise, but it does involve shutting gyms etc. I agree that Tier 3 doesn't appear to be enough, but it will bring the R rate down somewhat (as per the SAGE document, shutting gyms gives you something like a 0.2 reduction in R, hospitality is something similar).
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 21, 2020, 11:53:52 am
But its not shutting Gyms any more Will.... Not in Lancs or GM - and its now been rowed back in Liverpool.

Flipflopflipflop

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

Gym rules for S.Yorks (seem subtly different)
Quote
Gym classes will not be allowed and social distancing guidelines should be followed between people from different households (but gyms will remain open).

Quote
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


Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Will Hunt on October 21, 2020, 12:03:05 pm
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 21, 2020, 12:03:56 pm
I can only assume that the government have appointed one Mr Fiend to sit on SAGE as their SWOLE IS THE GOAL, SIZE IS THE PRIZE Tsar.

Only if he marries Dido Harding.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: galpinos on October 21, 2020, 12:31:13 pm
Pete, I actually have sympathy with your argument but maybe your, "I am right, you're all useless" rhetoric leaves other posters less sympathetic.......

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

Also, now we know they have a formula which doesn't take anything into account anything apart from population, how come there is no criticism for this?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: TobyD on October 21, 2020, 12:43:02 pm
Nobody here seems prepared to recognise the fact that a week's delay to restrictions when the problem is growing exponentially necessarily means a higher body count (and more people with long COVID).
This argument would have some/more force if the Tier 3 measures were something other than toothless handwaving.
Is it just me that thinks they amount to more pain for no gain and an exercise in appearing to do something whilst we wait for things to get so shit that a full lockdown becomes politically unavoidable?
There's so many exceptions, loopholes and perverse incentives that in many case the measure will likely increase transmission. E.g. from our small perspective, more climbers choosing to climb indoors because they can't travel to outdoor venues.

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

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

I noticed the tweet (quoted in the Guardian i think) from the young conservative association in manchester last night calling for Johnson to go.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Johnny Brown on October 21, 2020, 12:44:38 pm
What I'm baffled by is if there was a formula, why did the government even enter into "negotiations"? What was there to negotiate? Why give Andy Burnham the platform to become "King of the North"?

From Twitter:

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

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

It's pretty clear Burnham is getting respect because he stood up to them. As Nigel points out, they've had no problem finding money for other Covid projects. Whatever happened to the 'moonshot' btw?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: petejh on October 21, 2020, 12:47:11 pm
Pete, I actually have sympathy with your argument but maybe your, "I am right, you're all useless" rhetoric leaves other posters less sympathetic.......

....

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

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

I do think there's plenty of criticism of the per-head formula. It's all the many people saying 'the funding isn't enough and should be 80% furlough' etc. Which I completely agree with. I wouldn't be that surprised to see mass public disobedience of the rules this winter if things worsened to a point and the gov didn't alter it's support offer. It appears we're very close to being back where we were in March discussing the dilemma between economic damage versus damage to health, except now the public know more about the risks and it feels far harder to accept economic ruin. Plus large numbers of the public have now had a crash course in various monetary policies and are beginning to glimpse behind the curtain to see there's nothing there to be scared of - we can print our way through for now. That raises prospects governments are wary of obvs..   
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Johnny Brown on October 21, 2020, 12:54:12 pm
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: petejh on October 21, 2020, 12:59:20 pm
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Nigel on October 21, 2020, 01:06:36 pm
Yes, I mean businesses refusing to close, whole neighborhoods or cities becoming unpoliceable very quickly, at which point the gov would have a hard choice.. back down or try to enforce more strongly. Wouldn't be pretty in a country like the UK that doesn't normally go in for heavy-handed law enforcement.

Well if that comes to pass, probably around Christmas (but it'll be over by then right? As BJ suggested?), then to think a lot of it will, at root, be over 13.333333...% of wages of people on low incomes. Of course, Sunak has had "a good crisis" and hasn't put a foot wrong  :whistle:
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Fiend on October 21, 2020, 01:20:34 pm
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-54628770 for pete to get his teeth into.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: ali k on October 21, 2020, 01:24:28 pm
Pete you still haven’t indicated where or when these clear announcements about the financial settlements by the govt were made (i.e. if or how the £29/head figure was arrived at or how it’s tied to the restrictions).

I follow the news and parliament pretty closely and they passed me by. Even today at PMQs Johnson used a figure of £60m in relation to GM and nothing about a per head calculation.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Johnny Brown on October 21, 2020, 01:28:34 pm
I see Boris is taking the opportunity to mention all the other funding they've provided.

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

Meanwhile, anyone who registered their second home/ holiday let in Gwynedd as a business to avoid paying the 50% premium on council tax has been given £10,000.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: petejh on October 21, 2020, 01:32:34 pm
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-54628770 for pete to get his teeth into.

It's already been done to death Fiend.

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

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

The rest is history.

Ali, nothing in the figures above isn't easily available to you or anyone else, just DYOR.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Fiend on October 21, 2020, 01:37:22 pm
I just posted that because it was the latest news that the 60m part had gone through.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: ali k on October 21, 2020, 01:52:20 pm
Ali, nothing in the figures above isn't easily available to you or anyone else, just DYOR.
I get that the information is out there to find. I just don’t understand why you were getting angry with people discussing the most widely used figures on here or blaming ‘the media’ for obfuscation by using figures that were briefed to them by errrm the govt.

And if the govt originally offered £50m to GM that’s less than £29/head so how does that work in terms of being equitable? Or is it just fun to introduce a bit of haggling for shits and giggles?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Paul B on October 21, 2020, 05:07:53 pm
https://twitter.com/AndyBurnhamGM/status/1318793797019500546?s=19

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

I think that gives context to the figures. £90M being the 80% furlough equivalent.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 21, 2020, 06:32:43 pm
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: chris j on October 21, 2020, 10:00:04 pm
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: lagerstarfish on October 21, 2020, 10:34:41 pm
Interestingly my employer (in a T1 area) is due to announce tomorrow that any staff or students coming to campus from a T3 area should quarantine first for ten days.

It will be less than 10 days before your employer finds their area to be a T3 (probably)
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Nigel on October 22, 2020, 07:13:28 am
It appears we're very close to being back where we were in March discussing the dilemma between economic damage versus damage to health,   

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

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

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

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

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

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

I realise that this does nothing to answer the thrust of you question! But it may help inform.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 22, 2020, 07:53:46 am
Lockdowns, total and fire break are so far the only measure that has been shown to work wherever it has been applied (TTI maybe - but has to be on a small number else overwhelmed).

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

I suspect that’s what will lead to full lockdown here in England - when we get to this point. 
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: chris j on October 22, 2020, 08:48:08 am
@Nigel Yes those are the numbers, though I just cribbed them off the BBC or Guardian (I forget which).
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: chris j on October 22, 2020, 10:02:04 am
I don't have any good answers. I was surprised at the low number of lives predicted not to be lost as a result of the firebreak, I'd expected the estimate to be well into the thousands to justify shutting down a country! Playing devil's advocate, it's hard not to think given the political will you could reduce deaths elsewhere in society by 750 for a much lower cost.

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

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

It's a long read but concentrates mostly on the super-spreader clustering nature of spread of the virus. It looks at the different strategies, especially the likes of Japan (where lockdown was apparently legally not an option), and suggests that the UK in general has an ineffective testing strategy with the worst of all worlds in terms of restrictions (both harsh and ineffective).
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Stabbsy on October 22, 2020, 12:20:52 pm
By referencing the 750 as "the Assembly's own figures" is it from the Firebreak evidence doc here - https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2020-10/technical-advisory-group-fire-breaks_2.pdf ?

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

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

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

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

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

The graph in section 9 of the linked paper looks to support this because the case run-off is far slower post-lockdown than without any lockdown. Any thoughts on what's going on here? You'd expect lower infection fatality rates as the peak cases is lower, so it seems to be implying that overall cases will be higher under the lockdown scenario. In that case, is this some "bad behaviour post lockdown effect" being factored into the modelling? Or some sort of herd immunity impact? Had a quick scan through the report and didn't seem to cover this off - it just states that R returns to the level seen pre-lockdown. I don't think it says which of the scenarios shown in the graphs below drives the deaths in figure 4.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Paul B on October 22, 2020, 01:20:12 pm
https://twitter.com/AndyBurnhamGM/status/1319232492428316672?s=19

Again, I think this is pretty relevant to the earlier points regarding GM/Lancs already having endured T2 type restrictions.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: teestub on October 22, 2020, 01:59:25 pm
Crazy how fast the purse strings can open when it’s London that might suffer!
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 22, 2020, 02:42:15 pm
Crazy how fast the purse strings can open when it’s London that might suffer!

Quite. And it won't just be me in this part of the world who thinks that!
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Nigel on October 22, 2020, 02:48:07 pm
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?

No you are correct - that is what the forecast implies i.e. no lockdown 2360 deaths Q1 2021, firebreak then 2600 deaths Q1. If the lockdown was 3 weeks (the other column) then 2570 deaths Q1.

As to why - don't know. As you say, without knowledge of the modelling assumptions you can't really infer what is the driver. I have just imagined two layman's theories involving the available pool of susceptible people, plus the predictable effects of household mixing at Xmas (regardless of restriction on the ground), but I am not an epidemiologist so I won't share them!
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Nigel on October 22, 2020, 03:07:14 pm
Crazy how fast the purse strings can open when it’s London that might suffer!

Its certainly how it looks isn't it?! Given the to-ing and fro-ing with Greater Manchester this last week over a few million quid I really don't get the Tory political strategy here, since they surely knew this was happening? Too proud to let Burnham know? Or the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing?

Incidentally Sunak's justification for retroactively changing his part time working scheme (i.e. admitting he'd got it wrong first time) was that it was based on the assumption that cases would continue to decrease i.e. no second wave. Was that really what the government expected until recently????

They get increasingly weird to be honest. They refused free school meals in holidays earlier this year, then u-turned, then gave Marcus Rashford an MBE for his campaign. 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? If so its worrying.

Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: chris j on October 22, 2020, 03:25:07 pm
@ 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'...

Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 22, 2020, 03:57:56 pm
Well - I guess we’re going to find out how the different plans work out in the next 3-4 months...
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Nigel on October 22, 2020, 04:04:58 pm
@ 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'...

OK Chris, that chart is the "Fig 4" referenced by Stabbsy, from the Welsh doc I linked to. The quotes included are snippets from the same doc. In black and white as not everyone will follow a link, the last two paragraphs are:

Quote
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.

The Welsh CMO has as I said suggested there may be more than one firebreak, so this may be what is meant by "a set of sustainable, national interventions to keep Rt around 1 while maximising social, economic, and health benefits", although that is my assumption.

Whether it works as a strategy in the round - i.e. maximising social, economic, and health benefits - well if England and Scotland stick with their (separate) tiered systems, and NI with their circuit breaker, then as Tomtom says we will see next Spring.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: petejh on October 22, 2020, 04:23:00 pm
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. I'm close to not caring about trying to think it through anymore.

