I have been to three pubs since they opened again and they have been well managed but have walked past some pubs and they basically looked like pubs normally do.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Main Coronavirus / Covid-19 Discussion Thread
- Thread starter GingerBeerMan
- Start date
I have been to three pubs since they opened again and they have been well managed but have walked past some pubs and they basically looked like pubs normally do.
Megazone
On his last warning
I think the vast majority of people do and you are producing an anecdote out of the air to support your argument. Ultimately if problem areas are identified the local authorities will invoke powers to sort them out, including the proposed Covid marshalls.
Obviously this wouldn't be needed if everyone exercised common sense and showed some consideration for other people but if they want to give the government more reasons to bring in stricter laws then they can crack on.
It is temporarily the law of the land, not a negotiation.
nicko31
Well-known member
Beggars belief that pubs have been allowed to operate without table service only. Facemasks should also be required in pubs until you are seated.
A rather luke warm set of “measures” considering we are being told a second surge will kill tens of thousands. I’m assuming more restrictions to follow?
And on the back of the news Spoons and whitbread announce 6500 job cuts between them.
The Wizard
Well-known member
- Jul 2, 2009
- 18,383
Wonder what ‘measures’ they are going to introduce to stop the fear they are instilling in people killing thousands who will be scared, once again, to get symptoms checked or call emergency services. I’m so sick of the government acting like COVID is the only killer, they don’t give a hoot about other ailments anymore.
Quite frankly it’s despicable, and the new ‘measures’ are farcical, BoJo is vehemently against a second lockdown ‘apparently’ yet you can see what’s happening, they are slowly using fear tactics and drip feeding extra restrictions to the point where eventually, it’ll probably be another lockdown, in all but name. The economy is absolutely done for.
nicko31
Well-known member
Really hope so, got this terrible feeling Johnson will act too late again and get hit harder later. Now is the time to move decisively.
Northern Ireland has taken the lead, let see if England follows...
pb21
Well-known member
- Apr 23, 2010
- 6,346
It does remind me of mid March, when cases were rising very fast, and the Government introducing a ban on overseas school trips.
Megazone
On his last warning
Oddly - it seems pubs are way down the list of places People are picking up Infections.
I would have thought it would have been higher.
The Wizard
Well-known member
- Jul 2, 2009
- 18,383
Please, people who are in favour of harsh restrictions, tell me what on Earth the point is, we had harsh restrictions for 8 weeks near enough between March and late May and guess what, the virus hasn’t gone away... as soon as you remove restrictions the virus will spread again, it’s endemic, it will not disappear, the economy is already tanking, people have lost livelihoods, jobs etc and people are now losing hope.
What restrictions are you in favour of? Several people I know who shielded or are vulnerable don’t want to do it again, living under essential house arrest is no life to live for many of these people, people should be given the choice. I lost months of being able to see someone who passed away indirectly caused by COVID restrictions because people weren’t allowed to visit and the pain of that must be felt by thousands of others.
What restrictions are you in favour of? Several people I know who shielded or are vulnerable don’t want to do it again, living under essential house arrest is no life to live for many of these people, people should be given the choice. I lost months of being able to see someone who passed away indirectly caused by COVID restrictions because people weren’t allowed to visit and the pain of that must be felt by thousands of others.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,332
so go Sweden approach?
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,332
whats the source? that suggests the current policy is wildy of target and they should be having some hard words with care homes. its not consistent with data on age groups rising.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/cases?areaType=nation&areaName=England
Broken down from above
Feel free to take it apart lol
And although slightly bias - Tim “twatty” Martin says he hasn’t had a single case in any spoons
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,332
thanks. doesnt match the pie chart though, wheres that from? i suspect the source has done cumulative numbers. though the report shows a large spike of over 85 in that week.
Who is in favour of harsh restrictions? Can you highlight them please as I'm interested in engaging with them.
I'm personally in favour of finding a balance of measures that permits as much economic and social activity as possible whilst keeping the virus at low enough levels to allow this level of activity to continue, health services not being overwhelmed with Covid-19 patients and able to operate BAU and treat those with other conditions who need it.
I respect that the balance of measures may not be those I would personally choose, because there is a trade-off involved, but I recognise that this isn't all about me.
In short: I believe in "living with the virus" until such time as vaccine or vaccines become available to us all.
To strike a balance, with localised and adaptable restrictions. That's how they're managing this in Denmark, Scotland, Ireland, Portugal for example.
We can't stop it without the military locking people in their homes (the Wuhan approach).
So to accept that there will be cases, until a vaccine is up and running, thereby keeping hospitalised numbers manageable by the NHS (taking into account that hospitals will soon be very busy in any year).
What, not through third parties posting, do the vulnerable and shielded want regarding restrictions just now? [MENTION=33649]darkwolf666[/MENTION] can give us a genuine insight.
I'll follow up, that Anders Tegnell, Sweden's chief epidemiologist and the architect of their approach, was interviewed by Andrew Neill recently and it was an interesting watch.
