Xmas lockdown or not? n/g | Page 6 | Vital Football

Xmas lockdown or not? n/g

Disappointed that, once again, all of Lancashire continues to be locked-down at Tier 3 because of the high, but significantly receding, rates in some parts of the East of the county. My borough has always had a particularly low rate and is much lower than those Boroughs in London that somehow avoided T3 status.

Guess we`ll just have to hunker down and get on with it. Will be interesting to see what mechanisms are used to transition down between Tiers ?
 
Disappointed that, once again, all of Lancashire continues to be locked-down at Tier 3 because of the high, but significantly receding, rates in some parts of the East of the county. My borough has always had a particularly low rate and is much lower than those Boroughs in London that somehow avoided T3 status.

Guess we`ll just have to hunker down and get on with it. Will be interesting to see what mechanisms are used to transition down between Tiers ?
Manchester’s R rate is 0.8 having been in lockdown for ages, so those in Yorkshire and Lancashire shouldn’t hold their breath.
 
Manchester’s R rate is 0.8 having been in lockdown for ages, so those in Yorkshire and Lancashire shouldn’t hold their breath.

Lancashire seems to have been in some sort of lock-down for ever, well before Manchester IIRC. Understandable in relation to Blackburn and a few other places in the east of the county but for large parts of Lancs, including mine, the rates have been low or very low. Still, can`t do anything about it so we`ll soldier on. Bit disappointed as I was hanging on to the (misguided perhaps) notion of being able to go to a footy game in Lancs - won`t happen now.
 
Lancashire seems to have been in some sort of lock-down for ever, well before Manchester IIRC. Understandable in relation to Blackburn and a few other places in the east of the county but for large parts of Lancs, including mine, the rates have been low or very low. Still, can`t do anything about it so we`ll soldier on. Bit disappointed as I was hanging on to the (misguided perhaps) notion of being able to go to a footy game in Lancs - won`t happen now.
Like I said elsewhere, this tier 3 exit is a kicker as we’ll likely be in another national lockdown after five days or so of Christmas. How can people and businesses cope, and how will the stay afloat and how will they stay cooperative if there’s simply little sign of leaving lockdown?! A lockdown where the schools are still open?!
 
Like I said elsewhere, this tier 3 exit is a kicker as we’ll likely be in another national lockdown after five days or so of Christmas. How can people and businesses cope, and how will the stay afloat and how will they stay cooperative if there’s simply little sign of leaving lockdown?! A lockdown where the schools are still open?!


Good question. I believe in the necessity to minimise risks around Covid but it`s also understandable that many many people with businesses to run are being put in deeper and deeper holes.
Listening to local radio up here, what rancours is unfairness. Especially things like the anomalous categorisation of London boroughs, conveniently put to one side by HMG, when deciding that the whole of London will be T2.
 
Education is the most important thing, apparently, even if there ends up being no jobs or economy to go to at the end of it.
Yes, Johnson grandstanding over opening schools as if it were a sign of his virility. Loads of students and staff being sent home now. Shambles. Should have had 2 week break at half term and listen to head teachers who are calling for a rota along the lines of one week on, one off so they can better handle social distancing and bubbles.

Insistence on schools/Unis being open all the time has added to the problem and medium/long term even damages the students themselves.
 
Good question. I believe in the necessity to minimise risks around Covid but it`s also understandable that many many people with businesses to run are being put in deeper and deeper holes.
Listening to local radio up here, what rancours is unfairness. Especially things like the anomalous categorisation of London boroughs, conveniently put to one side by HMG, when deciding that the whole of London will be T2.

I don't disagree that there is some truth in that, but I also think there is an element that a lot in the north have a big chip on their shoulder about all things London/South. I live in rural Ashford, where our local rates are about half the national average, yet we're in Tier 3, which belies the myth that it's all a conspiracy against the north. And, for the record, I accept it's the best way forward, even though it'll inconvenience me and will affect the businesses of lots of people I know with businesses and self-employed, including my wife and a number of my mates. We'll take it on the chin, without the Burnham-style victim complex.
 
I don't disagree that there is some truth in that, but I also think there is an element that a lot in the north have a big chip on their shoulder about all things London/South. I live in rural Ashford, where our local rates are about half the national average, yet we're in Tier 3, which belies the myth that it's all a conspiracy against the north. And, for the record, I accept it's the best way forward, even though it'll inconvenience me and will affect the businesses of lots of people I know with businesses and self-employed, including my wife and a number of my mates. We'll take it on the chin, without the Burnham-style victim complex.

Not sure at all about a "big chip on the shoulder about anything London/South" , that`s a big claim. And, i`m not alluding to any big conspiracy and Andy Burnham is all about Manchester, nothing to do with Lancashire where I live.

I`m a southerner, lived long time in London and Kent and moved up here after spending my working life in the south. I`m very happy with all aspects of living up here, the folks are generally really nice and friendly and I`m pretty sure that i`d never move to any other part of the country. I`ve been made very welcome and the fact that there are lots of people re-locating up here from the South hasn`t been an issue for the locals.

Thing is, whether it`s unconscious bias or not - who knows; but i`m beginning to see things slightly differently and am a lot more open-minded to the notion that there is some regional inequality around. Forgive me, Steve, but aren`t you the man with the finger on the train pulse ? (might be confusing you with another poster - sorry if that`s the case). An example would be transport. East-west travel by road or rail should be greatly improved. Too many short east-west trips up here that short be short journeys aren`t. I couldn`t believe the shocking state of the ancient trains up here when I moved to Lancs. Thought i`d gone back in time forty years.

HMG says that it is intending to right some of the disparities and I think that the Govt`s stated intention to alter the Green Book is a stark admission that spending the Treasury`s funds has been unfairly weighted in favour of the London area. (Green Book is Official Treasury text that evaluates big investment projects, and uses a formula and a process that biases government investment to where economic growth, high productivity, and high house prices are already concentrated - in and around London).

Hope you don`t sing that awful song about cats and dustbins when you attend away games up here ;)
 
Cats and dustbins would be wrong !!
did you see the new survey carried out in Liverpool this week , 1000 local people were asked hoW many people have had sex in the shower ?
250 people said yes they have had sex in shower, 250 said no they haven’t had sex in shower and the other 500 people said they have not been in jail yet
 
Thing is, whether it`s unconscious bias or not - who knows; but i`m beginning to see things slightly differently and am a lot more open-minded to the notion that there is some regional inequality around. Forgive me, Steve, but aren`t you the man with the finger on the train pulse ? (might be confusing you with another poster - sorry if that`s the case). An example would be transport. East-west travel by road or rail should be greatly improved. Too many short east-west trips up here that short be short journeys aren`t. I couldn`t believe the shocking state of the ancient trains up here when I moved to Lancs. Thought i`d gone back in time forty years.

I'm not the train man - think you must be getting confused, having played Charlton at the weekend... I don't dispute what you say about the train services up north, but would northerners be willing to pay almost £7000 for a season ticket or 70 quid plus for a day return to travel 50 miles to fund and run such a service, like I do from Ashford to London?
 
Not sure at all about a "big chip on the shoulder about anything London/South" , that`s a big claim. And, i`m not alluding to any big conspiracy and Andy Burnham is all about Manchester, nothing to do with Lancashire where I live.

I`m a southerner, lived long time in London and Kent and moved up here after spending my working life in the south. I`m very happy with all aspects of living up here, the folks are generally really nice and friendly and I`m pretty sure that i`d never move to any other part of the country. I`ve been made very welcome and the fact that there are lots of people re-locating up here from the South hasn`t been an issue for the locals.

Thing is, whether it`s unconscious bias or not - who knows; but i`m beginning to see things slightly differently and am a lot more open-minded to the notion that there is some regional inequality around. Forgive me, Steve, but aren`t you the man with the finger on the train pulse ? (might be confusing you with another poster - sorry if that`s the case). An example would be transport. East-west travel by road or rail should be greatly improved. Too many short east-west trips up here that short be short journeys aren`t. I couldn`t believe the shocking state of the ancient trains up here when I moved to Lancs. Thought i`d gone back in time forty years.

HMG says that it is intending to right some of the disparities and I think that the Govt`s stated intention to alter the Green Book is a stark admission that spending the Treasury`s funds has been unfairly weighted in favour of the London area. (Green Book is Official Treasury text that evaluates big investment projects, and uses a formula and a process that biases government investment to where economic growth, high productivity, and high house prices are already concentrated - in and around London).

Hope you don`t sing that awful song about cats and dustbins when you attend away games up here ;)
I really noticed that after moving here and getting the train to watch The Chiefs.
50 miles but allow a couple of hours .
Single track to Exeter.
Old diesel.
Only two carriages so no seat.
About twenty stops.
One good thing.
Only £11.
 
Then why do the government only permit the sale of beer in Tier 2 regions if said pint has an accompanying pastie (or pie or Tandoori chicken)? Does the food throw up some Covid resistant force field around one's pint?
No but if you're sitting down eating a meal, you're not standing or mingling with loads of mates at the bar. Won't stop the spread, just lowers the risk of it spreading to too many others. As AK says, its all about risk management as stopping it altogether can only be done one way and that is COMPLETE lockdown, and we're having enough trouble with what we've got now.
 
Then why do the government only permit the sale of beer in Tier 2 regions if said pint has an accompanying pastie (or pie or Tandoori chicken)? Does the food throw up some Covid resistant force field around one's pint?

Of course not (you know that).

The reasons they are letting people eat and drink, but not just drink, is probably a number of reasons:

1) if you're drinking, you're probably far more likely to be getting a bit jolly/pissed, and end up not social distancing than you are with food. Lets be honest. Okay so it's not an exact science and of course some people get smashed during a meal, and others will just go out for a couple, but I would suggest it's probably fairly accurate in a large number of cases. The 10pm closure rule was also related to this. Of course the virus doesn't just come out at 10pm. But, if you looked at pubs before this rule...people would social distance at the beginning of the night and then by about 10-11 all social distancing would be out of the window. I personally saw this a number of times in my local before the 10pm rules were added. Of course what they stupidly didn't really consider was that getting everyone to leave a pub at the same time also is pretty bad for social distancing. It was a cock up of a policy in the end, but the motivation/reasoning driving it was a sound one, if that makes sense.

2) If you are restricting places that can open to places that serve 'substantial meals', then you're probably still restricting the number of places that can open. Ultimately it's a good way of opening part of the industry, without opening it all. Their assessments may have been that there are X thousand establishments, Y thousand of these are pubs you can eat in, and Z are pubs that don't serve food. If they all open then the transmission rate will rise too much. If you just opened some, the transmission rate would probably stay within the 'manageable rate' that they are looking for.

3) I'd imagine the initial aim was actually probably only to open restaurants. but because some pubs are also restaurants, they said that pubs can open their restaurants too. It would be unfair if they couldn't, wouldn't it? But they don't want to then extend this to people getting smashed in pubs also (as per point 1).

For a more detailed essay on risk mitigation and 'managing the rate' of transmission please refer to my above posts on Risk Management which may be too patronising for some, but really are applicable and should be understood if you're looking to understand some of the actions taken by the govt, and some of the reasoning behind their seemingly arbitrary/silly rules.
 
No but if you're sitting down eating a meal, you're not standing or mingling with loads of mates at the bar. Won't stop the spread, just lowers the risk of it spreading to too many others. As AK says, its all about risk management as stopping it altogether can only be done one way and that is COMPLETE lockdown, and we're having enough trouble with what we've got now.
Nobby, i think Vambo's scenario is that you can't even go to a pub if you promise to sit down at the table, as you would for a meal. So 'people mingling' at the bar shouldn't necessarily be an issue. But as per my post above, I saw it plenty of times before the lockdown...people would sit on their allotted tables up until they all got a bit pissed. 4/5 pints in and you have social distancing rules being flouted. There was fights at a local place at about 11 before the rules came in. I couldn't help but loudly make the joke "you're not social distancing" while they're all pushing at one another.
 
Of course not (you know that).

The reasons they are letting people eat and drink, but not just drink, is probably a number of reasons:

1) if you're drinking, you're probably far more likely to be getting a bit jolly/pissed, and end up not social distancing than you are with food. Lets be honest. Okay so it's not an exact science and of course some people get smashed during a meal, and others will just go out for a couple, but I would suggest it's probably fairly accurate in a large number of cases. The 10pm closure rule was also related to this. Of course the virus doesn't just come out at 10pm. But, if you looked at pubs before this rule...people would social distance at the beginning of the night and then by about 10-11 all social distancing would be out of the window. I personally saw this a number of times in my local before the 10pm rules were added. Of course what they stupidly didn't really consider was that getting everyone to leave a pub at the same time also is pretty bad for social distancing. It was a cock up of a policy in the end, but the motivation/reasoning driving it was a sound one, if that makes sense.

2) If you are restricting places that can open to places that serve 'substantial meals', then you're probably still restricting the number of places that can open. Ultimately it's a good way of opening part of the industry, without opening it all. Their assessments may have been that there are X thousand establishments, Y thousand of these are pubs you can eat in, and Z are pubs that don't serve food. If they all open then the transmission rate will rise too much. If you just opened some, the transmission rate would probably stay within the 'manageable rate' that they are looking for.

3) I'd imagine the initial aim was actually probably only to open restaurants. but because some pubs are also restaurants, they said that pubs can open their restaurants too. It would be unfair if they couldn't, wouldn't it? But they don't want to then extend this to people getting smashed in pubs also (as per point 1).

For a more detailed essay on risk mitigation and 'managing the rate' of transmission please refer to my above posts on Risk Management which may be too patronising for some, but really are applicable and should be understood if you're looking to understand some of the actions taken by the govt, and some of the reasoning behind their seemingly arbitrary/silly rules.

We all love an essay! It's clearly actually needed cos it's only too easy to slag off the arrangements if you dont consider them more than superficially. Equally clearly it's NOT an easy exercise coming up with rules that are fair to all