# Boris Johnson announces new 4-week England lockdown November 5 to December 2



## Amity Island (Oct 31, 2020)

This time it's "to save Christmas".

From November 5 to December 2, people in England will only be allowed to go outside for specific reasons, including education, work, exercise, shopping for essentials or caring for the vulnerable.

Pubs and restaurants will be shut down and only allowed to sell takeaway. All non-essential trade will also stop.  

However, essential shops, schools, and universities will remain open, the PM said, adding that games in the English Premier League would also continue in front of empty stands.











						Boris Johnson announces new 4-week England lockdown – all pubs, restaurants & ‘non-essential’ shops to shut down
					

UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, has announced a second national lockdown in England as the number of the coronavirus cases in Britain soared over 1 million mark on Saturday.




					www.rt.com


----------



## Ditto (Oct 31, 2020)

I do that already anyways... nothing new for us. Good job I'm going tomorrow to put the wreaths on early then. Wish they'd said 6th Nov then I'd have risked a Bonfire knees-up.


----------



## Docb (Oct 31, 2020)

Saw the news conference.  What a shambles.  Graphs you could not read presented by somebody who it seemed had not seen them before.  Usual rambling waffle from Johnson with some restrictions buried in the middle of it and lots of jam tomorrow.  Delayed so that it did not clash with the rugby but did not care it clashed with Strictly. 

It will be used on training courses as an example of how not to do a briefing if you want to demonstrate credibility.


----------



## Pumper_Sue (Oct 31, 2020)

Docb said:


> Delayed so that it did not clash with the rugby but did not care it clashed with Strictly.


Funny enough I though he must be watching the rugby due to the times being changed so often.
Only difference the lockdown makes to me is no hair cut on the 11th unless I can claim it as an essential. Hair dresser does home visits


----------



## Robin (Oct 31, 2020)

I find the best place to look for a full list is the actual Government website.





						Living safely with respiratory infections, including COVID-19
					

Guidance for living safely with respiratory infections, including coronavirus (COVID-19).




					www.gov.uk
				



Unfortunately for me (and the horses) riding stables will be told to close.


----------



## Northerner (Nov 1, 2020)

Docb said:


> Graphs you could not read presented by somebody who it seemed had not seen them before.


Glad it's not just me!


----------



## Eddy Edson (Nov 1, 2020)

Northerner said:


> Glad it's not just me!



Churchill was good with charts. Also, leadership.


----------



## eggyg (Nov 1, 2020)

I have read the guidance and we are still able to provide informal childcare for our youngest grandchild so that’s good news as our eldest daughter and her hubby are classed as essential workers, she works for an animal food supplier ( retail) and hubby is a self employed milker/ farm worker. Youngest daughter due back at work tomorrow after being furloughed, she’s a law cost draughtsman, not essential. Think she’ll be furloughed again as she’s classed as vulnerable now with being pregnant. Middle daughter works in Primark, so she’ll be furloughed. Not really much different for us except for hair cuts etc. We haven’t been in a pub or restaurant since March, had a couple of lunches in cafes but that’s it. I see anyone over 60 is classed as vulnerable now rather than 70. Three ticks in the boxes for me now!


----------



## eggyg (Nov 1, 2020)

Docb said:


> Saw the news conference.  What a shambles.  Graphs you could not read presented by somebody who it seemed had not seen them before.  Usual rambling waffle from Johnson with some restrictions buried in the middle of it and lots of jam tomorrow.  Delayed so that it did not clash with the rugby but did not care it clashed with Strictly.
> 
> It will be used on training courses as an example of how not to do a briefing if you want to demonstrate credibility.


We thought there was something was wrong with our TV! Amateurish doesn’t cover it!


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Nov 1, 2020)

eggyg said:


> We thought there was something was wrong with our TV! Amateurish doesn’t cover it!



I think there's a thought that this was rushed a bit, and. that the plan was to announce next week sometime. But after the leaks they had to rush it out. (I'm not sure that excuses the graphs and general presentation; those have been pretty bad throughout. There's no value in giving numbers so precisely; much better to give them to more limited precision (and keep the numbers available, sure) since those would be easier to comprehend.)


----------



## Docb (Nov 1, 2020)

Bruce Stephens said:


> I think there's a thought that this was rushed a bit, and. that the plan was to announce next week sometime. But after the leaks they had to rush it out. (I'm not sure that excuses the graphs and general presentation; those have been pretty bad throughout. There's no value in giving numbers so precisely; much better to give them to more limited precision (and keep the numbers available, sure) since those would be easier to comprehend.)



