Up until last night I thought I lived in Lancashire, turns out I'm in greater Manchester :lol:

 

The announcement last night left me very confused, not just to what county I live in. I think I've got my head around it now. The whole I could go to pubs but not a friends house thing makes sense when you think they can enforce social distancing in pubs, but there is no one to enforce it if you're visiting a pal.

 

Although, I'm originally from Staffordshire so all of my family and friends live around there, so does that mean I could go to their houses but they can't come to mine? :thinking: Not that I would, I'm still very anxious about going anywhere. I went to visit family last weekend and the next day I mostly stayed in bed with a 'people hangover'... I was only around family!

 

I do believe this is more of a threat, and if numbers continue to rise they'll close shops, pubs, gyms etc in the areas again. However, the borough in which I live has supposedly 'good' numbers, or so I read on social media last night.

@1289104710008475648

 

whew. Not even counting the racism, they're really going all out with a 'blame the people' plan.

 

The fast times are good but everything else is vague again. Not a fan of restaurants and bars remaining open when they do these local lockdowns, that's not how this works. It puts workers in danger, it encourages people to not take it seriously....

@1289104710008475648

 

Eid Mubarak!

Disgusting.

Well July was fun, second national lockdown here we come.

@1289104710008475648

 

whew. Not even counting the racism, they're really going all out with a 'blame the people' plan.

 

The fast times are good but everything else is vague again. Not a fan of restaurants and bars remaining open when they do these local lockdowns, that's not how this works. It puts workers in danger, it encourages people to not take it seriously....

 

It's a quite ridiculous statement to make.

 

But it isn't a second lockdown either, it's merely telling people not to meet other households. The cynic in me suspects it was to stop Eid celebrations due to the wide demographic spread. Can't see any way we have a second national lockdown anywhere in the world.

Yeh, there’s no need for a second national lockdown so long as local lockdowns are properly put in place and controlled. In my area, things have been relatively stable (he says hoping not to jinx things!!) so it would just be counter-productive when considering the impact it would bring to the economy.

I can’t see a second national lockdown either and even this ‘local lockdown’ appears to be trying to boost the economy at the same time.

 

Interesting to see Boris essentially blaming the people for delaying the further lifting of restrictions. This is despite the fact that he was dog whistling all of this behaviour. Some people rightly or wrongly were still trusting the government.

There'll be no second lockdown - they'll keep everything open and just tell people not to use them or stay at home.

Yeah was more of a second 'new' lockdown implemented nationally I meant so hospitality remains open but with the no other household rule in place rather than the same level of strictness as the first.

I can’t see a second national lockdown either and even this ‘local lockdown’ appears to be trying to boost the economy at the same time.

 

Interesting to see Boris essentially blaming the people for delaying the further lifting of restrictions. This is despite the fact that he was dog whistling all of this behaviour. Some people rightly or wrongly were still trusting the government.

 

We can't afford a national lockdown, it will cripple us for 15-20 years. We still have millions of people on the Furlough scheme and we can assume that 15-20% of those people will likely lose their jobs as it looks unlikely large events, weddings etc. are going to be going back to even some form of normal before the end of 2020.

 

The right thing to do when the R0 rate is high is lockdown a specific area and then offer focused governmental support to enable businesses to not go bust. But maybe that is too simple..

We can't afford a national lockdown, it will cripple us for 15-20 years. We still have millions of people on the Furlough scheme and we can assume that 15-20% of those people will likely lose their jobs as it looks unlikely large events, weddings etc. are going to be going back to even some form of normal before the end of 2020.

 

The right thing to do when the R0 rate is high is lockdown a specific area and then offer focused governmental support to enable businesses to not go bust. But maybe that is too simple..

 

Still quite the indictment of our economic system where pausing it for a few months cripples us for years to come, I think the world is going to need governments that will look at more aggressive solutions to fix that, and not just accept it in the form of lower quality of life for their people, we do not need austerity under a different name.

 

I do fear for the health of businesses at the centre of these local flashpoints whether they remain open or not, it's remarkable instability and so many businesses aren't going to be able to do forecasts.

Still quite the indictment of our economic system where pausing it for a few months cripples us for years to come, I think the world is going to need governments that will look at more aggressive solutions to fix that, and not just accept it in the form of lower quality of life for their people, we do not need austerity under a different name.

 

I do fear for the health of businesses at the centre of these local flashpoints whether they remain open or not, it's remarkable instability and so many businesses aren't going to be able to do forecasts.

 

While the economic system has weaknesses surely nobody expects a full lockdown? I'm fairly certain this is the first time in history the world has been under lockdown. Now you could argue this could become more common in the future in pandemic planning.

 

Undoubtedly to recover we are going to have to increase taxes, although I'd argue closing loopholes would be far more effective and bring in far more money in the short term.

 

While the economic system has weaknesses surely nobody expects a full lockdown? I'm fairly certain this is the first time in history the world has been under lockdown. Now you could argue this could become more common in the future in pandemic planning.

 

Undoubtedly to recover we are going to have to increase taxes, although I'd argue closing loopholes would be far more effective and bring in far more money in the short term.

 

True it's the first time at least post-war, though I would say that the desires of infinite growth and consumer culture at least pre-2008 were hubristic and led to a situation where we're working more than we need to be without putting in safeguards for those who didn't need to be. Definitely now it's happened I am very wary of the possibility that everyone suffers 'for the economy' in a worst-case scenario for the next decade and a half and then in the late 2030s or thereabouts a virus even more deadly than COVID shows up and back into lockdown. If it's possible to avoid suffering for people in any way by manipulating the economy, it would be far better to do so - though I'm also wary of the powerful taking kickbacks in an austerity-like situation.

 

Agree on closing loopholes, but I do think UBI will have to be fast-tracked and in some form we need to lay the costs on the deficit, because there aren't going to be enough jobs. Which is something we were always heading towards but COVID has given us a sharp shock far sooner than it would have. As with so many things, it's worse in America, they're in a situation where at least a third of renter households are facing eviction. But same for us, finding a way to support the unprecedented amount of people without jobs in living (and acceptable living, not just subsisting) is vital to avoid social unrest.

Some of the data out there for Covid-19 is awful and inconsistent.. Spain recorded 3000 cases but they include antibody tests. Meanwhile England's death rate is rising, but they count anyone who has had Covid-19 and died (not necessarily related to Covid-19) as a recordable covid death. Only 4 deaths in hospitals but 74 deaths in all settings... then when you look at the lack of testing in India and Mexico and their huge cases it points a pretty grim picture. Then you have the Covid deniers out in full force with a stupid protest in Berlin.

 

Meanwhile SAGE advisors are coming out in the media and saying there needs to be a trade off when schools re-open, which I probably agree needs to happen in the short term, although I suspect the short term move will be the reduce opening hours. All pretty grim & depressing.

They should have been focusing on getting schools open before pubs. I’m not entirely convinced there needs to be a trade off anyway but it won’t go down well if they closed pubs again so I can’t see them doing that.

Here here

If the choice is between re-opening schools or keeping pubs open, schools have to be the priority.

If the choice is between re-opening schools or keeping pubs open, schools have to be the priority.

 

I’m not convinced it will come down to that though. Schools clearly are the priority and I feel like this is being put out there to ensure people stick to guidelines in pubs and that the pubs themselves insist on guidelines.

I’m not convinced it will come down to that though. Schools clearly are the priority and I feel like this is being put out there to ensure people stick to guidelines in pubs and that the pubs themselves insist on guidelines.

 

Yes I agree too. Schools have to be the priority. I must say most of the establishments I’ve been to in hospitality have been superb with their attitudes and social distancing. But the problem is I don’t think that’s happening across the country. Those scenes in Stone that were shared midweek were horrendous, it’s places like that which need to be called out and owners fined.