• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

Coronavirus

Coronavirus - The Poll

  • Total voters
    97
Having read the section in AT general discussion I’m lost for words.
Anyone who thinks travelling from a tier 3 area to a tier 1 area for leisure needs to give their head a wobble.
Anyone who thinks they don’t have any symptoms so they can’t have it, give your head a wobble.
Anyone who thinks well it’s not against the law, give your head a wobble.
Anyone who says well Cummings did it so it ok, give your head a wobble.

I live here, this is my community, we have very very low positive rates if any, have some respect for local communities and stay where you are.
 
BigT said:
Having read the section in AT general discussion I’m lost for words.
Anyone who thinks travelling from a tier 3 area to a tier 1 area for leisure needs to give their head a wobble.
Anyone who thinks they don’t have any symptoms so they can’t have it, give your head a wobble.
Anyone who thinks well it’s not against the law, give your head a wobble.
Anyone who says well Cummings did it so it ok, give your head a wobble.

I live here, this is my community, we have very very low positive rates if any, have some respect for local communities and stay where you are.
Click to expand...

Fully agree here BigT. So many people trying to find way around the rules like, 'It's just guidance, not the law', seem to think that the tiered systems has been set out to annoy them. I'm sure there are plenty of people wanting to travel to and away from these areas but a lot of these people also have vulnerable family members aswell. Bloody hell, follow the rules otherwise it will take longer for the restrictions to be reduced.
 
Honestly, I don't see how the current local restrictions work with things open that draw visitors nationally.

A two week circuit breaker back in early September, then likely every 3 months, probably would have been simpler and easier to plan for.
 
I think if people were better at keeping away from others and wearing masks thinks would be easier to everyone. There wouldn't be as many restrictions now.

Anyway, if its not a way to get around the rules it "oh well such and such MP did it so I'm going to do the same as him".
 
Burbs said:
Yes, I agree to an extent. I personally feel that locations will only rise up through the tier system and won't go down any time in the foreseeable future, even if cases/R rate/hospital admissions/deaths/whatever it's based on (who actually knows) decreases.

I also hate the phrase "new normal." This is not "normal", nor should it ever be. This isn't how the population can live for an extended period of time: wearing masks, social distancing, not seeing family or friends, the fact it's illegal to be socialising anywhere in more than a group of 6. I'm not saying I disagree with the measures at all, I think most of them are necessary on the face of it, but this isn't how it should go on for ever.
Click to expand...

I agree, anything which isn't normal is abnormal. 'New normal' is a horrible term. Locking people away, making it illegal to see friends and family can only go on for a limited period of time. I personally think the spring will be the time when people reach the end of their tether. I'm confident restrictions will be eased by the summer at the very latest. Apologies if that's a bit too much optimism for this topic!

We're already walking into a tsunami of bigger problems regarding healthcare, particularly cancer and mental health, and yes the economy needs worrying about too. The damage from those will outweigh the damage of COVID.
 
Swarm Chris said:
Honestly, I don't see how the current local restrictions work with things open that draw visitors nationally.

A two week circuit breaker back in early September, then likely every 3 months, probably would have been simpler and easier to plan for.
Click to expand...

But that’s the point of local restrictions, the rest of the country can carry on keeping the economy moving whilst areas with a high infectious rate stay at home.
It’s also not fair to lock down people in an area like mine with a very low rate, there is no reason for it.
 
That's fine, but people can still travel out of their area to visit attractions within their zone.
There is nothing to stop me visiting the Beach (BPB) as I am in the same red zone anyway, and often work close by.
And even though I am in a very high risk area, some of my close customers, within the red zone, have very low levels of infection locally, within a couple of miles of the "true" very high risk areas.
Local restrictions are sometimes not local enough.
To me, people should not be allowed outside their small geographic area, not region, if the risk of infection is very high.
 
BigT said:
But that’s the point of local restrictions, the rest of the country can carry on keeping the economy moving whilst areas with a high infectious rate stay at home.
It’s also not fair to lock down people in an area like mine with a very low rate, there is no reason for it.
Click to expand...
I agree that's the intention of the local restrictions, and that applying a national policy to areas with no cases makes little economic sense. If people live, work and seek recreation locally, then it makes perfect sense - they know and follow the rules like everyone else around them.

I just think it starts to fall apart when people from higher regions can travel to lower regions, and then either through deliberate action or misunderstanding, don't follow the rules of the higher region they're from.
 
That is a good point and I agree, sometimes the local restrictions are not local enough.
There were some areas of high peak in Derbyshire singled out for further action the other day so sometimes areas do get divided up.
 
I get the idea behind local restrictions but I do not think they are going to have any significant impact on changing the course of what is happening in this country. It just seems very disjointed and the strictest restrictions will not bring the R rate below 1.

I don't really get what has been happening in my local authority area, Charnwood. We are currently the 35th worst area of the country when looking at infection rates per 100,000 people yet we are still in tier 1 for now (sounds like it could be changing on Friday). Even when the infection rates in neighbouring Leicester were high in July/August, it never really spread in to Charnwood. Then as soon as the students went off to uni the infection rate in parts of Loughborough started to climb rapidly whist in the rest of the area rates stayed at or below the national average. But due to a complete lack of action rates across the whole area have increased, including in the over-60s. It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to be honest!

It would not surprise me if the vast majority of the country was in at least tier 2 in a few weeks time. And seeing as none of the tiers are likely to bring the R below 1, it is difficult to see what the exit strategy is going to be.

Maybe a national circuit breaker in early September whilst rates were still relatively low for 2 or 3 weeks would have been a good idea for a reset. I'll be interested to see what it does for Wales. But to be honest I have no idea what the right or wrong approach is now!
 
Can we all just take a moment of silence for all the people who were totally 100% certain that we would not get a second spike....yeah.
 
National Lockdown coming Wednesday. Will be announced on Monday and implemented on Wednesday. The press all reporting it in last hr. Clearly been briefed.

Here we go again folks.
 
I know things always leak, there was news of what would be happening in both Germany and France before it was all officially announced. But why leak it out on a Friday night to allow for a weekend of confusion and probably panic before actually announcing something on Monday!?

I just pray that this time around people are sensible and don't go emptying supermarket shelves when there is absolutely no need.
 
Something else seems a bit off. If we're going into another national lockdown next week, then there could be a case for questioning whether there's any point in changing any local authority's tier (even with that system quickly becoming complicated and confusing when it was supposed to simplify things). On the flipside, acting now could potentially reduce infections and deaths in those areas, but then that kinda begs the question as to why changes weren't made any sooner. It's all a whole confusing mess, frankly, and I'm struggling to work out what on earth's going on.
 
I think I've come to the conclusion that the tiers system is a load of tosh. Infection rates have been increasing across the whole country for a while now, including where levels are low. So all the tiers do is allow the virus to continue to spread more quickly in tier 1 areas and then when it becomes too late they get put in to tier 2 which has little impact and then in to tier 3 which does slow things down but does not reverse the trend.

I understand why they wanted a local approach, and it does make sense when you get local outbreaks when there are generally a low level of cases across the country. But it does not really work when it is spreading pretty quickly in pretty much every local area.

At least a national approach again will in theory make it easier for people to understand what is and is not allowed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top