Maybe something in that @Bruce Stephens but anybody really on top of the game should have been able to give a competent presentation at short notice.  

A couple of things worried me.  Whatever happened to the calm, competent and informative Chris Whitty? Do an "um and err" count on his section and compare it with his contributions early in this pandemic and you will see what I mean.  Also, I could not make out whether Johnsons stuff was his usual ramble or something created by committee he had been given to read out.  Really concerning was the number of times he "hoped" something would happen.  That is not a good way to express how you are going to deal with uncertainty.

I have often commented that the PR effect was more important to the government than providing an accurate picture of the situation which sensible people could act on.  I have this horrible feeling that even that is beginning to unravel.


----------



## Northerner (Nov 1, 2020)

Docb said:


> I have often commented that the PR effect was more important to the government than providing an accurate picture of the situation which sensible people could act on. I have this horrible feeling that even that is beginning to un


Their whole essence is as a successful campaigning unit, which is what got them Brexit and then the election. I suspect that they are realising now that this is not something that responds to the artifice and half-truths of a campaign, and that they are simply not up to the job of serious government


----------



## trophywench (Nov 1, 2020)

Docb said:


> I have often commented that the PR effect was more important to the government than providing an accurate picture of the situation which sensible people could act on.  I have this horrible feeling that even that is beginning to unravel.



That is one good thing about Nicola Sturgeon's briefings - she always sounds as if she knows what she's on about, doesn't she?  You hardly ever are left afterwards asking your nearest and dearest So - does that mean we can do whatever then? Or not? like we've all had to do ever since he was elected with Boris.


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Nov 1, 2020)

Docb said:


> I have often commented that the PR effect was more important to the government than providing an accurate picture of the situation which sensible people could act on.



Yes, I think that's always been their view. That's presumably why they like talking about the test capacity (rather than the number of people actually tested) and the number of contacts who've been traced, and almost never give an honest view of the effectiveness of the whole process. The worst part of which seems to be actually getting people to isolate, so you'd have thought that's what they'd be trying to fix. No point in testing the entire population once a week if nobody changes their behaviour according to the result.


----------



## Docb (Nov 1, 2020)

Got to agree with you there @trophywench.  Like her politics or not, Nicola Sturgeon is the model of clarity and consistency when it comes to putting over information.

Also got to agree with you @Bruce Stephens.  The test and trace system has been ineffective as far as anybody can make out largely because the only things being measured, or at least being put in the public domain, are things you can brag about.  There are no statements about the effectiveness of the system in terms of people proven to be isolating, that is measurement of what the system was supposed to achieve.  That I suspect is alarmingly small.


----------



## mikeyB (Nov 1, 2020)

What nobody seems to have noticed is that this too late, just like first time around.

They never learn. When the scientists say we need a lockdown as a firebreak, as they did three weeks ago, you listen. Same as first time around. Except first time around they didn’t leave open the schools, which at least round here appear to be a sink of infection.


----------



## Eddy Edson (Nov 1, 2020)

Northerner said:


> Their whole essence is as a successful campaigning unit, which is what got them Brexit and then the election. I suspect that they are realising now that this is not something that responds to the artifice and half-truths of a campaign, and that they are simply not up to the job of serious government



Taking tough measures against the virus is something which seems to get large popular support, and contrariwise. Eg: Yougov poll today in the UK shows 72% support for the new lockdown; election outcomes & polling in Nz/Oz; a bunch of international surveys. Contrariwise, US polling; BJ's approval ratings.

So if it were just a matter of pandering to the electorate BJ should have been moving faster and harder. Presumably things have been complicated by idealogy and having to herd a party gaggle which includes many anti-expert loons.


----------



## Eddy Edson (Nov 1, 2020)

Amity Island said:


> Eddy,
> Support for lockdowns has certainly declined since March. Back in March only 3% (of english people) opposed the lockdown, now as you say its closer to 25%. As the months pass, more and more people will want an alternative solution to the lockdowns e.g 5G track and trace.



It's abundantly clear by now how you can avoid a cycle of lockdowns:

- Get prevalence down to zero or negligible levels by locking down hard for probably something on the order of ~3 months.
- Close or at any rate very tightly restrict borders to stop new seed infections coming in.
- Build good TTI capability and all the assocated messaging and compliance-support needed to make it effective.

Eg, all Devi Sridar is doing in her latest https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ess-covid-england-lockdown-east-asian-african is summarising stuff which has become very obvious.

It's not hard to communicate the advantages of being in the right-hand group:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1322808643494977536


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Nov 1, 2020)

Eddy Edson said:


> It's abundantly clear by now how you can avoid a cycle of lockdowns:
> 
> - Get prevalence down to zero or negligible levels by locking down hard for probably something on the order of ~3 months.
> - Close or at any rate very tightly restrict borders to stop new seed infections coming in.
> ...



I’d certainly much rather we had Aus or NZ infection stats right now.


----------



## Robin (Nov 1, 2020)

And this is one of the reasons we need a new lockdown to curb spiralling nfection rates...








						Bristol illegal rave attended by 700 people
					

Some of the crowd became violent as they were told to leave, Avon and Somerset Police said.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## Eddy Edson (Nov 1, 2020)

Amity Island said:


> When you talk of hard lockdown, are you talking shutting schools, closing hospitals, all shops, all travel?



From what I've seen and from the experience in eg Victoria and NZ, what works seems to be making schools on-line as much as possible, stopping elective surgery, stopping non-essential retail, restricting movement very tightly, work from home unless exempt for whatever reason, limit outdoors time very tightly, restrict household mixing very tightly, curfews.

Obviously, backed up by consistent, constant, clear & transparent messaging, including about exit strategy, financial support and effective compliance enforcement.


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Nov 1, 2020)

Eddy Edson said:


> From what I've seen and from the experience in eg Victoria and NZ, what works seems to be making schools on-line as much as possible, stopping elective surgery, stopping non-essential retail, restricting movement very tightly, work from home unless exempt for whatever reason, limit outdoors time very tightly, restrict household mixing very tightly, curfews.



I'm a bit surprised we're not doing something with schools (especially for older children). Maybe encourage mask wearing, or reduce class sizes by a half and alternate which half of pupils attend in person and which watch online. (They'd need to reverse their stupid laptop reduction, obviously.)

Bit surprised about outdoors time: I thought that was thought not to make much difference so you may as well allow lots of it?


----------



## Eddy Edson (Nov 1, 2020)

Bruce Stephens said:


> Bit surprised about outdoors time: I thought that was thought not to make much difference so you may as well allow lots of it?



In Vic, I actually think a lot of it was to simplify compliance enforcement for the cops. Vic's approach to things was "brutal simplicity" with a lot of enforcement, along with financial support and constant messaging. Not necessarily optimal, but it worked for them - zero new infections detected in the last few days, opening up on schedule.


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Nov 1, 2020)

Eddy Edson said:


> In Vic, I actually think a lot of it was to simplify compliance enforcement for the cops. Vic's approach to things was "brutal simplicity" with a lot of enforcement, along with financial support and constant messaging. Not necessarily optimal, but it worked for them - zero new infections detected in the last few days, opening up on schedule.



OK, that would be logical. I get the sense that in England (well, the UK generally) we're not likely to go that far. (Offering financial support seems to be weirdly not something the government wants to do. I still think that's stupid: when you've got only 10%/20% of people isolating who you'd like to isolate, offering them money and other support (as happens in a bunch of countries) seems like an obvious thing to try, and yet £500 for two weeks for some people seems the limit of our ambition.)


----------



## Eddy Edson (Nov 1, 2020)

Bruce Stephens said:


> OK, that would be logical. I get the sense that in England (well, the UK generally) we're not likely to go that far. (Offering financial support seems to be weirdly not something the government wants to do. I still think that's stupid: when you've got only 10%/20% of people isolating who you'd like to isolate, offering them money and other support (as happens in a bunch of countries) seems like an obvious thing to try, and yet £500 for two weeks for some people seems the limit of our ambition.)



An interesting thing is the way the Vic govt managed to keep it's approval levels above 60% though all this heavy-handed lockdown period, despite the fact that it was govt failures which led to it being necessary & in the face of constant attacks from the Murdoch press and Trump-humper types in the state opposition and federal govenrment. 

People recongised that the govt screwed up but they also recognised that the govt was doing everything it could to fix it, and they liked the simple message of getting infection rates as low as possible, so hopefully you wouldn't need to do it again.

Very much a wartime-like context, I think. If you're looking for "Churchillian", that's the way to do it.


----------



## Eddy Edson (Nov 1, 2020)

Amity Island said:


> Eddy,
> 
> What is the exit strategy over there?



Differs by state. Most of Oz there's nothing particularly to exit from - no virus, hardly any restrictions apart from the borders - and Vic is just about there too. More generally, keep TTI capability & public health in general strong; to deal with any possible flare-ups, and try to work out how to open borders at some point.


----------



## atoll (Nov 1, 2020)

We could immediately reduce the incidence of infection at zero cost to the tax payer overnight by mandating mask wearing at all times outside as effective social distancing seems impossible to many.

Hand washing or hand sanitizing needs to be much more emphasized in the media now we are into winter as live virus survives much longer on surfaces in cold conditions with less UV from sunlight to kill virus deposits.

awareness could be built with something similar to the excellent TV campaign the NHS had a few years ago on Salmonella surface contamination.

Mask technology also needs to be re-thought or re-invented using perhaps low power UV light to sterilize the air you breath in and out,rather than filter the air .

The whole psychology of isolation if infected and preventative quarantine needs to be re-evaluated .
possibly 2 weeks at a hotel or spa ,that at the moment are being paid to stay closed by the government would encourage more to isolate effectively!

edit interesting link to uv masks








						Thank you for supporting us!
					

Campaign is now closed | Check out 'Thank you for supporting us!' on Indiegogo.




					www.indiegogo.com


----------



## mikeydt1 (Nov 2, 2020)

if they won't shut the borders then they are just going to keep adding fuel to the fuel just a pointless affair.


----------



## Eddy Edson (Nov 2, 2020)

mikeydt1 said:


> if they won't shut the borders then they are just going to keep adding fuel to the fuel just a pointless affair.


Pretty much


----------



## mikeyB (Nov 2, 2020)

The big problem the UK has compared to other countries is the density of population. France has a similar population, but spread over a an enormously bigger area. Australia is odd because just about everybody lives round the edge. In England, the centres of population are much closer together - an hour's drive. In Scotland it's the central belt that accounts for  85% of the population. Wales is like Australia, with most folk living round the edge.

So in Scotland, you could more or less stop the virus by locking down the central belt. You can't do that in England, any more than you could do it in Germany. The big difference is that in Scotland and  Germany there is an effective track and trace system in place. There is not such a system in England.

Because of all this, the only tactic as seen by the government is a national lockdown. What they cannot seem to see, or admit, is that there won't be an effective tracking system in place after the lockdown, so a full lockdown will have no effect on the distribution of the virus. And nobody yet has used the simplest way of looking for a hotspot of infection. That's testing the shit in the sewers. If there is COVID-19 in the poo, you have a hotspot. If there is, lock down the locale. If there  isn't, no worries.  Even then, a tracing system needs to be in place. If the government doesn't get that sorted, COVID-19 will be with us forever.

That, in my opinion, is how we will end up. So far, only around 1% of the population has been infected. Our mobile hairdresser had to postpone an appointment because her son had been sent home from school with symptoms of Covid, and tested positive. While he spent his time playing on his PS4 his two parents and three siblings tested negative throughout. This virus is less infectious than a common cold, and far less infectious than flu. It's complete insanity to look for a vaccine, and equally try to eliminate the virus totally.

Do we need a full lockdown? No, of course we don't. If you really are concerned about infection, don't mix in close groups - concerts, football and such. Do we need to stop mixing with close symptom free relatives and get back to hugging? No, of course we don't. It's completely OTT. Do we need to panic the population? Yes, to take our minds off the looming insanity of a no-deal Brexit.

Do you want a normal Christmas? Well, if your family is symptom free, and has been for a fortnight, then behave as normal. You won't get arrested. Just don't make any great party noise. Just quietly hug and kiss your loved ones.


----------



## Eddy Edson (Nov 2, 2020)

mikeyB said:


> The big problem the UK has compared to other countries is the density of population. France has a similar population, but spread over a an enormously bigger area. Australia is odd because just about everybody lives round the edge. In England, the centres of population are much closer together - an hour's drive. In Scotland it's the central belt that accounts for  85% of the population. Wales is like Australia, with most folk living round the edge.
> 
> So in Scotland, you could more or less stop the virus by locking down the central belt. You can't do that in England, any more than you could do it in Germany. The big difference is that in Scotland and  Germany there is an effective track and trace system in place. There is not such a system in England.
> 
> ...



Wastewater surveillance is apparently becoming a really useful tool in Oz: 



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1323032203492696064
Your Christmas scenario is fine unless cousin Timmy has gotten pre/asymptomatically infected at a Christmas party a couple of night before & superspreads to the family over lunch ... That would be a classic COVID-19 transmission scenario.


----------



## mikeyB (Nov 2, 2020)

There's no such thing as a "classic" COVID-19 transmission scenario. It hasn't been around long enough. In any event, my hairdresser's experience suggests that it takes some effort to catch the bug. That must be the case given the percentage of the population infected.


----------



## Eddy Edson (Nov 2, 2020)

mikeyB said:


> There's no such thing as a "classic" COVID-19 transmission scenario. It hasn't been around long enough. In any event, my hairdresser's experience suggests that it takes some effort to catch the bug. That must be the case given the percentage of the population infected.



That's the dispersion factor thing - 80% of transmissions from 20% of infectious people or whatever. Most people don't transmit; some transmit a lot. If you're unlucky, cousin Timmy is a superspreader.


----------



## Robin (Nov 2, 2020)

The U.k. is doing sewage tests, it was rolled out in October, with a great fanfare from the government, but when you look further down the piece, it’s only currently covering 22% of the population. Which isn’t a great help if that’s not where your hotspots are.
Also, the fact that they’re sharing the info with NHS Test and Trace means the results will get buried somewhere in the shambles.








						Sewage signals early warning of coronavirus outbreaks
					

Government-led programme is providing an early warning of coronavirus outbreaks by monitoring sewage and sharing data with NHS Test & Trace




					www.gov.uk


----------



## Eddy Edson (Nov 2, 2020)

Eddy Edson said:


> That's the dispersion factor thing - 80% of transmissions from 20% of infectious people or whatever. Most people don't transmit; some transmit a lot. If you're unlucky, cousin Timmy is a superspreader.



This from the Atlantic a couple of months ago was interesting on the dispersion factor: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2020/09/k-overlooked-variable-driving-pandemic/616548/

_Overdispersion makes it harder for us to absorb lessons from the world, because it interferes with how we ordinarily think about cause and effect. For example, it means that events that result in spreading and non-spreading of the virus are asymmetric in their ability to inform us. Take the highly publicized case in Springfield, Missouri, in which two infected hairstylists, both of whom wore masks, continued to work with clients while symptomatic. It turns out that no apparent infections were found among the 139 exposed clients (67 were directly tested; the rest did not report getting sick). While there is a lot of evidence that masks are crucial in dampening transmission, that event alone wouldn’t tell us if masks work. In contrast, studying transmission, the rarer event, can be quite informative. Had those two hairstylists transmitted the virus to large numbers of people despite everyone wearing masks, it would be important evidence that, perhaps, masks aren’t useful in preventing super-spreading. _


----------



## Docb (Nov 2, 2020)

@mikeyB, virologist and SAGE member on the radio this am would disagree with you on the infectiousness. He was quite clear that it was more infectious than flu.  Just illustrates one of the big things in this mess.  If you can't agree common ground on the simple things, no chance of any agreement when it gets difficult.


----------



## Ditto (Nov 2, 2020)

It's getting nearer. My friend's father-in-law died the other night and my brother-in-law's two sisters have it badly.  Too close to home by half, dunno about pandemic.


----------



## Bexlee (Nov 3, 2020)

Bruce Stephens said:


> I'm a bit surprised we're not doing something with schools (especially for older children). Maybe encourage mask wearing, or reduce class sizes by a half and alternate which half of pupils attend in person and which watch online. (They'd need to reverse their stupid laptop reduction, obviously.)
> 
> Bit surprised about outdoors time: I thought that was thought not to make much difference so you may as well allow lots of it?



My school is mask wearing - thought there would be uproar from the teenagers ......and there has been .......At grown ups who don’t take it seriously!The kids have been great to be fair to them.


----------



## atoll (Nov 3, 2020)

article and animation ,of dispersion risks in closed spaces









						A room, a bar and a classroom: how the coronavirus is spread through the air
					

The risk of contagion is highest in indoor spaces but can be reduced by applying all available measures to combat infection via aerosols. Here is an overview of the likelihood of infection in three everyday scenarios, based on the safety measures used and the length of exposure




					english.elpais.com


----------



## mikeyB (Nov 7, 2020)

Amity Island said:


> MikeyB,
> Would that meet the definition of a pandemic?


1% of the population of the UK would be around 678,000, so yes, that's a pandemic.(It also covers the world.) That  really is just 1% of the population, but it gives you a better picture of what is happening. And less than 1% of those infected end up dead. It's hardly a deadly virus, is it?

Even at the height of the first wave, Covid was in around 5th place in the list of causes of death. It's currently much lower than that. Folk are still dying of Alzheimer's, cancer and heart disease and all the other usual suspects.

Now all that is not an argument to relax vigilance, but it is an argument to stop worrying quite so much.  This disease won't change our society, unfortunately, as the Black Death did back in the day. So many people died that it ended serfdom at a stroke, workers on the land became a paid mobile workforce. It completely changed society in Britain.

So why do we now have a four week lockdown? Because for sure, it won't eliminate the virus, any more than the first lockdown did.


----------



## mikeyB (Nov 7, 2020)

Exactly. If the government treat us as unbiddable children, we will behave as such. The same effect that the government wants from this lockdown would be achievable with the compulsory wearing of masks outdoors and in shops and offices, 
 developing habits of hand sterilization, with addition of distancing. It costs the government nothing. Let the public police themselves. 

And stop paying companies and workers for staying away from work. Nobody has ever closed down with a flu epidemic. And i would have thought anyone with Covid would have the sense to stay off work. That's what statutory sick pay is for. It won't spread round an office with the correct distancing and mask wearing.

Would Covid run wild if you did all that? Well, it affected far less  than 1% of the population before anybody took any notice, and then the mad panic set in. But the government told everyone that wearing masks was a waste of effort. Everybody was focussed on the now largely debunked idea that you could catch the virus from surfaces and thereby get the disease, which just had the public sterilising their shopping. That action flies in the face of sense - unpack your shopping, then sterilise your hands. It's the chaotic advice and later u-turns that kept coming from government that has led to the greater number of deaths from this illness, and I include the latest lockdown in that. There _was _growing evidence that the tiered restrictions were bringing down infection rates, in those areas that were on higher restrictions.

So what we have is a population stuck at home again, made paranoid by the government whether you live in a high risk or very low risk area. Madness. I blame Dominic Cummings, he does Johnsons thinking for him.


----------



## Docb (Nov 8, 2020)

Generally agree with your approach @mikeyB but I think there are a couple of issues that need a bit more thought.

I see why you are comparing the reaction to covid to the reaction to flu.  By comparing it to other things you can get a perspective.  Trouble with comparing it to flu is that you diffuse the perspective because that approach will invariably end up arguing about clinical detail and sight of the basic point is soon lost.  I wonder whether a comparison with what are considered perfectly acceptable risks in something completely unrelated might be more sensible.  One thing that comes to mind is road transport where deaths and disability from accidents and pollution is considered a reasonable price to pay for the convenience of getting around quickly. There the risk is controlled by regulation rather than wholesale panic.

When it comes to masks you, with a medical background, and me with a nuclear background, think of things a bit differently to most.  If offered something knocked up from grannies old curtains (I exaggerate to make the point) when working we would have laughed at it and asked for something that had been proven to work and some clear instruction on how to use it. I am sure the directions would not have finished up with an instruction to shove it in a pocket until you need it again and reuse until either you lose it on the street or the elastic breaks.  To my mind, if you are going to use masking as a primary route to reduce transmission a lot more attention has to be put on getting people to understand how to use it to its best effect. The something is better than nothing approach does not work for me when you leave the realm of marginal gains and look for large benefits.

Absolutely agree that treating the population as grown up and providing information which they can work with to get their own risks to a level they are comfortable with.  It is far better than getting drawn into mind bending arguments from trying to tell people what they can and cannot do.  

I share your lack of confidence in the current bunch in charge.  Trouble is, I am yet to be convinced that the alternatives would be that much better.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Nov 9, 2020)

There are lots of chin hammock wearers around here.

And many high profile examples of people in positions of government and authority taking lengthy journeys (including up and down to Scotland!) on public transport.

Not to mention those who fall through the cracks of financial support, and whose zero-hours employment means they will continue to work whether tested positive, or symptomatic. 

Large groups of youngsters gathering, drinking and partying throughout the initial lockdown whose drinking and toilet habits needed various sections of the harbourside here to be fenced off. 

Alas it seems that relying on good old fashioned common sense is less than successful


----------



## Eddy Edson (Nov 9, 2020)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> There are lots of chin hammock wearers around here.
> 
> And many high profile examples of people in positions of government and authority taking lengthy journeys (including up and down to Scotland!) on public transport.
> 
> ...



It's not pleasant, but I think you need a level of enforcement to make a lockdwn work.


----------



## mikeydt1 (Nov 9, 2020)

not sure what is going on in Leeds as the rate of infection is still increasing, still early days though.


----------