How many lives lost, short, medium and long-term from locking down, versus not locking down.
How many lives suffering short, medium or long-term health impacts from locking down, versus not locking down.
Unhappiness, lowering of quality of life, damage to education in short, medium and long-term, from locking down, versus not locking down.

I think laws that criminalise people exercising their freedom to travel into the countryside to partake in non group-based recreation are completely unjustifiable and should be defied. I'm strongly opposed to the Welsh labour government taking away people's liberties in these areas of life. There's no evidence of any benefit in drastically reducing covid transmission or saving lives, while there's lots of anecdotal evidence of it just massively pissing people off and reducing people's happiness for no positive health or economic gain.
I could just about accept the premise the first time around, with some mild discrete rule-breaking out of public view. This time around the premise is clearly ridiculous and given half-decent weather I'll definitely be breaking those laws and openly traveling into the hills for exercise.

Other areas of life such as pubs, restaurants and retail etc. makes far more sense as the evidence suggests shutting these things is effective. But only provided people are supported properly and not left to rot. I support the idea if the evidence shows it will have an overall positive impact.   

How would any of you in England appreciate being criminalised again this time around for popping out in the car for a boulder, a hill-walk, or a route climb within your household? 

Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: spidermonkey09 on October 22, 2020, 04:29:06 pm
I agree with all that. Criminalising outdoor exercise is dumb and counter intuitive.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: shark on October 22, 2020, 06:42:11 pm
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 22, 2020, 06:59:36 pm
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.

Going to the chippy in Tideswell seems like a genuine reason to me...

You know - doing what Rishi wants and all that.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 22, 2020, 07:04:20 pm
Just go climbing, don’t ask on here mate. You’ll get 10’000 words of flatulence
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: petejh on October 22, 2020, 07:08:50 pm
Well said Dominic.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 22, 2020, 07:43:47 pm
9997 words to go...
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 22, 2020, 09:22:40 pm
9997 words to go...

🌟👏💥🤯
.
.
 :fishing:
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Bonjoy on October 23, 2020, 12:21:15 am
Just go climbing, don’t ask on here mate. You’ll get 10’000 words of flatulence
Are you one of those Qanon guys?
What's with the Swiss decimal separator?



Fart, etc.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 23, 2020, 01:51:14 am
Oh Lordy it’s UKB’s answer to Morgan Freeman.

Fart etc.

Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Bonjoy on October 23, 2020, 08:51:13 am
(https://hg1.funnyjunk.com/pictures/I_f150f4_2803396.jpg)
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 23, 2020, 09:10:21 am
Very good indeed
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 23, 2020, 09:11:48 am
Very good indeed

Unlike your little efforts...
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 23, 2020, 09:23:23 am
Woah there control your steed Holy Paladin
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: spidermonkey09 on October 23, 2020, 09:38:18 am
You might have more joy with the tin hat brigade over at https://lockdownsceptics.org/
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 23, 2020, 09:40:59 am
Woah there control your steed Holy Paladin
Awesome.
Sharp as a wet tissue.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: RobK on October 23, 2020, 09:52:53 am
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  :-\
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: spidermonkey09 on October 23, 2020, 09:58:54 am
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  :-\

Amazing isn't it. Anywhere that employs Toby Young has to be a bit suss.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 23, 2020, 10:02:45 am
You might have more joy with the tin hat brigade over at https://lockdownsceptics.org/

Honestly, he shouldn’t be wasting time here, he needs to get his arse down to Lidl and take advantage of these stunning savings:

(https://i.ibb.co/FxwJJfG/84-C68334-6-E22-4-CBE-B013-3-B03-C75206-E2.jpg)

 On a more serious note, but sticking with the “shit debating” theme, I’d all but forgotten about this.
Seems like we (once again) are missing a trick here:
 Coronavirus: Sewage tests detect local COVID-19 hotspots (http://Coronavirus: Sewage tests detect local COVID-19 hotspots)
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Fultonius on October 23, 2020, 10:17:23 am
Matt - link doesn't work. Bit like the Neurons in the muscle brain.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 23, 2020, 10:26:33 am
Matt - link doesn't work. Bit like the Neurons in the muscle brain.

Guardian link - but its elsewhere too

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/23/testing-sewage-for-covid-could-detect-outbreaks-early-scientists-say

Sampling sewage gives you an early warning as it shows up in faeces in tracable quantities before people are symptomatic (I think). I know/work with some of the folk at Bangor who have pioneered alot of this work in the UK. Interesting stuff. Also its how they know it was in Italy in Jan (I think) by going back and testing old sewage samples.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Johnny Brown on October 23, 2020, 10:45:46 am
Quote
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?

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.


Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 23, 2020, 10:49:14 am
Newsflash - germs found in mound of turds shock. Anal hygiene essential to stop the spread.

What’s the thing with the Guardian links?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 23, 2020, 10:51:19 am
Matt - link doesn't work. Bit like the Neurons in the muscle brain.

Try:
 https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-sewage-tests-detect-local-covid-19-hotspots-12111784 (https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-sewage-tests-detect-local-covid-19-hotspots-12111784)
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 23, 2020, 10:53:27 am
Newsflash - germs found in mound of turds shock. Anal hygiene essential to stop the spread.

What’s the thing with the Guardian links?
It’s called a “Newspaper”. They’re something that grownups read, a bit like a meme for people who can think.
You don’t need to worry about it.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Anti on October 23, 2020, 10:55:05 am
Quote
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?

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.


Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: JamieG on October 23, 2020, 10:58:17 am
Newsflash - germs found in mound of turds shock. Anal hygiene essential to stop the spread.

What’s the thing with the Guardian links?

I assume you are just on a wind-up but in case not. I think the point of the article is that testing sewage can give you very good spatial resolution of where the covid hotspots are. Potentially before you see a rise in case numbers. A canary in the coal mine.

The guardian link thing is I guess because it can be a little bit of an left leaning echo chamber in here. So just to highlight that it is being reported more widely.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 23, 2020, 11:01:03 am
Newsflash - germs found in mound of turds shock. Anal hygiene essential to stop the spread.

What’s the thing with the Guardian links?
It’s called a “Newspaper”. They’re something that grownups read, a bit like a meme for people who can think.
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/
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 23, 2020, 11:02:38 am
Quote
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?

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.


Quote
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.

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.


Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 23, 2020, 11:03:39 am
Newsflash - germs found in mound of turds shock. Anal hygiene essential to stop the spread.

What’s the thing with the Guardian links?
It’s called a “Newspaper”. They’re something that grownups read, a bit like a meme for people who can think.
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...
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Will Hunt on October 23, 2020, 11:08:10 am
Newsflash - germs found in mound of turds shock. Anal hygiene essential to stop the spread.

What’s the thing with the Guardian links?
It’s called a “Newspaper”. They’re something that grownups read, a bit like a meme for people who can think.
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Anti on October 23, 2020, 11:10:57 am
Quote
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?

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.


Quote
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.

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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 23, 2020, 11:11:18 am
Just because you lads can’t suffer an alternative perspective without calling someone a loony. Look around and observe the madness ffs
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Will Hunt on October 23, 2020, 11:15:11 am
Quote
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?

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.


Quote
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.

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.

I'm not sure that's what the BMC were doing to be honest. It seemed to me like they were just providing people with information about how a hastily passed bit of law applied to climbing.

Given what we know about the virus now, I don't think you'll find many people on the forum who disagree with your argument that climbing outdoors is safe and ought to be encouraged  :shrug:
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 23, 2020, 11:18:32 am
Newsflash - germs found in mound of turds shock. Anal hygiene essential to stop the spread.

What’s the thing with the Guardian links?
It’s called a “Newspaper”. They’re something that grownups read, a bit like a meme for people who can think.
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.

Aw.
I was having fun.
I am sooooo bored at the moment.

However, and this might give you a chuckle.

I had a quick PM chat with TT about this last night.

I wasn’t going to join in the current debate. Too much of a rehash from the spring and not enough novel ideas etc.

But I was reading it all.

Anyway, last night I had to spend an hour sat in the car waiting for one child to finish swimming club and was sat with No.1 daughter (15).
So Weedy Bus showed up on the thread and I thought it was quite funny. Showed his posts to my daughter, who has an almost hobby like interest in arguing on the internet.
So all the posts in my name, last night, were actually from her...

She’s here now, too.

But you’re right. Enough now.

I shall ignore.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 23, 2020, 11:19:43 am
Just because you lads can’t suffer an alternative perspective without calling someone a loony. Look around and observe the madness ffs

I need look no further than your post.

(Sorry Will. Last one, I promise).
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 23, 2020, 11:20:13 am
Maybe they should advise on masks at crags. Non sharing of equipment and the sanitation of hands and equipment after each climb. Busy crags could be monitored by a covid ambassador and people who refuse could be humiliated on this forum or similar?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 23, 2020, 11:24:11 am
Newsflash - germs found in mound of turds shock. Anal hygiene essential to stop the spread.

What’s the thing with the Guardian links?
It’s called a “Newspaper”. They’re something that grownups read, a bit like a meme for people who can think.
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. 😆
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Johnny Brown on October 23, 2020, 11:24:35 am
Quote
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 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.

Quote
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

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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: teestub on October 23, 2020, 11:25:26 am
Do we perhaps think Mr Coach may be a previous forum member who burned through several aliases, each one ending with a flounce off?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: abarro81 on October 23, 2020, 11:32:41 am
I suspect that Muscle Coach's antagonistic use of the forum will wane when people stop taking the bait...
The sooner the better.
Can't someone with admin privileges just get rid of them unless they start to write posts more than 1 line long?


Oh yes don’t engage with the idiot loon
Very 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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Will Hunt on October 23, 2020, 11:33:13 am
Newsflash - germs found in mound of turds shock. Anal hygiene essential to stop the spread.

What’s the thing with the Guardian links?
It’s called a “Newspaper”. They’re something that grownups read, a bit like a meme for people who can think.
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. 😆

If you actually read the forum you'll see that lots of people do disagree on here (see almost any thread that Pete posts on). They just manage to do it in a civil and respectful manner (most of the time). If you act like a cunt you have to expect to be answered like a cunt  :shrug:

 :yawn:
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 23, 2020, 11:33:53 am
Do we perhaps think Mr Coach may be a previous forum member who burned through several aliases, each one ending with a flounce off?

Doubt it. Most of those characters, as I recall, were more intelligent and engaging.
More likely the “turned up to sell ‘roids/Herbalife/magic shakes” and a bit too thick to realise he/she/it is in the wrong place, or some common, but inept, troll.

Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Anti on October 23, 2020, 11:50:54 am
Quote
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 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.

Quote
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

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.

My issue was with last lockdown the government stance is that we shouldn't be driving places and travelling to do things in groups. My interpretation (memory may be fuzzy) is that the BMC stance made it be that even if you lived in the middle of Stanage Plantation you shouldn't dare touch the rock lest you end up in A&E or requiring MRT to risk their lives to pick you up. Welsh government made things easier, as they closed the national parks forcing any attempt at climbing an issue of access, however this time the national parks remain open so I can go bouldering on public land (well, you know not really public...) without pissing off a farmer.

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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: petejh on October 23, 2020, 12:50:23 pm
Quote
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 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.

Quote
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

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..

JB, not wanting to turn this into BMC Wars III, but the BMC aren't obligated to take government funding for overseeing an Olympic sport or being an 'official NGB'. I assume they do so because at root they want to be more powerful and more important. From memory the funding stream accounts for around 15% of total BMC funding.

I think they'd do a better job of representing the interests of those members who enjoy the freedom of the great outdoors if they didn't need to worry about losing government funding for saying or doing 'the wrong thing'. So yeah I think BMC should be smaller and less interested in trying to be all things to all people.
 
They could do this by shifting competition climbing's governing body into a separate organisation. Let comp climbing have an effective body that focusses on its own interests, because it's a completely separate 'thing' now that it's an Olympic sport which, due to its funding structure coming from government Sports funding and commercial sponsorship, conflicts with the idea of freedom to access the great outdoors - something that has a long history of conflicting with powerful vested interests and public misunderstanding.

Yes there needs to be dialogue and respectful discussion with powerful bodies. But there also needs to be backbone and independence from conflicting interest. Other countries have outdoors-users access rights groups that are independent from sporting governing bodies.

The COVID crisis has brought home how conflicted and hamstrung the BMC have become.
It can't even bring itself to publicly fight for our access if that goes against anything government say in this crisis, presumably for fear of upsetting its sporting governing body funding. First lockdown I could at least understand their diplomacy as we didn't really understand the big picture. This time around the evidence is clear - there'll be zero harm done by accessing the mountains, hills, cliffs or boulders. If anyone tries to use 'accidents' as another stick to beat us with then it needs demonstrating clearly that road cycling sends more unfortunate people to hospital in one week than climbing or hillwalking does in one year.

It's time the BMC publicly stood up for its members in Wales, not hid behind the Welsh government's ridiculous regressive rules denying freedom to access the outdoors. You know - actually served its purported reason for existing.

/rant

Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: teestub on October 23, 2020, 01:23:41 pm

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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Anti on October 23, 2020, 01:40:38 pm

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.

Ah sorry, what I mean is for the most part farmers probably don't much care when people are well behaved and don't make arses of themselves. In my experience most farmers I've met are actually quite relaxed re: COVID, so unless there was already a tenuous access issue I'd say I don't see the opinion of the BMC / Welsh Govt making a significant impact. Foot and mouth had a very direct issue with access.

Interesting question about driving down the Peninsula and makes me examine my morals. Ogwen is only a few miles away from my house and easier for me to define to myself as staying local. It's also a lot closer should some grumpy police officer decide to turn me away. If I did twist an ankle, I could hobble from Milestone and ask my wife to give me a lift.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 23, 2020, 02:00:04 pm
I suspect that Muscle Coach's antagonistic use of the forum will wane when people stop taking the bait...
The sooner the better.
Can't someone with admin privileges just get rid of them unless they start to write posts more than 1 line long?


Oh yes don’t engage with the idiot loon
Very 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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: abarro81 on October 23, 2020, 02:10:28 pm
Why do I need to write an essay mate? Masks n social distancing = poor health and welfare. Now join the dots.

Because you say things like they're fact while abjectly failing to back them up with either reasoning or evidence. For example by providing links to evidence on masks leading to worse health outcomes at a rate that's likely to justify stopping their use... or just a vaguely well argued rationale for thinking that that might be the case. Fancy giving it a shot?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 23, 2020, 02:13:35 pm
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.

If you want to join in - make some sensible arguments and back them up with some sources.

Or go away.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 23, 2020, 02:20:13 pm
What sort of evidence would be suitable to you buddy?

The Guardian or some other toilet paper of choice?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: mrjonathanr on October 23, 2020, 02:26:25 pm
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.


I don't think it's either/or TT; I wouldn't waste your time.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: abarro81 on October 23, 2020, 02:27:12 pm
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: spidermonkey09 on October 23, 2020, 02:30:42 pm
we should all be working anyway

 :lol:
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: JamieG on October 23, 2020, 02:32:40 pm
If I was going to make an argument against social distancing, I would say that some of the mental health concerns that have been brought up are worrying. Isolation and loneliness are all likely to increase mental health problems in an already stressful time. However, I think they've tried to mitigate this with things like family bubbles etc. But it is a difficult balance.

An argument against masks is much harder to see. They've been worn by the medical professional for years to reduce infections and protect patients and staff, so I can't see what the big fuss is about.

But as tomtom says I think Muscle.Coach is mostly just trolling at the moment. And seems more interested in the scrap than putting forward some discussion points.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Will Hunt on October 23, 2020, 02:38:42 pm
https://twitter.com/blaireerskine/status/1301854923445989376
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Anti on October 23, 2020, 02:47:17 pm
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.

Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 23, 2020, 02:52:05 pm
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.

Probably a more valid argument, is that humans already take up too much room and if we spread out even more, the people at the edges are going to fall into the sea...

Flat Earth 101, innit.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 23, 2020, 03:00:37 pm
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Will Hunt on October 23, 2020, 04:03:54 pm
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.

Ok, you got us. It's an UKWIR conspiracy to try and alleviate pressure on major works and dodge the monumental phosphate reduction programme we have this AMP. We woulda gotten away with it too if it wasn't for that meddlin' Muscle Coach.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 23, 2020, 04:36:21 pm
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
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 23, 2020, 04:38:07 pm
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 covid 
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Bonjoy on October 23, 2020, 04:49:04 pm
Seems to paint a pretty clear picture, while you pally matey buddy boys chat on and on
You forgot 'chum'.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 23, 2020, 04:54:33 pm
@muscules https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/hundreds-unexpected-hospital-deaths-greater-19148399

So do some research and get back to us. Here’s an article from today’s MEN with ‘excess’ non Covid deaths from June 2019- end May 20 (ie covering a chunk of the peak period). These show people who died in these hospitals (or within 28 days of discharge) not from Covid. So if you can find the number that died from Covid at the same hospitals in the same period - you’ll get some sort of idea as to whether the effect you describe happened.

I suspect more people than ‘usual’ have died due to CV19 admissions to hospital - and how many that is in relation to those who died from Covid will come out in the wash.

Of course - if we didn’t let Covid spread so easily - by all following social distancing, wearing masks, washing hands, being careful - or by forcing this by locking down (etc..) then we wouldn’t have had to make such choices at hospitals.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: abarro81 on October 23, 2020, 05:00:07 pm
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

You realise that what you've written is barely legible and wholly incomprehensible, right? E.g. "I believe that is a similar figure" - what is a similar figure to what? Do you mean that current COVID-related bed occupancy is similar to its peak in lockdown? If so, then try saying that. If that is what you mean, then given that COVID-related bed occupancy is currently rising, this should be concerning not a reason for thinking it's all hunky dory. It also doesn't really support any of your argument - we locked the whole country down, and got to 34. Then we were less locked down but had various other measures in place, things got better, then got worse again as mixing increased, and we got back to 34. This doesn't mean that you can unlock those measures and stay at 34, and it doesn't tell you anything about mask efficacy.

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 covid 
Yes, 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...

There are interesting questions around how much restriction, and what restrictions, strike the best balance between keeping the economy going, giving people "freedom", and reducing direct damage from COVID. There are no doubt interesting questions around how to run the NHS in this scenario, though they probably require too much starting knowledge to be worth having for most of us on here. But having this conversation with you is tedious, frustrating, and very little fun. Still, a valiant effort and an improvement on your previous posts. We're up to it being like talking to a 10 year old, so keep on trucking...

P.s. this is why you want fewer COVID cases if you want "normal" NHS services to work - if you run out of staff and beds then someone doesn't get treated...  https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/hospital-trust-postpones-non-urgent-4632908
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 23, 2020, 05:15:22 pm
I haven’t got a fucking clue what you’re on about chum. 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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Bradders on October 23, 2020, 10:01:32 pm
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.

Thanks man, I'll take moderately well reasoned any day  :lol:
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: petejh on October 23, 2020, 10:21:48 pm
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.

Check your previous posts for the other bollock, there were a load of them.
 :popcorn:
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 24, 2020, 06:21:59 am
Those were other people’s bolkocks mate, mine is still here. I did some snooping at old matey chums request and found this evidence

https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3473

Apparently the DANNASK study is complete and has been quashed.

Stay cosy behind those muzzles
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: erm, sam on October 24, 2020, 06:39:45 am
What do you think that is "evidence" of?
I read it as sombody saying we should be carrying out studies as the benefit of maskwearing, hand washing etc, as we do for drugs that might have an effect on Covid. Obviously that is a good idea.

It is not evidence that masks are useless, if that is what you are implying.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 24, 2020, 07:20:17 am
The evidence is being ignored in order to keep the masses unquestioning or banging their TomTom’s (that’s a kind of drum)
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Bonjoy on October 24, 2020, 09:20:37 am
Evidence ignored? How many months did the government foot drag before grudgingly recommending masks? If there's evidence being ignored/downplayed by TPTB it's in relation to the importance of aerosol spread.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: abarro81 on October 24, 2020, 09:26:58 am
I concur with the author that having well-designed studies to assess the efficacy of mask wearing - and other interventions - would be good (though I'd contest that schools may not be the most appropriate scenario given current thoughts on transmission amongst children vs adults). But the author is not arguing that masks should not be used, just that we should do better studies on both them and others interventions. Until we do that, it would seem prudent to tread cautiously, especially when there is some evidence around efficacy - https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02801-8


"Observation of the use of face coverings, in real life, finds that they are commonly worn incorrectly.5" - I wouldn't view this as an argument against masks, it's an argument for more education and training. I imagine most idiots not wearing masks correctly are tin-foil-hat people like you. It's like saying "we gave ropes to 20 people and threw them off the top of a sport climb, a large number of participants didn't tie in properly, and died, therefore we conclude that ropes are inefffective protection for sport climbing".

"People with histories of trauma, or who have hearing difficulties, are placed at disadvantage.6" - yes, I could very much buy this. Obviously this doesn't address whether the negative is big enough to outweigh any positive.

"Yet those who do not wear face coverings are categorised, by proponents of face coverings, as “deviants from the new norm.”7 Societal cohesion is risked by dividing rather than understanding behaviour." - I find this reasoning perverse, since you could use it to advocate anarchism. Rules against murder, theft, reckless endangerment, drink driving and paedophilia all involve defining deviants from a norm, it's broadly how rules and social norms work. If (note the condition) masks work and other valid negative impacts (e.g. the one about hearing difficulties) are minor in comparison to the positive effect, then people who needlessly don't wear them should be shamed and looked down upon, as you would a drunk driver.

Hard to comment on the DNNASK thing without seeing the study and the reviewer responses.