First of all Tegnell himself stated that no-one has "done well," before describing the Swedish model. Key points he made:
- Every country is different and has different challenges (he noted, when asked why the UK had moved away from a Swedish-style to a harsher set of restrictions, that in the UK, infections and hospitalisations had started shooting upwards, while in Sweden, they'd had a slower rate to contend with and were able to impose less restrictions)
- The idea is to find the minimum set of restrictions that stop the virus increasing its spread and start to bring it down - and STICK WITH THEM. No chopping and changing, no increases, decreases, and re-increases. With a sustained set, people can adapt to them.
- It does mean you take more deaths and economic damage up front, but it can be more sustainable in the longer term.
So, based on Tegnell's thinking, what should the UK model should look like?
As we're having a surge in cases and hospitalisations, it suggests that the level of restrictions as of August and early September is not at the minimum level needed to control the virus. Under the Swedish Model, we now need to increase restrictions to the level that the spread just about starts to come down, and then stick with that level. No lifting unless or until we are absolutely certain that the virus won't surge again.
So, for example, the Rule of Six should be here to stay. If we need to increase restrictions today, as seems likely, the Swedish model suggests that they should remain in place. The aim is not to overshoot the minimum amount of restrictions needed to start bringing the virus spread down.
Advocates of the Swedish model seem to think it's a case of "something-something-less restrictions and for some magic reason it all goes away." It's really not that.
First of all Tegnell himself stated that no-one has "done well," before describing the Swedish model. Key points he made:
- Every country is different and has different challenges (he noted, when asked why the UK had moved away from a Swedish-style to a harsher set of restrictions, that in the UK, infections and hospitalisations had started shooting upwards, while in Sweden, they'd had a slower rate to contend with and were able to impose less restrictions)
- The idea is to find the minimum set of restrictions that stop the virus increasing its spread and start to bring it down - and STICK WITH THEM. No chopping and changing, no increases, decreases, and re-increases. With a sustained set, people can adapt to them.
- It does mean you take more deaths and economic damage up front, but it can be more sustainable in the longer term.
So, based on Tegnell's thinking, what should the UK model should look like?
As we're having a surge in cases and hospitalisations, it suggests that the level of restrictions as of August and early September is not at the minimum level needed to control the virus. Under the Swedish Model, we now need to increase restrictions to the level that the spread just about starts to come down, and then stick with that level. No lifting unless or until we are absolutely certain that the virus won't surge again.
So, for example, the Rule of Six should be here to stay. If we need to increase restrictions today, as seems likely, the Swedish model suggests that they should remain in place. The aim is not to overshoot the minimum amount of restrictions needed to start bringing the virus spread down.
Advocates of the Swedish model seem to think it's a case of "something-something-less restrictions and for some magic reason it all goes away." It's really not that.
highflyer
Well-known member
- Jan 21, 2016
- 2,435
Depends what you mean by 'harsh'
I suspect we may disagree a bit, but not by as much as the crude divisions of opinion on 'lockdown vs no lockdown' encouraged by social media would suggest.
For me the critical things we have to do are:
1. Ensure we don't get to the point where the health system is again overwhelmed by covid patients (bad for thse with covid, bad for those with other health problems)
2. Keep schools open.
3. Keep levels in the community low enough that more vulnerable people can stay safe without removing themselves entirely from society (I agree, 'house arrest' is not acceptable or sustainable, but if levels of infection are very high, the risk calculation for vulnerable people is different to where we are now)
4. Follow science. Not just the selected bits of science that support what we want to hear, but the full body of informed opinion which enables assessment of potential scenarios and risks. From a broad reading of evidence, it's clear to me that there is very little certainty about anything yet. And that uncertainty now includes the long term implications on people's health from covid, and the associated impact that could have on the already overloaded health system. Uncertainty is unsurprising, given that we are only nine months into this pandemic. So 'following the science' in practice means making judgements and balancing a very wide range of risks.
Personally, I want to see measures that take the uncertainty into account and which are designed to ensure that we slow the spread down enough that we achieve 1-3, while we sort out the testing and tracing mess.
We started with the basics, reminding people to distance, wash hands, work from home if they can, isolate if they have symptoms. That hasn't been enough so unfortunately we now need to impose and enforce measure to reduce the most important mechanisms of transmission which means mixing of households indoors (I would exclude 'support bubbles' so that people don't get left alone again and I would want to exclude young children as well as it seems well established that the risks of them passing it on are very small indeed).
I suspect, if things don't start to improve with this set of measures we will have to see a close down of bars/restaurants for a while - and if so I sincerely hope, and expect, that the government will be prepared with the financial support required to help that sector through that.
Personally, I remain confident that the likelihood of an effective vaccine arriving within months is pretty high.So I don't see this as an endless cycle. A vaccine may not be the instant magic bullet many are hoping for, but it will provide a clearer path out of this. And even without a vaccine, if we manage this wave without it getting out of control, we'll have yet higher levels of immunity and we are another step towards a sustainable situation. There may be further waves, but the impact of each will be less and thus the response can be moderated more each time.
I suspect 99% of people now accept that the government has screwed this up badly.
We shouldn't be where we are. We should be in control. We shouldn't need to be taking these measures. We should have far better testing and far better tracing.
But we don't. So we need to do something until we do.
Last edited: