Scotland is considering an extended Christmas break and bringing everyone back uniformly across the country on the 10th of Jan (i think) - effectively more than 14 days after xmas to avoid any superspreading in schools from mass xmas gatherings that we know will take place regardless of what the law says

 

This would be extremely sensible under the circumstances.

I agree! I don't think it is confirmed yet but we shall see what the next week or so holds.

 

 

Sadly I think that we are going to, through no fault of the average person, find ourselves up a creek come January and back into national lockdowns to handle the post Christmas explosion in cases. Sadly most people who did what they were told are just going to be so fed up by that point I think compliance will drop off a cliff.

 

 

 

Berlin has already announced that the temporary christmas relaxation that the Federal Government announced will absolutely not apply in the city. Very curious to see what impact that will have in January and if we have a scenario where Berlin goes from being the state leading the second wave by a country mile, to the only state avoiding wave 2.1/3: The Revenge of Christmas. Müller had better make it mandatory for intrastate travellers to get tested or quarantine unless they coming from SH or MVP.

I agree as well that finishing schools a week or if not a week, a few days early would be a great move. Totally agree with a lot of people in this thread that the numbers in January are going to be horrible. There's nothing we can do about it, at least there is some control and I suspect 80% of the country will stick to the guidelines so that mitigates a lot of the risk at least.

 

The bigger problem now is I genuinely think that the Tories are going to have to rely on Labour votes to get them through. The Cabinet know this too, they might be able to get through this vote, but come January I really think it will be a struggle. Labour will vote I suspect but they might want something in return. Just all seems a bit of a mess- I'm kinda of the point that if we just vote all the Tiers down in January, I'm not really sure what the point is of doing them now..

The bigger problem now is I genuinely think that the Tories are going to have to rely on Labour votes to get them through.

 

Keir Starmer should be able to apply some reasonable pressure on demands for funding from the government in that case. Without it, very difficult to see him being able to whip FOR these continuing blanket restrictions.

 

I also don't understand the logic of Tunbridge Wells being in Tier 3 (~100 cases / 100K) whereas London is in Tier 2 where case rates on average are more than double this.

Keir Starmer should be able to apply some reasonable pressure on demands for funding from the government in that case. Without it, very difficult to see him being able to whip FOR these continuing blanket restrictions.

 

I also don't understand the logic of Tunbridge Wells being in Tier 3 (~100 cases / 100K) whereas London is in Tier 2 where case rates on average are more than double this.

 

While the logic of Tunbrige Wells sounds daft, I have a bit of sympathy with the Government here as if they are in Tier 2 for example, where does it end? You can literally apply that logic across the country to certain places. It opens up a whole can of worms if you bend the rules for one place and not others.

They say Boris's dog Dilyn is thought to have caught Covid in April when it was rife in No.10. :o He was lethargic, off his food and refused to go walkies but didn't have a test at the vets. Dogs and cats can catch it and pass it to humans.

Edited November 29, 20204 yr by Sixth Sense

Scotland is considering an extended Christmas break and bringing everyone back uniformly across the country on the 10th of Jan (i think) - effectively more than 14 days after xmas to avoid any superspreading in schools from mass xmas gatherings that we know will take place regardless of what the law says

 

That would be wise.

Serious question: why is there such a lack of appetite from the older people who disproportionately have benefited from lockdown and safety measures to talk about how much harder it has been on younger people who have lost their jobs, who live in shared housing, and who generally have found this much harder to deal with due to having a larger reliance on service economy jobs and insecure accommodation?

 

I have tried to bring this up online myself and every time I do I get shouted down by people who insist that ACTUALLY the period has been exactly the same level of difficult for everyone in society, which is patently untrue. People wealthy enough to be isolated from the worst effects of being locked in their own homes have had it easier. People with their own transport have had it easier. People who live with their partner, or people they like and care about, a ready-made support network, have had it easier. People who live far away from a support network, or who live in a cramped house or space, have had it harder.

 

I don't find it attacking anyone or starting a fight to mention that. It simply is the fact of the situation. Why are some people so reluctant to acknowledge it? Because that DOES feel like an attack, to deny the reality.

Serious question: why is there such a lack of appetite from the older people who disproportionately have benefited from lockdown and safety measures to talk about how much harder it has been on younger people who have lost their jobs, who live in shared housing, and who generally have found this much harder to deal with due to having a larger reliance on service economy jobs and insecure accommodation?

 

I have tried to bring this up online myself and every time I do I get shouted down by people who insist that ACTUALLY the period has been exactly the same level of difficult for everyone in society, which is patently untrue. People wealthy enough to be isolated from the worst effects of being locked in their own homes have had it easier. People with their own transport have had it easier. People who live with their partner, or people they like and care about, a ready-made support network, have had it easier. People who live far away from a support network, or who live in a cramped house or space, have had it harder.

 

I don't find it attacking anyone or starting a fight to mention that. It simply is the fact of the situation. Why are some people so reluctant to acknowledge it? Because that DOES feel like an attack, to deny the reality.

 

It depends what you're getting at really. Those aged 80+ who is affects most, I am sure are mostly worried to death about catching covid. Lockdown suits nobody and certainly the longer term effects for young people will be pretty big too, just like the immediate effects after the financial crisis in 2008 too. Like with everything, some people benefit and others are less fortunate. Clearly what you can see be it old or young, the biggest cause and effect is poverty and the poor. These are the people hardest hit by covid and these are the people who will feel the after effects the most too.

 

What it comes down to in the end and I think what you are alluding to is just life, unfortunately, it isn't fair. You could just as much say people who work in food manufacturing have had it easier than pilots, or the rest of the aviation industry. It's just look unfortunately. The service industry will bounce back pretty quickly, of that I have absolutely no doubt. Especially when you factor in high streets will be decimated so there will be lots of appealing real estate too. The bigger problem will be retail, as already shown by Arcadia collapsing.

So basically blitz spirit is a load of crap and the people touting it are absolute hypocrites of the highest order. That's what I'm hearing.

So basically blitz spirit is a load of crap and the people touting it are absolute hypocrites of the highest order. That's what I'm hearing.

 

There was probably an element of blitz spirit in the first wave as nobody knew what we were facing.

 

Let's be honest even pre-pandemic our economy was not really performing and we were due a recession. The effects of Brexit had lingered for 3 years and had an impact which stunted our growth. I also think it's hard to say older generations have benefitted from lockdown, you have plenty of older people who struggle with loneliness too. I don't think anyone wants to be lockedown, certainly I don't, but I also get why they did it.

 

People online are often not a great representation of society as a whole. In reality lockdown has affected every single person in some way, shape of form. It's hard to quantify the cost and say who has been affected the most.

Keir Starmer should be able to apply some reasonable pressure on demands for funding from the government in that case. Without it, very difficult to see him being able to whip FOR these continuing blanket restrictions.

 

I also don't understand the logic of Tunbridge Wells being in Tier 3 (~100 cases / 100K) whereas London is in Tier 2 where case rates on average are more than double this.

 

Hospital capacity? London has a far larger capacity than Tunbidge Wells.

While the logic of Tunbrige Wells sounds daft, I have a bit of sympathy with the Government here as if they are in Tier 2 for example, where does it end? You can literally apply that logic across the country to certain places. It opens up a whole can of worms if you bend the rules for one place and not others.

 

Indeed and then people will complain at how complicated the rules are

Hospital capacity? London has a far larger capacity than Tunbidge Wells.

 

London also has a much larger and denser population, that isn't a valid point really is it?

 

Besides, T Wells is on the border of East Sussex which is Tier 2- nothing to stop people who live there popping over to nearby East Grinstead and going out for a meal there is there?

 

 

Quite clearly the areas that have the sig outbreaks are seperate from the west and south of Kent; in West Tunbridge Wells there were fewer than 3 cases in total.

London also has a much larger and denser population, that isn't a valid point really is it?

 

Besides, T Wells is on the border of East Sussex which is Tier 2- nothing to stop people who live there popping over to nearby East Grinstead and going out for a meal there is there?

 

 

Quite clearly the areas that have the sig outbreaks are seperate from the west and south of Kent; in West Tunbridge Wells there were fewer than 3 cases in total.

Have you been to East Grinstead? :lol:

Have you been to East Grinstead? :lol:

 

Haha, admittedly no.

Haha, admittedly no.

I spent most of my childhood near there (from age four onwards) and my parents still live there. It has a few of the chains but not much more. Brighton, OTOH, ha plenty. If you had the money and liked every type of food, you could eat out is a different restaurant every night for well over year. Or, at least, you could if they were allowed to open :(

Shops are to be given special permision to open 24 hours if they wish up to Christmas. Some may do to maximise profits then. Good idea or not?

A good idea. Means people can spread out when they go shopping and the staff can get more wages.

A good idea. Means people can spread out when they go shopping and the staff can get more wages.

 

 

Yes, agree, so long as staff aren't forced to work overtime or night-time.