(P.S. still like talking to a 10 year old, but the 10 year old is trying harder now, so B+ for effort)

Thanks man, I'll take moderately well reasoned any day  :lol:
:lol: I disagreed too much to write anything nicer  ;)

Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 24, 2020, 09:50:20 am
Mandated face coverings equated with murder eh, you read it here first. That’s the story they want you to lap up. Get yer jab of serum here, muzzle up and save the lives of your loved ones.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 24, 2020, 09:52:23 am
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: abarro81 on October 24, 2020, 10:16:43 am
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.

Unless you say something interesting I won't bother any more. Arguing with a fuckwit is very boring. (p.s. if you're on furlough, perhaps try some home schooling)
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 24, 2020, 10:50:34 am
👍🏻🤐
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: ali k on October 24, 2020, 11:42:07 am
Sorry to hear that Alex.

Good effort to anyone trying to engage with this guy but it’s perfectly clear he’s a bellend and only came on to antagonise.  :wank:
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 24, 2020, 12:12:52 pm
Sorry to hear that too Alex.
:(
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 25, 2020, 02:59:46 pm
And apparently Tier4 is now being planned...

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/coronavirus-latest-plans-tier-4-restrictions-second-wave-736607
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: teestub on October 25, 2020, 04:49:00 pm
Surprised they’re not going for 6 tiers to have one more than Scotland

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KOO5S4vxi0o
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 25, 2020, 04:55:01 pm
All I can think of is some sort of wedding cake competition :D
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: petejh on October 25, 2020, 09:45:57 pm
It'll all end in tiers.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: erm, sam on October 28, 2020, 05:41:45 pm
Happened across this today and thought of the recent intervention and claims there is no evidence to support mask wearing from the "wear your muzzle blah blah bollocks" poster. It shows masks dramatically reduce the transmittion of aerosol particles. From this I conclude that indeed, until proven otherwise in specific relation to SarsCov2 virus, wearing masks is a very sensible precaution to likely reduce the spread of the virus.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72798-7#:~:text=Milton%20et%20al.16%20found,reduction%20in%20the%20coarse%20fraction.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 28, 2020, 06:33:17 pm
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 28, 2020, 06:33:54 pm
Bollocks, nuts, fart and arse etc
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: JamieG on October 28, 2020, 06:45:58 pm
I don't quite see how you go from a P2 mask affording ~6 fold protection (which is actually quite a lot) under lab conditions to "likely to lead to zero or negligible difference and I wonder even worsen the situation" just because of human behaviour. I'm sure they aren't as effective as under lab conditions but that is quite a leap to make. Sure some people will wear them wrong, not wash/replace them enough etc, but I still doubt that renders them totally ineffective across a population (or as you suggest potentially worse than no mask). Most people are relatively sensible.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 28, 2020, 06:50:45 pm
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/
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: duncan on October 28, 2020, 07:04:04 pm
When it’s published

JAMA has a rejection rate of over 90%. BMJ and Lancet are similar. Not getting published in these journals is not the same as suppressing results.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 28, 2020, 07:12:07 pm
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/

To me the conspiracy theory of journals not publishing this research doesn’t make any sense. You can post your paper - in unreviewed form - on a preprint server (as is happening to much Covid research while its being reviewed) and it will be out there for all to see.

Anyway, a quick dig around the website discussing why the article hasn’t been published (that you link) and the owner and founder of the website has held some non mainstream views (being diplomatic) and faces a string of claims of being anti Semitic.

So it’s filed under the tin foil hat category for me.

But reading your longer post above MC it seems you’re maybe annoyed more at masks being positioned as some sort of viral control panacea. You’re right there - they won’t fix it - but I think they help. Of course if they are used to legitimatise entering a dangerous situation - then that is potentially dangerous as they won’t afford as much protection as simply not being there!!

Though I think you’re missing the main point of wearing masks - that is to stop infected people breathing/spraying the virus everywhere. I wear one to stop other people getting what I unwittingly may not know I have!
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: JamieG on October 28, 2020, 07:13:58 pm
Reading through the link you sent I am not convinced by the authors arguments. As Duncan mentioned getting rejected from a journal is just part of scientific research and there can be numerous reasons an article is not accepted, but that does not equal suppression. If the authors really wanted this study out in public since they believe the results are important enough, there is a route to do this called pre-prints. Essentially you make your research available (before peer reivew) whilst you are still looking for a place to publish. It is fairly common practice and can be beneficial to the authors since improvements to the study/write-up can be suggested before publication. That would allow everyone to see there findings without compromising their ability to publish in a good journal. It sounds like they are stirring up controversy a little.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: lagerstarfish on October 28, 2020, 07:14:32 pm
Most people are relatively sensible.

Technically this may be correct, but there is an awful lot of idiots out there
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: JamieG on October 28, 2020, 07:16:53 pm
Most people are relatively sensible.

Technically this may be correct, but there is an awful lot of idiots out there

Yes, the "relatively" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.  :)
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 28, 2020, 07:23:44 pm
Sensible yes......

Maybe it’s being red lighted by extremist militant factions who are upset that an invisible enemy has knocked them off the top spot as weaponised propaganda on the world stage
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: dunnyg on October 28, 2020, 07:36:17 pm
My paper got rejected a few months ago, pretty sure it wasnt a government cover up of my uncovering the truth about using cosmogenic isotopes for looking at earthquakes, but just in case it is on a pre print server so THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 28, 2020, 07:46:42 pm

69’000 civilians murdered by Blair and bush in Iraq (covered up pre WikiLeaks)

42’000 covid ‘related’ deaths in the U.K. pumped at us through government controlled media outlets

Yep, there’s definitely absolutely zero propaganda going on. Covid scaremongering is a sanctioned government psy-ops

Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: dunnyg on October 28, 2020, 07:52:46 pm
Good point, well made
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 28, 2020, 07:58:19 pm
What a load of shite MC. Honestly. Let’s compare a war and a pandemic - eh?

Anyway / let’s persist with your thought experiment.
Firstly - Blair and Bushes war probably killed more civilians than that.

However CV19 has killed officially 1,176,962 (as of JH website 2 min ago) world wide - and this figure is rising by 6k a day with no end in sight.

So really - it’s all some sort of government psy-ops (?!?) and we have nothing to worry about?

Jog on sunshine.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 28, 2020, 08:01:15 pm
Fuck me you’re on the payroll
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 28, 2020, 08:03:19 pm
Fuck me you’re on the payroll
And you’re on Trumps?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 28, 2020, 08:05:53 pm
Ah, the standard comparison turned to by the pseudo left when attempting to discredit. Well done matey boy
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 28, 2020, 08:07:24 pm
Regardless of your bollocks the comparison was in the potential for hiding and manipulating data
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 28, 2020, 08:15:32 pm
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
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 28, 2020, 08:23:50 pm
Ah, the standard comparison turned to by the pseudo left when attempting to discredit. Well done matey boy

You seem to be on exactly the same page as trumps theory of Covid being a big ploy or overplay - so you and Trump being intellectual bedfellows is quite a reasonable comparison to make don’t you think?

Anyway - it’s a shame you’re not right about Covid - for everyone’s sake.

Advertising is psychological manipulation. Politics is psychological manipulation. Your posts are (attempts at) psychological manipulation!!

Every time you look at this website stats go to some web company that’s using them for physiological manipulation.

That’s life :)
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: teestub on October 28, 2020, 08:24:30 pm
Working out how you can get the general population to be less selfish for the greater good must be a tricky task in this day and age.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 28, 2020, 08:25:27 pm
Simply questioning the narrative here chaps
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Will Hunt on October 28, 2020, 08:26:48 pm
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?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 28, 2020, 08:30:03 pm
Simply questioning the narrative here chaps

You’re trolling plain and simple. Instead of making reasoned arguments - you just shout bollocks and insult people.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: petejh on October 28, 2020, 08:31:26 pm
Simply questioning the narrative here chaps

Yes, very simply.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 28, 2020, 08:34:03 pm
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.

I started today with this post, and followed up with what I thought were interesting links. How the fuck is that trolling? Sanctimonious hogwash.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 28, 2020, 08:36:23 pm
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?

The difference being one is based on a reliable fact, getting run over is usually problematic vs the other being based on speculation and not knowing (ironically you’re more likely to die in a car accident on your daily commute than get killed by covid)
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: teestub on October 28, 2020, 08:40:19 pm
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.

Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 28, 2020, 08:42:26 pm
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

Not trolling? Really?

Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 28, 2020, 08:47:41 pm
No that’s just being a dick.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 28, 2020, 08:51:09 pm
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
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: JamieG on October 28, 2020, 08:51:38 pm
Masks are now here to stay, enjoy the the feeling of security they afford as you peep out at the deadly air around you.

This sounds a bit like "trolling" or a least you are trying to get a rise out of people. Which you seem to have succeeded at.

As for the discussion. Several posters have responded to the mask link you posted by asking why the authors don't just publish a pre-print if they think it is so important. This doesn't in anyway effect you're ability to publish a paper later. So it seems like the authors probably have an okay study on their hands with limited conclusions which would normally just go into a standard journal. Yet they are complaining they haven't got into some of the most prestigious medical journals around. To me it sounds like they are trying to drum up controversy (I don't know why) rather than being suppressed. But you haven't responded to that yet. Apart from something about it being red-lighted by militant propagandists, which still doesn't explain why they don't just publish a pre-print.

Most people here are pretty happy to discuss things, yes it leans left, but definitely not exclusively. You definitely came out swinging from the start which is why people are being more hostile now.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 28, 2020, 08:52:16 pm
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.

Yeah I need a big hug from you
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: teestub on October 28, 2020, 09:01:02 pm
(ironically you’re more likely to die in a car accident on your daily commute than get killed by covid)

Annual road deaths around 1,700, Covid so far around 40k. You’re not helping your case.

Also was that a tacit admission that you are a precious forum user returned?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/754685/quarterly-estimates-april-to-june-2018.pdf
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 28, 2020, 09:07:52 pm
Yeah well I made that one up. Mixing fact with fiction is how they get you.
What in living fuck is a tacit admission? You asked me if I needed a hug, I said yeah from you. Not
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 28, 2020, 09:13:18 pm
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

Aaahhaaaahhaa!

Global.

Amongst and involving total cooperation between nations, at or virtually at, war.

You have made my day. I had to screen cap some of this and share it around.

I strongly recommend you seek professional help.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 28, 2020, 09:14:40 pm
No that’s just being a dick.

Yep. You are.

A small one.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 28, 2020, 09:18:55 pm
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

Let me decode:

“You didn’t agree, so I had a paddy”.

Or do you see it differently.

If (IF) you had a little savvy, you’ll find the actually really quite illuminating Meta’s about mask effectiveness etc, one from the Lancet and another out of Oxford, already linked in one of the various posts, on one of the various threads, on this forum.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 28, 2020, 09:19:23 pm
Like clockwork, do you lads operate a tag team system or are you all the same government bot?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 28, 2020, 09:28:53 pm
Like clockwork, do you lads operate a tag team system or are you all the same government bot?

I actually do work for the government.

Which is why you’re just so damn amusing to listen to/read!

It’s hilarious. My 12 year old, comes to me with convoluted theories and hypothesis like these; usually base around some sort of “fan fiction” type thing, for one of the various SciFi/Fantasy universes. At least he’s aware it’s fiction.
He does, however, usually manage a far higher standard of “evidence” and “reasoning”, than you seem capable of.

Keep trying. Last time I let my 15 year old daughter argue respond to you. I’ll ask the lad to rate you raving, sorry, reasoning, now.

Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 28, 2020, 09:35:10 pm
I have to admit those responses were more fun than reading your shite.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 28, 2020, 09:50:43 pm
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)?

Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 28, 2020, 10:00:47 pm
OT.

Actually, as an aside, it’s easy to see how such “ideas” enter the consciousness of the “Tribe”.

I sometimes enjoy the ranting of the “Tuckered” account on Twatter/FB, not always, but often. I quite liked this, on the subject of politics etc.today:

“ Someone 20+ years my senior posed a question on here yesterday; 'Has it always been this bad?' In his lifetime he couldn't remember prior governments being much better than the current shower of shite, but he did concede that it feels much worse now, positing the theory that we're simply more aware of just how bad things are. someone else, 40 years my senior, agreed.

It can't be healthy. This relentless bombardment of misery in our palms. Smart phones should have brought about a revolution in enlightenment, communication, and knowledge. Remember the Arab Spring?

Instead we collectively navigate an infinite cesspool, meandering from one outrage to the next. Spurred on by the talking heads of the Twatterphere, cunts like me, and a 24 hour rolling news media that latches onto our fauxtrage, squeezing every non-story of every last drop, and leaving them, and us, empty.

It's constant and exhausting. A perpetual quagmire. Like a never-ending magic show you gaze, open-mouthed in disbelief, and just as you're about to utter the word 'wow', you're distracted by an even bigger dead cat being pulled from a hat and flung, unceremoniously, in front of you.

It's almost as if it's manufactured. How can you focus your ire when there's so many fucking targets? How do you prioritise such rapidly evolving cuntishness? Like now for example, with the current free school meals controversy. People are saying 'the North remembers'. Well it didn't remember the last fucking decade did it? Fuck off, this isn't Game of Thrones. At least that shit ended.

This has to be having a massive impact on our collective mental health. Hour after hour of misery only interrupted by the odd meme.

So what's the solution? Ignore it all, is that even possible without ditching your phone?

They say ignorance is bliss, but I've seen it up close and it's not. Ignorance is terryfying. Ignorance shapes the world we live in and gets us decades of voting against our own interests. Ignorance breeds blame and hate. Ignorance feeds the very misery we're being bombarded with.

I have no answers.”

                     
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 28, 2020, 10:05:15 pm
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 28, 2020, 10:12:25 pm
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.

Still here?

Isn’t it past your bedtime?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Nigel on October 28, 2020, 10:12:45 pm
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?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 28, 2020, 10:20:30 pm
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?

Caveats about not yet knowing how quickly most might pump out the antibodies on reinfection, or what the T cell responses might be, not withstanding; it seems an odd gambit...
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: danm on October 28, 2020, 10:22:02 pm
Yes, if herd immunity was proven as a thing with this virus. Unfortunately, what with it being relatively novel nobody actually knows if enough people can develop immunity for long enough for this to be viable as a way of protecting the population at large. As such, doing anything other than locking down is a massive risk. Both politically but also morally.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 28, 2020, 10:23:15 pm
Praise be a voice of reason in this quagmire of narrow minded covid jihadis.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: dunnyg on October 28, 2020, 10:25:12 pm
From what I gather the problem with it letting rip in the gen pop is that healthcare standards for those who need criticial care would be lower as there is not the capacity to provide it for everyone who would need it. By stringing it out, you avoid this problem (hopefully) and as a result, reduce the knock on effect to the rest of the health service.



I cant offer any numbers, but There you go.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: danm on October 28, 2020, 10:29:06 pm
Praise be a voice of reason in this quagmire of narrow minded covid jihadis.
Yeah, I'm an expert on virology too.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 28, 2020, 10:38:08 pm
We all have to be in these times, 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
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: SA Chris on October 28, 2020, 10:42:26 pm
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

Yep, you are certainly proving your interlekt with that.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: moose on October 28, 2020, 10:43:08 pm
I’ve done lots of reading and could certainly give some of you boffins and dr’s a run for your money

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Nigel on October 28, 2020, 10:46:40 pm
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?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 28, 2020, 10:50:11 pm
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
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Nigel on October 28, 2020, 10:52:11 pm
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

So yes then?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: moose on October 28, 2020, 10:54:15 pm
The problem is that there's supposedly no previous instance of "natural" herd immunity. All examples of herd immunity have required vaccines. Look at measles - a huge R of around 20, you get lifelong immunity after infection, but we still had to vaccinate (too bloody late for me... same with rubella). And, the other common corona viruses, which cause colds, have never resulted in herd immunity despite their prevalence. 
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 28, 2020, 10:55:01 pm
Yes to what? You’re speaking some sense. I said what you just said a way back when I first came on
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: mrjonathanr on October 28, 2020, 10:55:28 pm
Oh, the irony. .
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 28, 2020, 10:57:15 pm
What’s ironic? Apart from your knob size.... and cheesy bell
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 28, 2020, 11:04:40 pm
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?

Pretty sure it’s the unsaid underpinning of the ethos.

Honestly, if I:
A/ Believed it was possible to achieve the segregation.
B/ Trusted that immunity was a given (despite this not being the case for any other (or many other) known coronaviruses).
C/ Felt willing to sacrifice all those who don’t yet know that they’re vulnerable.

Then I might feel it a viable “thing”.

Seriously, even if they don’t die, the hospital admissions, the sick days lost, the possibility of long term issues (I already mentioned the Commercial divers in my extended circle, who have lost their licence/failed medicals, somewhere on here. No idea how permanent that is yet) etc etc, just makes it  seem impossible to consider, even though I’m not an epidemiologist, virologist et al.

I defer to F-in-L, who is an old and bold senior doctor, and who generally sees it as all rather black and doom laden. The Stepmother-in-law, is a Cardiologist. She’s convinced there will never be a vaccine (we don’t have a great record with Coronaviruses).
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 28, 2020, 11:10:44 pm
What’s ironic? Apart from your knob size.... and cheesy bell

Dude. Step away from the mirror.

If your “Bell” is cheesy, try showering occasionally.

Oh yeah:
 https://www.google.com/search?q=ironic&rlz=1C9BKJA_enGB776GB776&oq=ironic&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i433l4j0.4411j0j7&hl=en-GB&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8 (https://www.google.com/search?q=ironic&rlz=1C9BKJA_enGB776GB776&oq=ironic&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i433l4j0.4411j0j7&hl=en-GB&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8)
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 28, 2020, 11:22:44 pm
Can we have the funny one back please? This chump persona is a bit of a tedious self referential screed of ejaculate
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 28, 2020, 11:23:43 pm
My diver buddies yadda yadda
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 28, 2020, 11:31:24 pm
Can we have the funny one back please? This chump persona is a bit of a tedious self referential screed of ejaculate

You are, rather self referential, yes, definitely tedious and I’ll defer to your obviously greater knowledge of the flavour of ejaculate, but I don’t think you’ve managed funny yet.
But you have tried, I suppose, just not very hard.

Or are you actually “giving it your all”?

I hope not...
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 28, 2020, 11:34:36 pm
My diver buddies yadda yadda

Do they?

Do your diver buddies “yadda”?

To be fair, this seems unlikely.

PS:
Your left hand doesn’t count as either a “Buddie” or “Girlfriend”, your mum just told you that so you wouldn’t feel so lonely.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 29, 2020, 02:22:34 am
Look pal, I don’t mind the banter but for the final time please leave my mum out of it.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 29, 2020, 08:20:34 am
Given the latest ‘react’ study findings this morning (100k people tested every couple of weeks) that we’re at or very close to the max rates of transmission that we had back in March, I doubt how much longer we’ll have local lockdowns (ie national one to come soon...).
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: gollum on October 29, 2020, 08:56:20 am
I predict a week of government denial, followed by a week of ‘considering all options’, followed by a week of ‘becoming an inevitability’, followed by ‘it’s happening tomorrow, (unless it’s late in the week and then we’ll leave it until Monday when people can have one last blast over the weekend and then we can blame them for being irresponsible afterwards)’.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Nigel on October 29, 2020, 09:08:25 am
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 29, 2020, 09:12:20 am
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/

Interesting article about rebuilding capitalism for you pseudo leftists

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/07/to-build-back-better-we-must-reinvent-capitalism-heres-how/

Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: moose on October 29, 2020, 09:19:58 am
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".
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 29, 2020, 09:20:19 am
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 29, 2020, 09:23:01 am
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".

I don’t think they’ll manage that long.

By the end of the first week of November, the hospitals will be swamped and the numbers enough to break through the walls of even this numbed and weary population.

Edit:
I do agree they’ll try to extend it to cover the Brexit bollock drop. A lockdown will minimise the lorry jam and if it can be drawn out until they actually manage a solution/fudge/mini-deal, I’m sure they’ll try.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: lagerstarfish on October 29, 2020, 09:25:11 am
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".

(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0351/1705/products/BMSPOSTER.jpg)
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 29, 2020, 09:28:38 am
Whilst I’d normally be happy at Labour knocking a spot off the Tories - obstacle to getting on with it (lockdown2) is that Labour said we should circuit breaker a couple of weeks ago. So obvs the Tories will have to come up with their own version.

Tier 3 won’t be enough. We (Manchester) have been in T2+ since late July and honestly - there’s no difference between that and T3 to how we’re going about our lives.

The local lockdown vs national is a seductive idea. But ultimately will fall flat on its face due to implementing it. Eg When London gets locked down and second home owners start migrating to Cornwall / Cotswolds again... or at a more local scale - plenty of anecdotes about drinkers from Bolton nipping over ‘the border’ into Lancs for a session when all the pubs were shut there. We’re just too densely populated - and interwoven (both work and family spread) for local to work ultimately imho.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 29, 2020, 09:45:40 am
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.

Sign up here mate

https://www.buildbackbetteruk.org/
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 29, 2020, 10:18:54 am
After reading this stuff about reset and other benefits I’m starting to wonder if we can make the best out of a bad situation. Give nature a chance, slow climate change, improve standards of living to name a few. Maybe this situation can be turned around eh chaps.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Fiend on October 29, 2020, 01:25:39 pm
Didn't post this when I first made it, but....

(https://scontent-lht6-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/118457321_10159164927458623_1983735684162225361_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&ccb=2&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=61Y_RNmbsuQAX-8edCk&_nc_ht=scontent-lht6-1.xx&oh=b0056c5024fe1cb3e529e9edd808299d&oe=5FBEFB8B)
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 29, 2020, 01:30:41 pm
Haha that’s pretty funny, not true tho is it cos every fucker is wearing them
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: JamieG on October 29, 2020, 01:54:50 pm
Not when I popped out to get a take-away coffee from the cafe today. Loads of people sitting in a relatively small enclosed space without masks on chatting away. Seems like madness to me, especially since rates around us are high and we are in Tier 3. But there we are.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: petejh on October 29, 2020, 02:26:59 pm

I don’t see what you’re so doggedly fighting for or against? It’s just societies trying their best to find a sane balance in extremely difficult circumstances.

Although you could be right M.C. , what’s the quote..?
’just because you’re paranoid it doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you’.

I’m certainly on board with the idea we’re heading for a reset. Read some EB Tucker and then we’ll see you over on the ‘covid and finance’ thread with your nonsense.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 29, 2020, 03:36:00 pm
Exactly. All I see on here by the main posters is about virus this and masks that. No one is talking about the sub plot. I.e the control of human behaviour through the medium of an invisible fear
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: petejh on October 29, 2020, 03:40:50 pm
Do you believe this ‘sub-plot’, as you call it, was planned in advance, or do you think of it as something that emerged out of a natural crisis?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: andy popp on October 29, 2020, 03:41:27 pm
Bless your little cotton socks.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 29, 2020, 03:52:12 pm
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?

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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: teestub on October 29, 2020, 03:53:03 pm
Maybe M Coach has been watching Utopia and s/he thinks that the virus has been engineered so we all accept a vaccine? I wonder what their views on 5G are?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 29, 2020, 03:54:33 pm
What’s your point mate, cut the smug BS for a change eh
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 29, 2020, 03:56:15 pm
What’s your point mate, cut the smug BS for a change eh

You’re not very good at detecting BS, are you... mate.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: petejh on October 29, 2020, 03:58:37 pm
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.

And what do you think governments are covering up at the moment?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 29, 2020, 04:15:10 pm
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 29, 2020, 04:24:45 pm
Bless your little cotton socks.

Bless your G string thong and assless chaps
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: petejh on October 29, 2020, 04:26:21 pm
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.

It’s you who’s suggesting these things. I have nothing to tell you about them.

Long term plans for who’s economy?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Will Hunt on October 29, 2020, 04:27:21 pm
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 29, 2020, 04:35:34 pm
The world economy, cashless society, the control of people based on covid vaccine delivery, global hegemony, etc etc
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 29, 2020, 04:45:03 pm
Like in Mad Max? (Not fussed which one... though prefer #1)
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 29, 2020, 04:50:40 pm
We’ve been known to do worse to each other, increase your Lebensraum and all that
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 29, 2020, 04:56:46 pm
Like in Mad Max? (Not fussed which one... though prefer #1)

Bollocks.

Road Warrior was way better.

Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 29, 2020, 04:57:52 pm
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.

Seconded.

Starting to get repetitive strain in my single typing finger and cramp in all my irony muscles...
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: andy popp on October 29, 2020, 05:01:42 pm
Nice. A little touch of incipient homophobia.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: petejh on October 29, 2020, 05:03:35 pm
The world economy, cashless society, the control of people based on covid vaccine delivery, global hegemony, etc etc

Nothing major then..
‘etc. etc.’  :)

There’s nothing to see here is there, just a common garden troll. I vote for Shark to have him imprisoned under Malham with the rest of them.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 29, 2020, 05:04:16 pm
Like in Mad Max? (Not fussed which one... though prefer #1)

Bollocks.

Road Warrior was way better.

Ahh...just thought of the Hitcher.

Though doesn’t count as it’s not a post apocalyptic setting
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 29, 2020, 05:04:33 pm
Nice. A little touch of incipient homophobia.

Not on any conscious level, but feel free to patronise and shame all you like
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: andy popp on October 29, 2020, 05:08:14 pm
Nice. A little touch of incipient homophobia.

Not on any conscious level

Then how did you know what I was referring to?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 29, 2020, 05:12:12 pm
I’m not sure I do, but then that doesn’t mean much
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Muscle.Coach on October 29, 2020, 05:13:34 pm
Anyway back on topic, I’m just sayin that the mainstream media are peddling fear and there’s something fishy in the air
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: andy popp on October 29, 2020, 05:23:00 pm
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?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: shark on October 29, 2020, 05:43:19 pm
I’ve banned Muscle Coach for tedious trolling
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: reeve on October 29, 2020, 05:52:54 pm
Thank fuck


I haven't contributed to any of the Covid threads but I do find them very useful for listening to everyone's opinions - so thanks everyone btw
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: remus on October 29, 2020, 05:56:04 pm
Thank fuck

 :agree:
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 29, 2020, 06:16:52 pm
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?

Funny, isn’t it.
These things always require a multi-generational “They”.
(Who really must be very inefficient, since “They” have apparently failed to seize control (overtly) for several centuries, so far).
I suppose, when I was a youth, I sorta assumed there was a “They”, at least a network of the “Old school tie” type of thing, which I’d imagined as a global thing.

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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: remus on October 29, 2020, 06:26:03 pm
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.

It strikes me that there's an air of religious zeal to a lot of conspiracy theories: the belief that there's a greater power that controls everything (though typically for some nefarious purpose rather than the more benevolent stuff you get in normal religious circles).

Perhaps on balance that is more comforting for some than the reality, that at a global level no one really has much control at all and it's all a bit of a shit show wherever you look.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: JamieG on October 29, 2020, 06:47:53 pm
I agree that the idea that society is basically semi-organised chaos is quite unsettling, especially since it makes you feel like you have no real control or influence.

I alway finding it surprising that the conspiracy theories rely on shadowy figures pulling the strings when the real crooks are literally front and centre. Trump literally can't help but spill all the beans on how he is planning to try cling on to the presidency. No shadowy figures required.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 29, 2020, 07:13:57 pm
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: lagerstarfish on October 29, 2020, 10:29:06 pm
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: dunnyg on October 29, 2020, 10:33:11 pm
If you want to go to Adel crag, I would say its worth running the road blocks. Death or glory (and then rona death)
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: remus on October 29, 2020, 10:44:09 pm
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.

Currently it's just advice, not law https://www.gov.uk/guidance/local-covid-alert-level-very-high#travel
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: sxrxg on October 30, 2020, 08:48:43 am
If my Instagram is anything to go by then it is not advice many people seem to be following...
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 30, 2020, 09:27:32 am
If my Instagram is anything to go by then it is not advice many people seem to be following...

Exactly. And that’s why a local lockdown won’t work in a society as densely populated and as spatially permeable as ours.

(Sorry for arsey tone - I’m cross this morning :( )
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: TobyD on October 30, 2020, 09:44:58 am
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.

Yes people love to imagine that there is a puppet master organising whatever it is they don't like,  and if someone can just get to the master, what they don't like will go away. Hence Qanon etc. Its a fragile belief system like anything else. 
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: moose on October 30, 2020, 10:13:43 am
I think some people find reassurance in feeling that there is a "big bad" behind life's misfortunes.  Not because they feel that if there is a master, then there is a hopeful prospect of their defeat.  More because the alternative is that life is basically random and without any over-arching meaning - that their sufferings are just fortuitous - just being at the shitty end of a variance curve.  There's a comfort to the notion that you are only in a bad situation because of the concerted efforts of dark forces, rather than your own mistakes and bad luck.  Maybe being part of a plan, even if it's a bad plan, is better than there being no plan at all and it's all just the probabilistic interactions of elementary particles.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Bradders on October 30, 2020, 10:29:04 am
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Davo on October 30, 2020, 10:36:38 am
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.

Completely agree with you here Bradders. I really don’t see any justification for stopping people going outside to exercise or crossing into another tier to go for a walk or climb.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: sxrxg on October 30, 2020, 03:33:54 pm
If crossing into another tier is just nipping from the west of Sheffield to a quiet peak crag for some exercise then I would understand. I have been seeing lots of posts of people traveling significant distances (from the different venues they are posting about) and also seemingly climbing in groups (might be below the rule of 6, difficult to tell in the photos). It seems these people are not changing their behaviour at all and I don't think it is a good thing for the public's view of climbing. If people want to do these things then so be it we all make our own risk choices at the moment (and I am frustrated as due to family reasons I have to be more careful than most) however I don't think people should be posting publicly about it in current times as I think it just encourages more people to ignore the governments guidance.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: JamieG on October 30, 2020, 05:16:40 pm
Yeah, totally agree with you sxrxg. I think perception as well as actual risk is an important fact. Unfortunately I think the horse has well and truly bolted for people caring about government guidance. I certainly am just trying my best to make decisions that I feel are sensible, which are usually stricter than current advice (also for family reasons). And I suspect the vast majority of people are doing the same, which is not necessarily ideal, but understandable considering the bungled messaging by the government. Our region (Tameside) went from local restrictions/lockdown to Tier 3 and I don't think anyone changed their behaviour at all. Cases are still bad here and have been for literally months now, so I really don't know what you can do, but try your best to stick to your own personal plan to avoid getting infected. Which is mostly just staying in the house and shopping online, with occasional dog walks and visits to quiet Chew valley crags and quarries.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Davo on October 30, 2020, 07:08:41 pm
I don’t want a large argument here but I am very much against restrictions in terms of physical exercise in the outdoors. I just don’t see that it poses virtually any risk in terms of transmission. I was happy to not climb the first time round for the reasons described such as perception, being in it together and not encouraging others to do stupid things but now I think we need to be careful about accepting restrictions to activities such as climbing outside that pose virtually nil risk of transmission. I certainly won’t be stopping sport climbing or bouldering outdoors and have no qualms about crossing into another tier to do so.

I think that as a climbing community we need to hold onto our access to exercising in the outdoors and not just accept false arguments relating to risk and risk of transmission.

Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 30, 2020, 07:54:40 pm
I think you’re right Dave - and that’s right for the solo / household Boulder/rope team.

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)
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: abarro81 on October 30, 2020, 07:56:41 pm
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...
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 30, 2020, 08:22:41 pm
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...
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: T_B on October 30, 2020, 08:59:25 pm
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: gollum on October 30, 2020, 10:21:55 pm
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.

Whilst I tend to agree with you, if you operate a ‘marginal gains’ plan such as Sky or British Cycling you get get closer to the solution. Alternatively if you watch a Sesame Street episode from maybe 45 years ago, if everyone leaves a piece of trash, ultimately the place is a trash heap.

Your choice.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: sxrxg on October 30, 2020, 11:59:45 pm
I have just noticed that the North West Face in Warrington is being told to close as part of tier 3+ measures coming in from Monday - https://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/news/18835572.indoor-entertainment-venues-close-warrington/. As with all things local lockdown it seems odd that people can still visit the depot or climbing hangar that are 25 minutes in either direction however they cannot visit their local wall when all are meant to be in tier 3 lockdown. I really don't see how local restrictions are going to work when the rules are so different between areas that are so close together.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Paul B on October 31, 2020, 12:29:01 am
I take it you've not seen a copy of the front covers of the weekend papers?

National lockdown, briefing on Monday etc.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Stabbsy on October 31, 2020, 08:27:12 am
I take it you've not seen a copy of the front covers of the weekend papers?

National lockdown, briefing on Monday etc.
Obviously getting bad enough in London that they’ve started to give a shit.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: abarro81 on October 31, 2020, 08:50:17 am
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)
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 31, 2020, 08:51:17 am
Sadly that was my first thought too....

The moment there are record increases in the capital.... (as reported)

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.

Let’s see what the detail is... I’ll wager it’s soft lockdown.

1. Primary schools - certain to carry on
2. Secondary - probably but maybe not.
3. Pubs/restaraunts... closed but maybe allow outdoor dining?
4. Gyms? (50/50 chance I recon)
5. Shops? Everything to remain open... except maybe nail bars, tanning salons, Tier3 closed stuff etc..
6. Travel. No unnecessary travel ‘advised’.
7. Universities - carry on with some face to face as they were

Those are my guesstimates.. in effect Tier3+ nationally. Hospitality and leisure take a hit - not much else will change.

You never know - maybe he’ll have the kahunas to do it properly.

What is interesting - and clear from across Europe - is how much CV19 seems to  spread with the colder weather and more people being inside for longer. Suspect this has been underestimated up to now. The Sage(ly) ones seem surprised it’s grown so soon and so rapidly... (ie to their worst case scenario end)

@Barrows (just saw your post while typing). Maybe for clarity of message?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Andy W on October 31, 2020, 08:56:34 am
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)


I live in France and I'm surprised as well. It's a lockdown that favours work/business and curtails pretty much anything that might be considered necessary to the human soul, ie culture and climbing  ;)

On Monday we need a form/attestation to take one daughter to school and another to creche, a form to go to the shops and bizarrely we need more forms to go and pick our girls up from school/creche!
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: teestub on October 31, 2020, 08:56:53 am

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.


Seen this in various forms from local leaders, the old ‘behave now and you can have a biscuit later’ tactic!

Pretty gutted that it appears in N Yorks we will be going straight from Tier 1 to Lockdown!
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: JamieG on October 31, 2020, 09:27:23 am
I take it you've not seen a copy of the front covers of the weekend papers?

National lockdown, briefing on Monday etc.
Obviously getting bad enough in London that they’ve started to give a shit.

That is basically what the guardian are reporting. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/30/save-christmas-with-covid-lockdown-in-england-experts-say

"The React study from Imperial College London this week flagged that the R number – measuring how many people are infected by each person transmitting the virus – was at its highest in the south of the country, which meant it was likely to follow the pattern in the north, which currently has the highest numbers of cases and where tier 3 restrictions are widely imposed."

Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Davo on October 31, 2020, 09:30:30 am

[/quote]

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)
[/quote]

Completely agree with this. I see no good reason to restrict going out and climbing or exercising in the hills etc. I for one will be carrying on sport climbing or bouldering in quiet locations.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Dac on October 31, 2020, 09:36:24 am
Nice to see that the government is once again going about things in the manner likely to cause the most disruption and panic.

Leak the possibility of a new lockdown to the press on a Friday night, with no official briefing of what this will actually entail to follow untill Monday.

Cue a weekend of the nation panic buying bog-roll, visiting relatives while they still can, and enjoying a big blowout Halloween piss-up.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: chris j on October 31, 2020, 09:57:26 am

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).
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 31, 2020, 10:10:31 am

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).

Devon is doing ok as a whole:

(https://i.ibb.co/m0GdrgB/AB5-CBAA9-155-E-4-DA6-92-F9-56039474-C491.jpg)

Torbay is actually calming down after a surge around two weeks ago:

(https://i.ibb.co/7n7mQnh/FB3-C027-F-A5-CC-4-FC7-92-F0-193-F44-ECDE72.jpg)


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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 31, 2020, 10:20:33 am
According to the rolling news sites the leak was a genuine leak rather than a let’s signpost bad news early leak like they normally do.

#10 is fuming etc... strong element of the boy who cried wolf here.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: ali k on October 31, 2020, 10:23:57 am
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: chris j on October 31, 2020, 10:27:10 am
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.

Devonlive, that well known source of accurate local reporting suggests 13 have died in hospital in the last 2 weeks, with another 4 in care homes in the same period and that you're heading for Tier 3...

TBH, (idealistically & unrealistically i know) rather than more severe restrictions that everyone will try to wriggle around (other than closing pubs full stop no ifs, buts or exceptions) they could do with a sustained high profile campaign to tell everyone to be sensible & take some personal responsibility. Get some footballers and the current flavour of the month reality tv celebrities onboard and get with the youth...
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: ali k on October 31, 2020, 10:30:05 am
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 31, 2020, 10:30:17 am
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.

Indeed. Such is the pettiness of government and party politics, I suspect there will be much gnashing of teeth over what to call it. After all, Labour have championed the circuit break, the Welsh Govt have the fire break, and Scotland have tier 4 I believe... What will they use?

Anyway - expect we’ll hear some of this next week “Stay home to save Christmas”
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 31, 2020, 10:33:22 am
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.

Yes - though on the news programs I saw yesterday much was being made of C-Widdys “if we do nothing it will be this bad in mid October” predictions from the 21st Sept news conference - that were unerringly correct....

There does seem to be more of a concerted SAGE effort to gently spread the word. Different members doing media briefings on different days - to the big news spreading programs (today program, breakfast etc..). Fair play to them I say - If I was on that panel I’d be worried about being hung out to dry later on...
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Sidehaas on October 31, 2020, 10:37:44 am

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.

Edit: sorry here is the link:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2020-10-29/scientists-warn-of-a-new-covid-19-variant-in-europe-video

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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Sidehaas on October 31, 2020, 10:40:02 am
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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 31, 2020, 10:48:35 am
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.

I think they may have realised they’ve left it too late for that - from Prof Edmunds on today program (talking about winter CV19 deaths)

“The issue is, is that going to be low tens of thousands if we take radical action now or is that going to be the high tens of thousands if we don’t?”
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 31, 2020, 10:51:23 am

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.

What I’m hoping is...

Public perception and increased messaging has already had an effect. What we see in the maps, reflects behaviour from 1-2 weeks prior.

Well, it’s definitely gone down. The clusters in Torbay in the week prior to the 25th, are smaller than those of two weeks ago. My own little patch of St Marychurch was the epicentre two weeks ago, only just scraping below a “purple”. Exeter seems to have crested.

I think things have changed in terms of public attitudes. For instance, I have two kids that play JNR Premier league with the TA club. They were seriously dismissive of risk, when they restarted back in August. Then they had a scare when an assistant coach got a positive and became ill. Then, I think, it dawned on them that they were actually exposing people, friends and team families etc. (I mentioned more detail on that on one of the threads). So, now there’s been no training or matches for almost three weeks. It’s not that they just said “all stop until further notice”, it’s a rolling process of cancellation, any players or staff reporting the slightest hint of a symptom and everything is cancelled.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: largeruk on October 31, 2020, 12:53:22 pm
@OMM

Could you please link to the source of the maps/data you used. Cheers.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Oldmanmatt on October 31, 2020, 01:14:24 pm
@OMM

Could you please link to the source of the maps/data you used. Cheers.

 https://coronavirus-staging.data.gov.uk/details/interactive-map (https://coronavirus-staging.data.gov.uk/details/interactive-map)
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 31, 2020, 04:25:01 pm
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.

https://mobile.twitter.com/peston/status/1322562692771696640?ref_url=file%3a%2f%2f%2fprivate%2fvar%2fcontainers%2fbundle%2fapplication%2f138b05e9-a994-4c81-98c8-62e1754e7b58%2fgla.app%2farticletemplates%2f

We’ll see in half an hour or so etc..
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: dunnyg on October 31, 2020, 04:38:54 pm
Announcements of announcements is getting really old. Whats the point? Is it so the govt can test the waters and see the reaction, some west minister wankery, or some other reason that I'm not aware of?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: mrjonathanr on October 31, 2020, 05:29:42 pm
Not everybody likes Gary Lineker. but I do:
https://twitter.com/GaryLineker/status/1322579721721417731

He always presents a balanced view.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: shark on October 31, 2020, 06:00:44 pm
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”

 :'(
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: JamieG on October 31, 2020, 06:15:11 pm
Doesn't "working" a route count? Just make sure you don't flash or on-sight anything.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: teestub on October 31, 2020, 06:17:32 pm
Shark has at least 10 years experience as a semi professional redpointer!
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: shark on October 31, 2020, 06:19:32 pm
Shark has at least 10 years experience as a semi professional redpointer!

Pro athlete specialising in failed redpoints and traversing

I’ll get some business cards knocked up
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 31, 2020, 06:22:03 pm
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”

 :'(

This really won’t be enforceable will it. Bonkers.

Like groups booking a ‘working lunch’ at ‘spoons with their mates.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 31, 2020, 08:18:47 pm
Well lockdown it is. Nothing in the presser that wasn’t released before hand except...

The most revealing question was the last one from the Sun on Sundays correspondent. Which was basically will it end in a month? 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).

Buy in will be far lower than in March IMHO. Back then it seemed pretty much everyone followed the rules - but this time? I’m sure there will be plenty of people popping around (quietly) for a drink to someone else’s house etc...
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: teestub on October 31, 2020, 08:49:58 pm
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!
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 31, 2020, 08:55:21 pm
Sat in a darkened room cutting the loops off face masks....
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: AJM on October 31, 2020, 09:08:35 pm
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!

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/new-national-restrictions-from-5-november#travel

On the face of it, whilst exercise is a permitted reason to leave the house non-essential travel is not advised and exercise is not listed as a potential essential reason.

This is assuming "must" and "should" mean "law" and "guidance" respectively
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: teestub on October 31, 2020, 09:50:27 pm
Thanks I didn’t realise they’d updated the website already.

So yeah a ‘should’ for travel, with a lot of places in the list where you can go For recreation that I assume they don’t expect people to cycle to!
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 31, 2020, 09:58:50 pm
From the govt website

You can exercise or visit outdoor public places with the people you live with, your support bubble, or 1 person from another household.

Outdoor public places include:

parks, beaches, countryside,


Subtle but important wording that exercise and visit outdoor public spaces are in the same criteria - with examples of beaches and countryside. So my interpretation of that is that you can go out for your well-being / mental health as well as for exercise. And it specifically mentions the countryside.

I believe this wording is different from the last advice...
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: moose on October 31, 2020, 10:06:29 pm
I think rather than try to interpret hastily drafted guidance / regulations, my approach will be to keep abiding as I have for the last few months (I work at home, live alone, have had no time at friends' houses / pubs / restaurants since Feb, seen family once since Christmas) - and continue to drive to crags until directly ordered otherwise, and / or the quantity of fines gets too onerous.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on October 31, 2020, 10:20:41 pm
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..
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Nigel on October 31, 2020, 10:23:19 pm
I can’t imagine how pissed off Muscle Coach is right now 😂

The mind boggles. Good he's gone as he wasn't adding anything despite being given enough chances to make a reasoned case. Although I have to say the its no surprise that people hold certain such views when the BBC give plenty of credible coverage to the "great Barrington / harold shipman" declaration. I have yet to see them pressed on this, but they should be.

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"; has for weeks accused starmer of playing politics by advocating just such a lockdown; and raab said just yesterday that a national lockdown was "an enigma" and the weight of scientific advice was regional - I thought they might believe in it themselves. Amazing how they still manage to fool you, even when you don't believe a word they say anyway! They are even more practised liars than even I thought. Quite a skill. Though perhaps not the best one for navigating the nation through this + Brexit.

Seeing as its national there will be a vote - it'll be interesting to see how many Tories vote against.

And Burnham must be tearing his hair out at what the fucking point of arguing for a week about 80% furlough for Manchester was all about...
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Sidehaas on October 31, 2020, 10:25:00 pm
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!
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: moose on October 31, 2020, 10:36:13 pm
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 admit that my view on trying to balance the personal vs private "good" in light of the guidance is very much informed by the day job.  A boiler-plate paragraph much used in forensic reports is something along the lines of "the following opinion is based on my scientific expertise and experience; however, this is in part a matter of legal interpretation, and if you wish to pursue the matter, I recommend seeking qualified legal opinion" (!).
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Nigel on October 31, 2020, 10:47:45 pm
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).

Good point - is it possible to achieve the desired result with schools and unis open? Hopefully yes, but as you say possibly not. At least this next month will give them a chance to finally figure this out instead of crossing their fingers!

Might be a moot point anyway as what with the imminent billion 1 second tests a day, and choice of vaccine flavours incoming, apparently it will all be over by spring. Nothing to do with something as simple as the weather, obviously. Sure I remember it all being over by xmas though??? Note he still didn't take the golden opportunity to talk straight about xmas, except to say we would revert to the tier system after lockdown. For those familiar with tier 2 or 3 the implications are obvious, but were glossed over. Also people in any tier might find they have a family bigger than the rule of 6.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: chris j on November 01, 2020, 08:13:05 am
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..

Similar to us with the addition of no swimming lessons for the kids and no Sunday dinner with my parents.

One thing that does puzzle & infuriate is that the reports all appear to say the south west is going to run out of hospital capacity first in the next few weeks. Given the generally lower levels of virus down here, how deprived must the region be for NHS facilities for this to be true?!
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: mrjonathanr on November 01, 2020, 10:42:47 am
I imagine regional centres serve a large spread out population per available bed?

Sorry to hear you are so isolated Moose.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: ali k on November 01, 2020, 10:44:41 am
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?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: chris j on November 01, 2020, 05:20:07 pm
I imagine regional centres serve a large spread out population per available bed?

Sorry to hear you are so isolated Moose.

I found an article from March summarizing critical care bed availability and while the south west is middle of the range for general beds per head of population, the region is bottom of the range by quite a long way for number of critical care beds (with possibly half being in Bristol looking at the small map). Coupled with the highest mortality index (ie elderly) population, there was much less free capacity than other regions even before the virus came into the picture.

It's lucky the region hasn't been hit like London and the North really...

https://www.hsj.co.uk/quality-and-performance/revealed-huge-regional-variation-in-nhs-ability-to-meet-coronavirus-demand/7027153.article
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Nigel on November 03, 2020, 03:10:50 pm
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!

New one on PPE contracts - https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/nov/03/45m-deal-for-nhs-masks-collapses-amid-claims

DHSC paid Purple Surgical £45m upfront for 5 million 3M aura 9332+ FFP3 masks for the NHS for delivery in June. Purple Surgical then signed a contract for £21 million for the 5 million masks with Win Billion Investment Group i.e. not a medical supplier instead a Hong Kong investment holdings firm (https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/1334805D:HK), but based in British Virgin Islands, tax rate 0%. Win Billions Investment Group have taken £20 million (as I read it) and haven't yet come through with the 3M masks. Which were fakes anyway according to 3M. Purple Surgical accuse Win Billions of fraud.

Regardless of the potential fraud, there's so much else there in that process that is sub-par. Offshoring huge amounts of potential UK manufacturing work, and sending our money to tax havens never to be seen again. Although PPE supply looks nice work if you can get it - Purple Surgical stood to make £24 million clear profit on the back of sending a few emails. They have successfully supplied £250 million worth until now, so I won't be weeping for them yet as I expect they have a modest financial buffer if that is their margin!

Wishing I had PPE contacts in China as I would happily have arranged this for a bargain basement £1 million mark up, saving each of the 32.3m UK taxpayers 71p, so win-win. Probably why they are a popular start up amongst those in the know - https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/seven-week-old-firm-with-links-to-tory-peer-lands-122-million-ppe-contract/08/10/   I would really hope that we have turned this around by now in time for the second wave and made it a UK manufacturing success stoy, but I am yet to hear it...
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: danm on November 03, 2020, 07:11:59 pm
DMM are making visors, does that count?

https://dmmprofessional.com/Products/Visors (https://dmmprofessional.com/Products/Visors)
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Fiend on November 04, 2020, 10:36:10 am
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:

Quote
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.

(Obviously there may be a lot more to it, other factors, alternate hypothesises etc etc)
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Johnny Brown on November 04, 2020, 11:08:35 am
Quote
by 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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Oldmanmatt on November 04, 2020, 11:12:41 am
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:

Quote
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.

(Obviously there may be a lot more to it, other factors, alternate hypothesises etc etc)

Pretty sure the decision was made on the number of daily deaths last week and the (by then) known number of daily deaths “baked in” by the known case load; rather than retrospectively reading a worst case prediction, already altered by mitigation efforts.
Or am I missing something?
Seems like scraping the barrel for controversy by the Beeb.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Fiend on November 04, 2020, 11:17:26 am
Quote
by 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.

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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Oldmanmatt on November 04, 2020, 11:45:44 am
Quote
by 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.

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.

I suppose, what I was trying to say  (rather than have a dig at you), is that there is likely/possibly a difference between the “Lies to children” type approach of the public press release, where impact and dramatic info graphics were desirable to push their point, compared to the data sets they actually referred to in planning.
The mentioned graphs probably represent the projections that began the the lockdown process, regionally, and that the national is just a natural extension of that, based on the rate of change observed not bringing projections below the reasonable worst case scenario.
What the article doesn’t make clear, is that the current, real, rates exceed that benchmark, just not as drastically as the earlier, pre-mitigation, projections forecast.

Edit:
For instance, ~350-400/day, at start Nov. puts the track on or near the Warwick plot.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Nigel on November 04, 2020, 12:15:56 pm
The 4000 a day figure / graph is unfortunate mainly because it allows those opposed to lockdown an easy win on saying that the scientists are just doom-mongers (which in the current situation is largely true to some extent i.e. there are no good outcomes, hence it makes "sense"). The nuances of modelling inputs, variation etc. is lost on people such as Graham Brady MP, Steve Baker MP, Peter Bone MP (I could go on...). This is further evidenced by the neat cross over between them and the ERG / no-deal brexiteers - same people. The fact that actually we already have 350 covid deaths per day is then presented as somehow "good news". Rarely are they asked openly how many is acceptable to them, or whether they would happily let covid patients die untreated if the NHS becomes overwhelmed.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Will Hunt on November 04, 2020, 12:19:37 pm
The most bizarre thing about the latest conspiracies/claims that the lockdown is needless is that it relies on an assumption that the Tories (of all people) have a desire to close businesses, trash the economy, and throw lots of public money (even if probably not enough) at trying to rescue businesses that could normally stand on their own feet.

Why on earth would they want to do that? And let's just say that the naysayers are right and that in 2/3 weeks time everything is looking very rosy. Why would the government not decide to claim a great victory and make an early repeal of the regulations?

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.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Oldmanmatt on November 04, 2020, 12:28:18 pm
.


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.

The more so, since the actual, current, powers that be, were very much part of that same cabal until a couple of years ago. Pretty sure the scruffy blonde twunt was one of their more prominent klaxons.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: spidermonkey09 on November 04, 2020, 12:46:12 pm
Toby Jones Young

the actor Toby Jones has not yet committed to the right wing grift as far as I know  :lol:
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Will Hunt on November 04, 2020, 12:58:27 pm
Toby Jones Young

the actor Toby Jones has not yet committed to the right wing grift as far as I know  :lol:

FFS!  :lol:
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tomtom on November 04, 2020, 04:10:44 pm
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.

Presumably they’re ok with the equivalent of 1.5 fully laden Airbus320’s piling into the ground every day? As long as Wetherspoons is open...
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Nigel on November 04, 2020, 06:48:39 pm
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.

Yes, unsurprisingly! The 34 who voted against the lockdown: https://votes.parliament.uk/Votes/Commons/Division/902#noes . On a cursory look I can only find one person on there who isn't an obvious raving Brexit no dealer (Steve Brine, who voted for May's WA agreement). There may be others but the I consider the link obvious. As I posited these people are generally immune to evidence, or rather immune to evidence which they don't like. So its no surprise to see them rebel although it is *interesting* because Johnson is on paper "their man". Frankly I suspect that they are trying to send a warning as much about Brexit as coronavirus. If you think they are voting over genuine concerns for the common people's mental health or economic wellbeing then I have a bridge to sell...

On the face of it they did raise some valid objections, for instance I agree that the government should publish an economic impact assessment of the lockdown. Although I suspect in this instance they should be careful what they wish for, as we can put it alongside a no deal brexit one, compare and contrast. I doubt they would see the obvious oxymoron of their position but there you go.

21 more Tory MPs abstained. That's an effective rebellion of 55. Gov majority is 80, which actually means only 41 are needed to defeat a gov motion (obvious if you think about it). So without the opposition onside in one months time this could spell trouble for Johnson...
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: teestub on November 05, 2020, 11:53:23 am
Was out and about yesterday so not sure if I missed anything, but a quick scoot through the legislation and couldn’t find anything about travel, so assume that’s still just as per the previous guidance on the gov website?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1200/pdfs/uksi_20201200_en.pdf
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: tommytwotone on November 05, 2020, 12:30:15 pm
Interesting, I was looking at this this morning.

For Kirklees at least, the guidance seems to suggest you can make a "short" journey to take exercise / get outdoors etc. I'm assuming that means going to Shipley Glen en famille on Sunday is fine, maybe not going to the seaside in Filey?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: spidermonkey09 on November 05, 2020, 12:35:33 pm
Again though, isn't that guidance not law? So even if you did drive to the seaside from Leeds I don't think you're breaking any laws.
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Fiend on November 05, 2020, 12:44:27 pm
Maybe obvious, but for those in the North / North East of England, these should be some useful local crags:

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
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Stabbsy on November 05, 2020, 01:12:54 pm
Maybe obvious, but for those in the North / North East of England, these should be some useful local crags:

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
Surely that’s for climbers in the South East?
Title: Re: Local Lockdowns
Post by: Fiend on November 05, 2020, 01:23:53 pm
Very good  :clap2:
SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal