Tories love the new lockdown rules and think they're easy to follow, shocked
So which is the dreadfully complicated part of it all?
Are you allowed to mix with other households in pubs and restaurants?
Depends what tier you are in. Yes at the lowest level.
What about the other tiers?
No? Of course they are going to be dreadfully complicated if you don't actually read them.
Where does it say you can or can't? You're assuming because you don't know. As I said, complicated.
Seriously? The summary states:
The core of Tier One is the "Rule of Six" - viz only six people are allowed in a home or garden, or sitting at a pub table or restaurant table - and there is a 10pm curfew for pubs and restaurants.
It then goes on to say
Tier Two is largely Tier One minus the Rule of Six.
And remember, this is only a journalist's summary.
Home or garden, is that indoors? Outdoors only?
Your home is typically inside and your garden is outside. Now you are just trying to justify your claim that they are complicated.
They are complicated - you've assumed things that aren't there.
How does that assumption make it complicated? There are two scenarios, either you can socialise with the rule of six in pubs and restaurants in tier two, or you can't. Neither of those scenarios are complicated.
I've explained one example, the other is things that are guidance and the law.
It's needlessly complicated and the average person will just not listen
But that example isn't complicated. As for law vs. guidance, I suspect they didn't want to go down the route of making it illegal to see other people.
It is complicated.
Stay home save lives was easy.
This tier stuff is needlessly complicated for something that won't work. We need a full lockdown for everyone with the same rules.
Ah, I see. It's complicated because it isn't the policy you actually want.
I think a lot of other countries have managed with regional variations in their restrictions. There's even an element of that with the difference in approaches between the home nations.
I predict by Tuesday the media will be stuffed with stories of people saying they live in one tier, work in another and their kids live in yet another...and its all too confusing and unfair.
It's all being done so as to avoid another "national lockdown", because they swore they'd never do that, and avoiding that horror was the reason for Lockdown 1.
Yet we will end up with a tacit national lockdown, apart from a few lucky sods in rural England, Wales and Scotland, and it will be horribly complicated and maybe less effective than if they'd just said Sorry, go home again, and stay home. Great.
Realistically, we are a small country / countries, we aren't like the US or Australia where it can be 100s of miles between major towns and cities. So trying to say Birmingham is in major lockdown but Worcester isnt doesn't work.
Tories love the new lockdown rules and think they're easy to follow, shocked
So which is the dreadfully complicated part of it all?
Are you allowed to mix with other households in pubs and restaurants?
Depends what tier you are in. Yes at the lowest level.
What about the other tiers?
No? Of course they are going to be dreadfully complicated if you don't actually read them.
Where does it say you can or can't? You're assuming because you don't know. As I said, complicated.
Seriously? The summary states:
The core of Tier One is the "Rule of Six" - viz only six people are allowed in a home or garden, or sitting at a pub table or restaurant table - and there is a 10pm curfew for pubs and restaurants.
It then goes on to say
Tier Two is largely Tier One minus the Rule of Six.
And remember, this is only a journalist's summary.
Home or garden, is that indoors? Outdoors only?
Your home is typically inside and your garden is outside. Now you are just trying to justify your claim that they are complicated.
They are complicated - you've assumed things that aren't there.
How does that assumption make it complicated? There are two scenarios, either you can socialise with the rule of six in pubs and restaurants in tier two, or you can't. Neither of those scenarios are complicated.
I've explained one example, the other is things that are guidance and the law.
It's needlessly complicated and the average person will just not listen
But that example isn't complicated. As for law vs. guidance, I suspect they didn't want to go down the route of making it illegal to see other people.
It is complicated.
Stay home save lives was easy.
This tier stuff is needlessly complicated for something that won't work. We need a full lockdown for everyone with the same rules.
Ah, I see. It's complicated because it isn't the policy you actually want.
I think a lot of other countries have managed with regional variations in their restrictions. There's even an element of that with the difference in approaches between the home nations.
The rules/guidance within the tiers are complicated.
The tiers themselves are complicated.
I would like to support a tier system but I can't because it won't work. We missed the boat on that months ago. A national lockdown is all that is left.
Tories love the new lockdown rules and think they're easy to follow, shocked
So which is the dreadfully complicated part of it all?
Are you allowed to mix with other households in pubs and restaurants?
Depends what tier you are in. Yes at the lowest level.
What about the other tiers?
No? Of course they are going to be dreadfully complicated if you don't actually read them.
Where does it say you can or can't? You're assuming because you don't know. As I said, complicated.
Seriously? The summary states:
The core of Tier One is the "Rule of Six" - viz only six people are allowed in a home or garden, or sitting at a pub table or restaurant table - and there is a 10pm curfew for pubs and restaurants.
It then goes on to say
Tier Two is largely Tier One minus the Rule of Six.
And remember, this is only a journalist's summary.
Home or garden, is that indoors? Outdoors only?
Your home is typically inside and your garden is outside. Now you are just trying to justify your claim that they are complicated.
They are complicated - you've assumed things that aren't there.
How does that assumption make it complicated? There are two scenarios, either you can socialise with the rule of six in pubs and restaurants in tier two, or you can't. Neither of those scenarios are complicated.
I've explained one example, the other is things that are guidance and the law.
It's needlessly complicated and the average person will just not listen
But that example isn't complicated. As for law vs. guidance, I suspect they didn't want to go down the route of making it illegal to see other people.
It is complicated.
Stay home save lives was easy.
This tier stuff is needlessly complicated for something that won't work. We need a full lockdown for everyone with the same rules.
More complex measures will necessarily be more complicated, this was an issue with guidance even during the national lockdown, since nothign can cover every possible scenario. The issue with regional lockdown seems more about enforcability than understandability. If it won't work, then it doesn't matter if it is simple. If it will work, then a certain level of complexity is mitigatable.
The key point is that, even at the maximum tier, apart from closing pubs and restaurants (for eat in service), it appears to be all guidance. Which means no-one will have to worry about enforcement, and what actually happens will be down to individual discretion.
Tories love the new lockdown rules and think they're easy to follow, shocked
So which is the dreadfully complicated part of it all?
Are you allowed to mix with other households in pubs and restaurants?
Depends what tier you are in. Yes at the lowest level.
What about the other tiers?
No? Of course they are going to be dreadfully complicated if you don't actually read them.
Where does it say you can or can't? You're assuming because you don't know. As I said, complicated.
Seriously? The summary states:
The core of Tier One is the "Rule of Six" - viz only six people are allowed in a home or garden, or sitting at a pub table or restaurant table - and there is a 10pm curfew for pubs and restaurants.
It then goes on to say
Tier Two is largely Tier One minus the Rule of Six.
And remember, this is only a journalist's summary.
Home or garden, is that indoors? Outdoors only?
Your home is typically inside and your garden is outside. Now you are just trying to justify your claim that they are complicated.
They are complicated - you've assumed things that aren't there.
How does that assumption make it complicated? There are two scenarios, either you can socialise with the rule of six in pubs and restaurants in tier two, or you can't. Neither of those scenarios are complicated.
I've explained one example, the other is things that are guidance and the law.
It's needlessly complicated and the average person will just not listen
But that example isn't complicated. As for law vs. guidance, I suspect they didn't want to go down the route of making it illegal to see other people.
It is complicated.
Stay home save lives was easy.
This tier stuff is needlessly complicated for something that won't work. We need a full lockdown for everyone with the same rules.
Ah, I see. It's complicated because it isn't the policy you actually want.
I think a lot of other countries have managed with regional variations in their restrictions. There's even an element of that with the difference in approaches between the home nations.
The rules/guidance within the tiers are complicated.
The tiers themselves are complicated.
I would like to support a tier system but I can't because it won't work. We missed the boat on that months ago. A national lockdown is all that is left.
If the summary is accurate I don't see what part of it is confusing.
Tier 3 - pubs/restaurants closed, avoid non-essential travel, don't travel in/out Tier 2 - pubs/restaurants open, but limited to within househoud Tier 1 - rule of six.
So as this week turns to absolute shit. As this government flap around for any kind of unified messaging as to what the fuck up north is supposed to be doing. At which point do the letters start being sent to Graham Brady...?
If you're waiting for Graham Brady to save you, you'll be waiting a long time...
Not about saving me. It's about saving the people who are going to die this winter. It is about saving the people who are going to lose their livelihoods this winter. Your party will still be in office, don't worry.
Your problem is that like so many Tories - or in your case pretend Tories - is that you don't actually care about any of the people I mentioned.
I have seldom observed a senior politician so clearly lying
Is blinking the new polygraph test for lying? Priti Patel can reintroduce hanging tomorrow! Now we've found this infallible test, there can be no more miscarriages of justice.
Well, yes. It's a known psychological fact that rapid blinking is a tell-tale sign of lying.
"Liars tend to blink more because lying is stressful. Under stress, eye blink rate increases (Mann, 2013)"
Yes but the trouble is there are other causes of stress than lying. If there were not then polygraphs would be reliable.
Do you honestly believe Sturgeon is telling the truth? Consider just one of her claims, about a meeting with a Salmond aide in 2019
"She said: "I had forgotten that this encounter had taken place until I was reminded of it in, I think, late January/early February 2019.
"For context, I think the meeting took place not long after the weekly session of FMQs and in the midst of a busy day in which I would have been dealing with a multitude of other matters.
"However, from what I recall, the discussion covered the fact that Alex Salmond wanted to see me urgently about a serious matter, and I think it did cover the suggestion that the matter might relate to allegations of a sexual nature.""
She is literally claiming she "forgot" a meeting where she was first told that her ex boss, the ex First Minister, her 30 year mentor, Alex Salmond, was accused of serious allegations of a sexual nature.
Yes, that's exactly the kind of meeting you would *forget*. Oh, the previous prime minister is an alleged rapist? Just another tiny detail that gets missed in a busy day
Did she first learn about the allegation on the 2nd of April or eons before on the... checks notes... 29th of March?
Truly it changes everything.
She is claiming she forgot the first meeting when she was told Alex Salmond was a bit rapey, and faced actual allegations to that end. It's utterly ludicrous.
Come on, you're smarter than this, as are we. She's lying, everyone can see she is lying, the question for sophisticated PBers is whether she can survive the lie.
She is a canny and durable politician, and she has the advantage of Covid as a huge diversion. She's got a good chance. She is one of Napoleon's "lucky generals".
There is also the very murky role her husband has played in Salmondgate. I reckon there's a lot more still to come out on this issue. Sturgeon looked impregnable a month or so ago but the mood has changed.
Agreed. And she has a formidable adversary in Salmond, who is clearly out for blood (and you can see why he is blisteringly angry even if he is a lecherous old git).
It's an excellent fight. The Sturgeon vs the Salmon. The former is bigger but the latter is iconic. A lot of Scot Nats will be Salmondites by instinct
Hopefully her and her dodgy husband will be shown up for what they are very soon. Her days are numbered
Tories love the new lockdown rules and think they're easy to follow, shocked
So which is the dreadfully complicated part of it all?
Are you allowed to mix with other households in pubs and restaurants?
Depends what tier you are in. Yes at the lowest level.
What about the other tiers?
No? Of course they are going to be dreadfully complicated if you don't actually read them.
Where does it say you can or can't? You're assuming because you don't know. As I said, complicated.
Seriously? The summary states:
The core of Tier One is the "Rule of Six" - viz only six people are allowed in a home or garden, or sitting at a pub table or restaurant table - and there is a 10pm curfew for pubs and restaurants.
It then goes on to say
Tier Two is largely Tier One minus the Rule of Six.
And remember, this is only a journalist's summary.
Home or garden, is that indoors? Outdoors only?
Your home is typically inside and your garden is outside. Now you are just trying to justify your claim that they are complicated.
They are complicated - you've assumed things that aren't there.
How does that assumption make it complicated? There are two scenarios, either you can socialise with the rule of six in pubs and restaurants in tier two, or you can't. Neither of those scenarios are complicated.
I've explained one example, the other is things that are guidance and the law.
It's needlessly complicated and the average person will just not listen
But that example isn't complicated. As for law vs. guidance, I suspect they didn't want to go down the route of making it illegal to see other people.
It is complicated.
Stay home save lives was easy.
This tier stuff is needlessly complicated for something that won't work. We need a full lockdown for everyone with the same rules.
Ah, I see. It's complicated because it isn't the policy you actually want.
I think a lot of other countries have managed with regional variations in their restrictions. There's even an element of that with the difference in approaches between the home nations.
The rules/guidance within the tiers are complicated.
The tiers themselves are complicated.
I would like to support a tier system but I can't because it won't work. We missed the boat on that months ago. A national lockdown is all that is left.
If the summary is accurate I don't see what part of it is confusing.
Tier 3 - pubs/restaurants closed, avoid non-essential travel, don't travel in/out Tier 2 - pubs/restaurants open, but limited to within househoud Tier 1 - rule of six.
It's totally confusing what is the law and what isn't, it's confusing what the tiers mean, it's confusing whether you can socialise indoors or not.
People don't even get the rule of six, Johnson did a good job making that confusing as well.
We need a simple system, or alternatively for the Government to sack Cummings and get some trust back.
Hands Face Space is the best they've done recently.
Tories love the new lockdown rules and think they're easy to follow, shocked
So which is the dreadfully complicated part of it all?
Are you allowed to mix with other households in pubs and restaurants?
Depends what tier you are in. Yes at the lowest level.
What about the other tiers?
No? Of course they are going to be dreadfully complicated if you don't actually read them.
Where does it say you can or can't? You're assuming because you don't know. As I said, complicated.
Seriously? The summary states:
The core of Tier One is the "Rule of Six" - viz only six people are allowed in a home or garden, or sitting at a pub table or restaurant table - and there is a 10pm curfew for pubs and restaurants.
It then goes on to say
Tier Two is largely Tier One minus the Rule of Six.
And remember, this is only a journalist's summary.
Home or garden, is that indoors? Outdoors only?
Your home is typically inside and your garden is outside.
How dare you discriminate against me and my conservatory zen garden?
Tories love the new lockdown rules and think they're easy to follow, shocked
So which is the dreadfully complicated part of it all?
Are you allowed to mix with other households in pubs and restaurants?
Depends what tier you are in. Yes at the lowest level.
What about the other tiers?
No? Of course they are going to be dreadfully complicated if you don't actually read them.
Where does it say you can or can't? You're assuming because you don't know. As I said, complicated.
Seriously? The summary states:
The core of Tier One is the "Rule of Six" - viz only six people are allowed in a home or garden, or sitting at a pub table or restaurant table - and there is a 10pm curfew for pubs and restaurants.
It then goes on to say
Tier Two is largely Tier One minus the Rule of Six.
And remember, this is only a journalist's summary.
Home or garden, is that indoors? Outdoors only?
Your home is typically inside and your garden is outside. Now you are just trying to justify your claim that they are complicated.
They are complicated - you've assumed things that aren't there.
How does that assumption make it complicated? There are two scenarios, either you can socialise with the rule of six in pubs and restaurants in tier two, or you can't. Neither of those scenarios are complicated.
I've explained one example, the other is things that are guidance and the law.
It's needlessly complicated and the average person will just not listen
But that example isn't complicated. As for law vs. guidance, I suspect they didn't want to go down the route of making it illegal to see other people.
It is complicated.
Stay home save lives was easy.
This tier stuff is needlessly complicated for something that won't work. We need a full lockdown for everyone with the same rules.
Ah, I see. It's complicated because it isn't the policy you actually want.
I think a lot of other countries have managed with regional variations in their restrictions. There's even an element of that with the difference in approaches between the home nations.
The rules/guidance within the tiers are complicated.
The tiers themselves are complicated.
I would like to support a tier system but I can't because it won't work. We missed the boat on that months ago. A national lockdown is all that is left.
If the summary is accurate I don't see what part of it is confusing.
Tier 3 - pubs/restaurants closed, avoid non-essential travel, don't travel in/out Tier 2 - pubs/restaurants open, but limited to within househoud Tier 1 - rule of six.
It's totally confusing what is the law and what isn't, it's confusing what the tiers mean, it's confusing whether you can socialise indoors or not.
People don't even get the rule of six, Johnson did a good job making that confusing as well.
We need a simple system, or alternatively for the Government to sack Cummings and get some trust back.
Hands Face Space is the best they've done recently.
While this guidance/legality thing is important in terms of enforcement, quite why it would make it more confusing is beyond me. The government are clearly saying this is something you shouldn't be doing.
Confusing what the tiers mean? 1 is good, 3 is bad. There are only three of them, and there are only a small number of differences between the tier. I don't think they could make a multi-tiered system any easier actually.
I have seldom observed a senior politician so clearly lying
Is blinking the new polygraph test for lying? Priti Patel can reintroduce hanging tomorrow! Now we've found this infallible test, there can be no more miscarriages of justice.
Well, yes. It's a known psychological fact that rapid blinking is a tell-tale sign of lying.
"Liars tend to blink more because lying is stressful. Under stress, eye blink rate increases (Mann, 2013)"
Yes but the trouble is there are other causes of stress than lying. If there were not then polygraphs would be reliable.
Do you honestly believe Sturgeon is telling the truth? Consider just one of her claims, about a meeting with a Salmond aide in 2019
"She said: "I had forgotten that this encounter had taken place until I was reminded of it in, I think, late January/early February 2019.
"For context, I think the meeting took place not long after the weekly session of FMQs and in the midst of a busy day in which I would have been dealing with a multitude of other matters.
"However, from what I recall, the discussion covered the fact that Alex Salmond wanted to see me urgently about a serious matter, and I think it did cover the suggestion that the matter might relate to allegations of a sexual nature.""
She is literally claiming she "forgot" a meeting where she was first told that her ex boss, the ex First Minister, her 30 year mentor, Alex Salmond, was accused of serious allegations of a sexual nature.
Yes, that's exactly the kind of meeting you would *forget*. Oh, the previous prime minister is an alleged rapist? Just another tiny detail that gets missed in a busy day
Did she first learn about the allegation on the 2nd of April or eons before on the... checks notes... 29th of March?
Truly it changes everything.
She is claiming she forgot the first meeting when she was told Alex Salmond was a bit rapey, and faced actual allegations to that end. It's utterly ludicrous.
Come on, you're smarter than this, as are we. She's lying, everyone can see she is lying, the question for sophisticated PBers is whether she can survive the lie.
She is a canny and durable politician, and she has the advantage of Covid as a huge diversion. She's got a good chance. She is one of Napoleon's "lucky generals".
There is also the very murky role her husband has played in Salmondgate. I reckon there's a lot more still to come out on this issue. Sturgeon looked impregnable a month or so ago but the mood has changed.
Agreed. And she has a formidable adversary in Salmond, who is clearly out for blood (and you can see why he is blisteringly angry even if he is a lecherous old git).
It's an excellent fight. The Sturgeon vs the Salmon. The former is bigger but the latter is iconic. A lot of Scot Nats will be Salmondites by instinct
Hopefully her and her dodgy husband will be shown up for what they are very soon. Her days are numbered
Johnson's Christmases come all at once, if Nippy falls on her sword.
I have seldom observed a senior politician so clearly lying
Is blinking the new polygraph test for lying? Priti Patel can reintroduce hanging tomorrow! Now we've found this infallible test, there can be no more miscarriages of justice.
Well, yes. It's a known psychological fact that rapid blinking is a tell-tale sign of lying.
"Liars tend to blink more because lying is stressful. Under stress, eye blink rate increases (Mann, 2013)"
Yes but the trouble is there are other causes of stress than lying. If there were not then polygraphs would be reliable.
Do you honestly believe Sturgeon is telling the truth? Consider just one of her claims, about a meeting with a Salmond aide in 2019
"She said: "I had forgotten that this encounter had taken place until I was reminded of it in, I think, late January/early February 2019.
"For context, I think the meeting took place not long after the weekly session of FMQs and in the midst of a busy day in which I would have been dealing with a multitude of other matters.
"However, from what I recall, the discussion covered the fact that Alex Salmond wanted to see me urgently about a serious matter, and I think it did cover the suggestion that the matter might relate to allegations of a sexual nature.""
She is literally claiming she "forgot" a meeting where she was first told that her ex boss, the ex First Minister, her 30 year mentor, Alex Salmond, was accused of serious allegations of a sexual nature.
Yes, that's exactly the kind of meeting you would *forget*. Oh, the previous prime minister is an alleged rapist? Just another tiny detail that gets missed in a busy day
Did she first learn about the allegation on the 2nd of April or eons before on the... checks notes... 29th of March?
Truly it changes everything.
She is claiming she forgot the first meeting when she was told Alex Salmond was a bit rapey, and faced actual allegations to that end. It's utterly ludicrous.
Come on, you're smarter than this, as are we. She's lying, everyone can see she is lying, the question for sophisticated PBers is whether she can survive the lie.
She is a canny and durable politician, and she has the advantage of Covid as a huge diversion. She's got a good chance. She is one of Napoleon's "lucky generals".
There is also the very murky role her husband has played in Salmondgate. I reckon there's a lot more still to come out on this issue. Sturgeon looked impregnable a month or so ago but the mood has changed.
Agreed. And she has a formidable adversary in Salmond, who is clearly out for blood (and you can see why he is blisteringly angry even if he is a lecherous old git).
It's an excellent fight. The Sturgeon vs the Salmon. The former is bigger but the latter is iconic. A lot of Scot Nats will be Salmondites by instinct
Agreed. Sturgeon may have been respected and even admired whilst she appeared competent, trustworthy and honest. I doubt many Nats really love her though. Salmond and I think Cherry are hoping to undermine her reputation and then take advantage.
Yes, Salmond gets the love. He's the amazing guy who took the SNP from the fringe to indyref 1, in a single career, and very nearly won a truly remarkable prize. Sturgeon is efficient, and decent, but actually quite boring.
A horrible split beckons. Should be entertaining.
The inexhaustible supply of PB Scotch experts is truly remarkable.
'Poll finds Alex Salmond now almost as unpopular as Boris Johnson among Scots
Even among SNP supporters, Mr Salmond had an approval rating of -14, with 49% of the party’s voters having a negative view of him compared to 35% who thought favourably of him.'
I have seldom observed a senior politician so clearly lying
Is blinking the new polygraph test for lying? Priti Patel can reintroduce hanging tomorrow! Now we've found this infallible test, there can be no more miscarriages of justice.
Well, yes. It's a known psychological fact that rapid blinking is a tell-tale sign of lying.
"Liars tend to blink more because lying is stressful. Under stress, eye blink rate increases (Mann, 2013)"
Yes but the trouble is there are other causes of stress than lying. If there were not then polygraphs would be reliable.
Do you honestly believe Sturgeon is telling the truth? Consider just one of her claims, about a meeting with a Salmond aide in 2019
"She said: "I had forgotten that this encounter had taken place until I was reminded of it in, I think, late January/early February 2019.
"For context, I think the meeting took place not long after the weekly session of FMQs and in the midst of a busy day in which I would have been dealing with a multitude of other matters.
"However, from what I recall, the discussion covered the fact that Alex Salmond wanted to see me urgently about a serious matter, and I think it did cover the suggestion that the matter might relate to allegations of a sexual nature.""
She is literally claiming she "forgot" a meeting where she was first told that her ex boss, the ex First Minister, her 30 year mentor, Alex Salmond, was accused of serious allegations of a sexual nature.
Yes, that's exactly the kind of meeting you would *forget*. Oh, the previous prime minister is an alleged rapist? Just another tiny detail that gets missed in a busy day
Did she first learn about the allegation on the 2nd of April or eons before on the... checks notes... 29th of March?
Truly it changes everything.
She is claiming she forgot the first meeting when she was told Alex Salmond was a bit rapey, and faced actual allegations to that end. It's utterly ludicrous.
Come on, you're smarter than this, as are we. She's lying, everyone can see she is lying, the question for sophisticated PBers is whether she can survive the lie.
She is a canny and durable politician, and she has the advantage of Covid as a huge diversion. She's got a good chance. She is one of Napoleon's "lucky generals".
There is also the very murky role her husband has played in Salmondgate. I reckon there's a lot more still to come out on this issue. Sturgeon looked impregnable a month or so ago but the mood has changed.
Agreed. And she has a formidable adversary in Salmond, who is clearly out for blood (and you can see why he is blisteringly angry even if he is a lecherous old git).
It's an excellent fight. The Sturgeon vs the Salmon. The former is bigger but the latter is iconic. A lot of Scot Nats will be Salmondites by instinct
Hopefully her and her dodgy husband will be shown up for what they are very soon. Her days are numbered
Johnson's Christmases come all at once, if Nippy falls on her sword.
I wouldn't be surprised if the next SNP leader is as good as Sturgeon.
I have seldom observed a senior politician so clearly lying
Is blinking the new polygraph test for lying? Priti Patel can reintroduce hanging tomorrow! Now we've found this infallible test, there can be no more miscarriages of justice.
Well, yes. It's a known psychological fact that rapid blinking is a tell-tale sign of lying.
"Liars tend to blink more because lying is stressful. Under stress, eye blink rate increases (Mann, 2013)"
Yes but the trouble is there are other causes of stress than lying. If there were not then polygraphs would be reliable.
Do you honestly believe Sturgeon is telling the truth? Consider just one of her claims, about a meeting with a Salmond aide in 2019
"She said: "I had forgotten that this encounter had taken place until I was reminded of it in, I think, late January/early February 2019.
"For context, I think the meeting took place not long after the weekly session of FMQs and in the midst of a busy day in which I would have been dealing with a multitude of other matters.
"However, from what I recall, the discussion covered the fact that Alex Salmond wanted to see me urgently about a serious matter, and I think it did cover the suggestion that the matter might relate to allegations of a sexual nature.""
She is literally claiming she "forgot" a meeting where she was first told that her ex boss, the ex First Minister, her 30 year mentor, Alex Salmond, was accused of serious allegations of a sexual nature.
Yes, that's exactly the kind of meeting you would *forget*. Oh, the previous prime minister is an alleged rapist? Just another tiny detail that gets missed in a busy day
Did she first learn about the allegation on the 2nd of April or eons before on the... checks notes... 29th of March?
Truly it changes everything.
She is claiming she forgot the first meeting when she was told Alex Salmond was a bit rapey, and faced actual allegations to that end. It's utterly ludicrous.
Come on, you're smarter than this, as are we. She's lying, everyone can see she is lying, the question for sophisticated PBers is whether she can survive the lie.
She is a canny and durable politician, and she has the advantage of Covid as a huge diversion. She's got a good chance. She is one of Napoleon's "lucky generals".
There is also the very murky role her husband has played in Salmondgate. I reckon there's a lot more still to come out on this issue. Sturgeon looked impregnable a month or so ago but the mood has changed.
Agreed. And she has a formidable adversary in Salmond, who is clearly out for blood (and you can see why he is blisteringly angry even if he is a lecherous old git).
It's an excellent fight. The Sturgeon vs the Salmon. The former is bigger but the latter is iconic. A lot of Scot Nats will be Salmondites by instinct
Agreed. Sturgeon may have been respected and even admired whilst she appeared competent, trustworthy and honest. I doubt many Nats really love her though. Salmond and I think Cherry are hoping to undermine her reputation and then take advantage.
Yes, Salmond gets the love. He's the amazing guy who took the SNP from the fringe to indyref 1, in a single career, and very nearly won a truly remarkable prize. Sturgeon is efficient, and decent, but actually quite boring.
A horrible split beckons. Should be entertaining.
The inexhaustible supply of PB Scotch experts is truly remarkable.
'Poll finds Alex Salmond now almost as unpopular as Boris Johnson among Scots
Even among SNP supporters, Mr Salmond had an approval rating of -14, with 49% of the party’s voters having a negative view of him compared to 35% who thought favourably of him.'
Another exile option come 21st January, added to Trump's list.
So the Orange Messiah was a yellow mole all along? I'm not saying he was, but has any other individual on this planet done more for the spread of the Chinavirus?
Tories love the new lockdown rules and think they're easy to follow, shocked
So which is the dreadfully complicated part of it all?
Are you allowed to mix with other households in pubs and restaurants?
Depends what tier you are in. Yes at the lowest level.
What about the other tiers?
No? Of course they are going to be dreadfully complicated if you don't actually read them.
Where does it say you can or can't? You're assuming because you don't know. As I said, complicated.
Seriously? The summary states:
The core of Tier One is the "Rule of Six" - viz only six people are allowed in a home or garden, or sitting at a pub table or restaurant table - and there is a 10pm curfew for pubs and restaurants.
It then goes on to say
Tier Two is largely Tier One minus the Rule of Six.
And remember, this is only a journalist's summary.
Home or garden, is that indoors? Outdoors only?
Your home is typically inside and your garden is outside. Now you are just trying to justify your claim that they are complicated.
They are complicated - you've assumed things that aren't there.
How does that assumption make it complicated? There are two scenarios, either you can socialise with the rule of six in pubs and restaurants in tier two, or you can't. Neither of those scenarios are complicated.
I've explained one example, the other is things that are guidance and the law.
It's needlessly complicated and the average person will just not listen
But that example isn't complicated. As for law vs. guidance, I suspect they didn't want to go down the route of making it illegal to see other people.
It is complicated.
Stay home save lives was easy.
This tier stuff is needlessly complicated for something that won't work. We need a full lockdown for everyone with the same rules.
Ah, I see. It's complicated because it isn't the policy you actually want.
I think a lot of other countries have managed with regional variations in their restrictions. There's even an element of that with the difference in approaches between the home nations.
The rules/guidance within the tiers are complicated.
The tiers themselves are complicated.
I would like to support a tier system but I can't because it won't work. We missed the boat on that months ago. A national lockdown is all that is left.
If the summary is accurate I don't see what part of it is confusing.
Tier 3 - pubs/restaurants closed, avoid non-essential travel, don't travel in/out Tier 2 - pubs/restaurants open, but limited to within househoud Tier 1 - rule of six.
It's totally confusing what is the law and what isn't, it's confusing what the tiers mean, it's confusing whether you can socialise indoors or not.
People don't even get the rule of six, Johnson did a good job making that confusing as well.
We need a simple system, or alternatively for the Government to sack Cummings and get some trust back.
Hands Face Space is the best they've done recently.
Or at least it was until Shagger was seen slapping the back of a Tory MP on his way out of PMQs. If the fucking PM can't be arsed to do Hands Face Space why should anyone else?
Tories love the new lockdown rules and think they're easy to follow, shocked
So which is the dreadfully complicated part of it all?
Are you allowed to mix with other households in pubs and restaurants?
Depends what tier you are in. Yes at the lowest level.
What about the other tiers?
No? Of course they are going to be dreadfully complicated if you don't actually read them.
Where does it say you can or can't? You're assuming because you don't know. As I said, complicated.
Seriously? The summary states:
The core of Tier One is the "Rule of Six" - viz only six people are allowed in a home or garden, or sitting at a pub table or restaurant table - and there is a 10pm curfew for pubs and restaurants.
It then goes on to say
Tier Two is largely Tier One minus the Rule of Six.
And remember, this is only a journalist's summary.
Home or garden, is that indoors? Outdoors only?
Your home is typically inside and your garden is outside. Now you are just trying to justify your claim that they are complicated.
They are complicated - you've assumed things that aren't there.
How does that assumption make it complicated? There are two scenarios, either you can socialise with the rule of six in pubs and restaurants in tier two, or you can't. Neither of those scenarios are complicated.
I've explained one example, the other is things that are guidance and the law.
It's needlessly complicated and the average person will just not listen
But that example isn't complicated. As for law vs. guidance, I suspect they didn't want to go down the route of making it illegal to see other people.
It is complicated.
Stay home save lives was easy.
This tier stuff is needlessly complicated for something that won't work. We need a full lockdown for everyone with the same rules.
Ah, I see. It's complicated because it isn't the policy you actually want.
I think a lot of other countries have managed with regional variations in their restrictions. There's even an element of that with the difference in approaches between the home nations.
The rules/guidance within the tiers are complicated.
The tiers themselves are complicated.
I would like to support a tier system but I can't because it won't work. We missed the boat on that months ago. A national lockdown is all that is left.
If the summary is accurate I don't see what part of it is confusing.
Tier 3 - pubs/restaurants closed, avoid non-essential travel, don't travel in/out Tier 2 - pubs/restaurants open, but limited to within househoud Tier 1 - rule of six.
It's totally confusing what is the law and what isn't, it's confusing what the tiers mean, it's confusing whether you can socialise indoors or not.
People don't even get the rule of six, Johnson did a good job making that confusing as well.
We need a simple system, or alternatively for the Government to sack Cummings and get some trust back.
Hands Face Space is the best they've done recently.
Or at least it was until Shagger was seen slapping the back of a Tory MP on his way out of PMQs. If the fucking PM can't be arsed to do Hands Face Space why should anyone else?
Fundamentally this is it. The trust from the public has gone.
In July we had a golden opportunity. Public were terrified to go outside.
The solution would have been a new slogan with new laws on what to do.
That should have been meetings outdoors only, in groups of six. Mandatory face coverings in all indoor spaces.
Restaurants/pubs open at lunchtime only.
That should have been in place for at least a month. Then we could have opened up more.
Instead we had Cummings and then about 9000 slogans and then HMG gave up altogether. Incompetence.
People say I always follow the Labour line. I don't think I am following the Labour line here, nobody can accuse me of being Captain Hindsight if these measures don't work.
If there is I suspect it will be because the Mayor has asked for it more than because the Government have decided it necessary.
A countrywide lockdown is needed now.
Why? To avoid you being confused?
Merseyside is at risk of having full hospitals but nowhere else seems to be yet.
No, because cases are out of control.
Barely.
R of 1 or below is under control, R over 1 is exponential growth.
In March R was about 3, hence the national lockdown.
Currently R is estimated to be about 1.2 - so it is exponentially growing but not that fast.
If the Tiers system can get R back below 1 then cases will be under control again.
Exponential growth is exponential growth. Time is basically irrelevant unless you plan to get it down.
Therefore, we need another lockdown.
This is absolute nonsense. Your argument seems to be that only full national lockdown can reduce R rate below 1. Whereas any restrictions short of full national lockdown cannot.
But it's not even clear what you mean by full national lockdown. Because even the harshest viable measures have huge holes. Schools. People travelling and meeting at work. Social contact in shops. etc etc.
So if you can get R down below 1 with a "national lockdown" with holes, then by definition the issue is simply the size of the holes. Which brings into play local restrictions, varied depending on the severity of the current levels of virus spread. Your approach may speed things up. But do much more damage overall.
I have seldom observed a senior politician so clearly lying
Is blinking the new polygraph test for lying? Priti Patel can reintroduce hanging tomorrow! Now we've found this infallible test, there can be no more miscarriages of justice.
Well, yes. It's a known psychological fact that rapid blinking is a tell-tale sign of lying.
"Liars tend to blink more because lying is stressful. Under stress, eye blink rate increases (Mann, 2013)"
Yes but the trouble is there are other causes of stress than lying. If there were not then polygraphs would be reliable.
Do you honestly believe Sturgeon is telling the truth? Consider just one of her claims, about a meeting with a Salmond aide in 2019
"She said: "I had forgotten that this encounter had taken place until I was reminded of it in, I think, late January/early February 2019.
"For context, I think the meeting took place not long after the weekly session of FMQs and in the midst of a busy day in which I would have been dealing with a multitude of other matters.
"However, from what I recall, the discussion covered the fact that Alex Salmond wanted to see me urgently about a serious matter, and I think it did cover the suggestion that the matter might relate to allegations of a sexual nature.""
She is literally claiming she "forgot" a meeting where she was first told that her ex boss, the ex First Minister, her 30 year mentor, Alex Salmond, was accused of serious allegations of a sexual nature.
Yes, that's exactly the kind of meeting you would *forget*. Oh, the previous prime minister is an alleged rapist? Just another tiny detail that gets missed in a busy day
Did she first learn about the allegation on the 2nd of April or eons before on the... checks notes... 29th of March?
Truly it changes everything.
She is claiming she forgot the first meeting when she was told Alex Salmond was a bit rapey, and faced actual allegations to that end. It's utterly ludicrous.
Come on, you're smarter than this, as are we. She's lying, everyone can see she is lying, the question for sophisticated PBers is whether she can survive the lie.
She is a canny and durable politician, and she has the advantage of Covid as a huge diversion. She's got a good chance. She is one of Napoleon's "lucky generals".
There is also the very murky role her husband has played in Salmondgate. I reckon there's a lot more still to come out on this issue. Sturgeon looked impregnable a month or so ago but the mood has changed.
Agreed. And she has a formidable adversary in Salmond, who is clearly out for blood (and you can see why he is blisteringly angry even if he is a lecherous old git).
It's an excellent fight. The Sturgeon vs the Salmon. The former is bigger but the latter is iconic. A lot of Scot Nats will be Salmondites by instinct
Agreed. Sturgeon may have been respected and even admired whilst she appeared competent, trustworthy and honest. I doubt many Nats really love her though. Salmond and I think Cherry are hoping to undermine her reputation and then take advantage.
Yes, Salmond gets the love. He's the amazing guy who took the SNP from the fringe to indyref 1, in a single career, and very nearly won a truly remarkable prize. Sturgeon is efficient, and decent, but actually quite boring.
A horrible split beckons. Should be entertaining.
The inexhaustible supply of PB Scotch experts is truly remarkable.
'Poll finds Alex Salmond now almost as unpopular as Boris Johnson among Scots
Even among SNP supporters, Mr Salmond had an approval rating of -14, with 49% of the party’s voters having a negative view of him compared to 35% who thought favourably of him.'
Tsk. The point is blind loyalty. As a Nationalist you should know all about that.
Salmond has 35% of Nats still thinking favourably of him, despite his being accused of multiple sexual misdemeanours and actually admitting to some. That is his Pretorian Guard. In the end, many will follow him not her. He has a core of support and they are - as we know from Twitter and indyref - pretty brutal and pugliistic.
Tories love the new lockdown rules and think they're easy to follow, shocked
So which is the dreadfully complicated part of it all?
Are you allowed to mix with other households in pubs and restaurants?
Depends what tier you are in. Yes at the lowest level.
What about the other tiers?
No? Of course they are going to be dreadfully complicated if you don't actually read them.
Where does it say you can or can't? You're assuming because you don't know. As I said, complicated.
Seriously? The summary states:
The core of Tier One is the "Rule of Six" - viz only six people are allowed in a home or garden, or sitting at a pub table or restaurant table - and there is a 10pm curfew for pubs and restaurants.
It then goes on to say
Tier Two is largely Tier One minus the Rule of Six.
And remember, this is only a journalist's summary.
Home or garden, is that indoors? Outdoors only?
Your home is typically inside and your garden is outside. Now you are just trying to justify your claim that they are complicated.
They are complicated - you've assumed things that aren't there.
How does that assumption make it complicated? There are two scenarios, either you can socialise with the rule of six in pubs and restaurants in tier two, or you can't. Neither of those scenarios are complicated.
I've explained one example, the other is things that are guidance and the law.
It's needlessly complicated and the average person will just not listen
But that example isn't complicated. As for law vs. guidance, I suspect they didn't want to go down the route of making it illegal to see other people.
It is complicated.
Stay home save lives was easy.
This tier stuff is needlessly complicated for something that won't work. We need a full lockdown for everyone with the same rules.
Ah, I see. It's complicated because it isn't the policy you actually want.
I think a lot of other countries have managed with regional variations in their restrictions. There's even an element of that with the difference in approaches between the home nations.
The rules/guidance within the tiers are complicated.
The tiers themselves are complicated.
I would like to support a tier system but I can't because it won't work. We missed the boat on that months ago. A national lockdown is all that is left.
If the summary is accurate I don't see what part of it is confusing.
Tier 3 - pubs/restaurants closed, avoid non-essential travel, don't travel in/out Tier 2 - pubs/restaurants open, but limited to within househoud Tier 1 - rule of six.
It's totally confusing what is the law and what isn't, it's confusing what the tiers mean, it's confusing whether you can socialise indoors or not.
People don't even get the rule of six, Johnson did a good job making that confusing as well.
We need a simple system, or alternatively for the Government to sack Cummings and get some trust back.
Hands Face Space is the best they've done recently.
Or at least it was until Shagger was seen slapping the back of a Tory MP on his way out of PMQs. If the fucking PM can't be arsed to do Hands Face Space why should anyone else?
Fundamentally this is it. The trust from the public has gone.
In July we had a golden opportunity. Public were terrified to go outside.
The solution would have been a new slogan with new laws on what to do.
That should have been meetings outdoors only, in groups of six. Mandatory face coverings in all indoor spaces.
Restaurants/pubs open at lunchtime only.
That should have been in place for at least a month. Then we could have opened up more.
Instead we had Cummings and then about 9000 slogans and then HMG gave up altogether. Incompetence.
Incompetence or they're not as naive as you are.
How many pubs do you think can pay their bills and pay their staff from being open at lunchtime only?
Heck, could they even get through a keg of ale before it went off being open at lunctime only?
Tories love the new lockdown rules and think they're easy to follow, shocked
So which is the dreadfully complicated part of it all?
Are you allowed to mix with other households in pubs and restaurants?
Depends what tier you are in. Yes at the lowest level.
What about the other tiers?
No? Of course they are going to be dreadfully complicated if you don't actually read them.
Where does it say you can or can't? You're assuming because you don't know. As I said, complicated.
Seriously? The summary states:
The core of Tier One is the "Rule of Six" - viz only six people are allowed in a home or garden, or sitting at a pub table or restaurant table - and there is a 10pm curfew for pubs and restaurants.
It then goes on to say
Tier Two is largely Tier One minus the Rule of Six.
And remember, this is only a journalist's summary.
Home or garden, is that indoors? Outdoors only?
Your home is typically inside and your garden is outside. Now you are just trying to justify your claim that they are complicated.
They are complicated - you've assumed things that aren't there.
How does that assumption make it complicated? There are two scenarios, either you can socialise with the rule of six in pubs and restaurants in tier two, or you can't. Neither of those scenarios are complicated.
I've explained one example, the other is things that are guidance and the law.
It's needlessly complicated and the average person will just not listen
But that example isn't complicated. As for law vs. guidance, I suspect they didn't want to go down the route of making it illegal to see other people.
It is complicated.
Stay home save lives was easy.
This tier stuff is needlessly complicated for something that won't work. We need a full lockdown for everyone with the same rules.
Ah, I see. It's complicated because it isn't the policy you actually want.
I think a lot of other countries have managed with regional variations in their restrictions. There's even an element of that with the difference in approaches between the home nations.
The rules/guidance within the tiers are complicated.
The tiers themselves are complicated.
I would like to support a tier system but I can't because it won't work. We missed the boat on that months ago. A national lockdown is all that is left.
If the summary is accurate I don't see what part of it is confusing.
Tier 3 - pubs/restaurants closed, avoid non-essential travel, don't travel in/out Tier 2 - pubs/restaurants open, but limited to within househoud Tier 1 - rule of six.
It's totally confusing what is the law and what isn't, it's confusing what the tiers mean, it's confusing whether you can socialise indoors or not.
People don't even get the rule of six, Johnson did a good job making that confusing as well.
We need a simple system, or alternatively for the Government to sack Cummings and get some trust back.
Hands Face Space is the best they've done recently.
Or at least it was until Shagger was seen slapping the back of a Tory MP on his way out of PMQs. If the fucking PM can't be arsed to do Hands Face Space why should anyone else?
Fundamentally this is it. The trust from the public has gone.
In July we had a golden opportunity. Public were terrified to go outside.
The solution would have been a new slogan with new laws on what to do.
That should have been meetings outdoors only, in groups of six. Mandatory face coverings in all indoor spaces.
Restaurants/pubs open at lunchtime only.
That should have been in place for at least a month. Then we could have opened up more.
Instead we had Cummings and then about 9000 slogans and then HMG gave up altogether. Incompetence.
Incompetence or they're not as naive as you are.
How many pubs do you think can pay their bills and pay their staff from being open at lunchtime only?
Heck, could they even get through a keg of ale before it went off being open at lunctime only?
I should have added, Government support to hospitality.
If there is I suspect it will be because the Mayor has asked for it more than because the Government have decided it necessary.
A countrywide lockdown is needed now.
Why? To avoid you being confused?
Merseyside is at risk of having full hospitals but nowhere else seems to be yet.
No, because cases are out of control.
Barely.
R of 1 or below is under control, R over 1 is exponential growth.
In March R was about 3, hence the national lockdown.
Currently R is estimated to be about 1.2 - so it is exponentially growing but not that fast.
If the Tiers system can get R back below 1 then cases will be under control again.
Exponential growth is exponential growth. Time is basically irrelevant unless you plan to get it down.
Therefore, we need another lockdown.
This is absolute nonsense. Your argument seems to be that only full national lockdown can reduce R rate below 1. Whereas any restrictions short of full national lockdown cannot.
But it's not even clear what you mean by full national lockdown. Because even the harshest viable measures have huge holes. Schools. People travelling and meeting at work. Social contact in shops. etc etc.
So if you can get R down below 1 with a "national lockdown" with holes, then by definition the issue is simply the size of the holes. Which brings into play local restrictions, varied depending on the severity of the current levels of virus spread. Your approach may speed things up. But do much more damage overall.
The only thing in this country that got R below 1 was a national lockdown. End of story.
Another exile option come 21st January, added to Trump's list.
So the Orange Messiah was a yellow mole all along? I'm not saying he was, but has any other individual on this planet done more for the spread of the Chinavirus?
Indeed
Something that has always troubled me with Trump, was that during the Cold War he was allowed through the Iron Curtain without being troubled. This was at a time when anyone attempting to escape from East to West Germany was shot by the Stasi.
If there is I suspect it will be because the Mayor has asked for it more than because the Government have decided it necessary.
A countrywide lockdown is needed now.
Why? To avoid you being confused?
Merseyside is at risk of having full hospitals but nowhere else seems to be yet.
No, because cases are out of control.
Barely.
R of 1 or below is under control, R over 1 is exponential growth.
In March R was about 3, hence the national lockdown.
Currently R is estimated to be about 1.2 - so it is exponentially growing but not that fast.
If the Tiers system can get R back below 1 then cases will be under control again.
Exponential growth is exponential growth. Time is basically irrelevant unless you plan to get it down.
Therefore, we need another lockdown.
This is absolute nonsense. Your argument seems to be that only full national lockdown can reduce R rate below 1. Whereas any restrictions short of full national lockdown cannot.
But it's not even clear what you mean by full national lockdown. Because even the harshest viable measures have huge holes. Schools. People travelling and meeting at work. Social contact in shops. etc etc.
So if you can get R down below 1 with a "national lockdown" with holes, then by definition the issue is simply the size of the holes. Which brings into play local restrictions, varied depending on the severity of the current levels of virus spread. Your approach may speed things up. But do much more damage overall.
The only thing in this country that got R below 1 was a national lockdown. End of story.
I have seldom observed a senior politician so clearly lying
Is blinking the new polygraph test for lying? Priti Patel can reintroduce hanging tomorrow! Now we've found this infallible test, there can be no more miscarriages of justice.
Well, yes. It's a known psychological fact that rapid blinking is a tell-tale sign of lying.
"Liars tend to blink more because lying is stressful. Under stress, eye blink rate increases (Mann, 2013)"
Yes but the trouble is there are other causes of stress than lying. If there were not then polygraphs would be reliable.
Do you honestly believe Sturgeon is telling the truth? Consider just one of her claims, about a meeting with a Salmond aide in 2019
"She said: "I had forgotten that this encounter had taken place until I was reminded of it in, I think, late January/early February 2019.
"For context, I think the meeting took place not long after the weekly session of FMQs and in the midst of a busy day in which I would have been dealing with a multitude of other matters.
"However, from what I recall, the discussion covered the fact that Alex Salmond wanted to see me urgently about a serious matter, and I think it did cover the suggestion that the matter might relate to allegations of a sexual nature.""
She is literally claiming she "forgot" a meeting where she was first told that her ex boss, the ex First Minister, her 30 year mentor, Alex Salmond, was accused of serious allegations of a sexual nature.
Yes, that's exactly the kind of meeting you would *forget*. Oh, the previous prime minister is an alleged rapist? Just another tiny detail that gets missed in a busy day
Did she first learn about the allegation on the 2nd of April or eons before on the... checks notes... 29th of March?
Truly it changes everything.
She is claiming she forgot the first meeting when she was told Alex Salmond was a bit rapey, and faced actual allegations to that end. It's utterly ludicrous.
Come on, you're smarter than this, as are we. She's lying, everyone can see she is lying, the question for sophisticated PBers is whether she can survive the lie.
She is a canny and durable politician, and she has the advantage of Covid as a huge diversion. She's got a good chance. She is one of Napoleon's "lucky generals".
There is also the very murky role her husband has played in Salmondgate. I reckon there's a lot more still to come out on this issue. Sturgeon looked impregnable a month or so ago but the mood has changed.
Agreed. And she has a formidable adversary in Salmond, who is clearly out for blood (and you can see why he is blisteringly angry even if he is a lecherous old git).
It's an excellent fight. The Sturgeon vs the Salmon. The former is bigger but the latter is iconic. A lot of Scot Nats will be Salmondites by instinct
Hopefully her and her dodgy husband will be shown up for what they are very soon. Her days are numbered
Her interview on Sky was possibly the most awkward I have ever seen with a British politician. Or any politician.
People say I always follow the Labour line. I don't think I am following the Labour line here, nobody can accuse me of being Captain Hindsight if these measures don't work.
There won't be a new election until 2024 - this is not about party politics. Saying that Shagger is literally lethal is not an attack on the Tories because a Tory will replace him.
So why the partisan nonsense from the hyper-partisan loons on here? Does another stack of dead bodies and the Red Wall thrown on the skip make for good times in the future if you are a Tory?
If there is I suspect it will be because the Mayor has asked for it more than because the Government have decided it necessary.
A countrywide lockdown is needed now.
Why? To avoid you being confused?
Merseyside is at risk of having full hospitals but nowhere else seems to be yet.
No, because cases are out of control.
Barely.
R of 1 or below is under control, R over 1 is exponential growth.
In March R was about 3, hence the national lockdown.
Currently R is estimated to be about 1.2 - so it is exponentially growing but not that fast.
If the Tiers system can get R back below 1 then cases will be under control again.
Exponential growth is exponential growth. Time is basically irrelevant unless you plan to get it down.
Therefore, we need another lockdown.
This is absolute nonsense. Your argument seems to be that only full national lockdown can reduce R rate below 1. Whereas any restrictions short of full national lockdown cannot.
But it's not even clear what you mean by full national lockdown. Because even the harshest viable measures have huge holes. Schools. People travelling and meeting at work. Social contact in shops. etc etc.
So if you can get R down below 1 with a "national lockdown" with holes, then by definition the issue is simply the size of the holes. Which brings into play local restrictions, varied depending on the severity of the current levels of virus spread. Your approach may speed things up. But do much more damage overall.
The only thing in this country that got R below 1 was a national lockdown. End of story.
Well it's the only thing that has been tried when R was above 1.
If there is I suspect it will be because the Mayor has asked for it more than because the Government have decided it necessary.
A countrywide lockdown is needed now.
Why? To avoid you being confused?
Merseyside is at risk of having full hospitals but nowhere else seems to be yet.
No, because cases are out of control.
Barely.
R of 1 or below is under control, R over 1 is exponential growth.
In March R was about 3, hence the national lockdown.
Currently R is estimated to be about 1.2 - so it is exponentially growing but not that fast.
If the Tiers system can get R back below 1 then cases will be under control again.
Exponential growth is exponential growth. Time is basically irrelevant unless you plan to get it down.
Therefore, we need another lockdown.
This is absolute nonsense. Your argument seems to be that only full national lockdown can reduce R rate below 1. Whereas any restrictions short of full national lockdown cannot.
But it's not even clear what you mean by full national lockdown. Because even the harshest viable measures have huge holes. Schools. People travelling and meeting at work. Social contact in shops. etc etc.
So if you can get R down below 1 with a "national lockdown" with holes, then by definition the issue is simply the size of the holes. Which brings into play local restrictions, varied depending on the severity of the current levels of virus spread. Your approach may speed things up. But do much more damage overall.
The only thing in this country that got R below 1 was a national lockdown. End of story.
Just to be clear - you want to shut all the schools again? Bit tricky what to do with all the University students this time though. Might not be best at this moment to send them all home.
If there is I suspect it will be because the Mayor has asked for it more than because the Government have decided it necessary.
A countrywide lockdown is needed now.
Why? To avoid you being confused?
Merseyside is at risk of having full hospitals but nowhere else seems to be yet.
No, because cases are out of control.
Barely.
R of 1 or below is under control, R over 1 is exponential growth.
In March R was about 3, hence the national lockdown.
Currently R is estimated to be about 1.2 - so it is exponentially growing but not that fast.
If the Tiers system can get R back below 1 then cases will be under control again.
Exponential growth is exponential growth. Time is basically irrelevant unless you plan to get it down.
Therefore, we need another lockdown.
This is absolute nonsense. Your argument seems to be that only full national lockdown can reduce R rate below 1. Whereas any restrictions short of full national lockdown cannot.
But it's not even clear what you mean by full national lockdown. Because even the harshest viable measures have huge holes. Schools. People travelling and meeting at work. Social contact in shops. etc etc.
So if you can get R down below 1 with a "national lockdown" with holes, then by definition the issue is simply the size of the holes. Which brings into play local restrictions, varied depending on the severity of the current levels of virus spread. Your approach may speed things up. But do much more damage overall.
The only thing in this country that got R below 1 was a national lockdown. End of story.
Wrong.
End of story.
So what has worked since to get R under 1 then? Examples?
We got below 1 due to the national lockdown and the results of that kept it below 1 as the public was too scared to go outside. That means the national lockdown was responsible, as it was.
We opened up, cases went back up again because we opened up far too quickly. Johnson said get back to work, will all be over by Christmas.
If there is I suspect it will be because the Mayor has asked for it more than because the Government have decided it necessary.
A countrywide lockdown is needed now.
Why? To avoid you being confused?
Merseyside is at risk of having full hospitals but nowhere else seems to be yet.
No, because cases are out of control.
Barely.
R of 1 or below is under control, R over 1 is exponential growth.
In March R was about 3, hence the national lockdown.
Currently R is estimated to be about 1.2 - so it is exponentially growing but not that fast.
If the Tiers system can get R back below 1 then cases will be under control again.
Exponential growth is exponential growth. Time is basically irrelevant unless you plan to get it down.
Therefore, we need another lockdown.
This is absolute nonsense. Your argument seems to be that only full national lockdown can reduce R rate below 1. Whereas any restrictions short of full national lockdown cannot.
But it's not even clear what you mean by full national lockdown. Because even the harshest viable measures have huge holes. Schools. People travelling and meeting at work. Social contact in shops. etc etc.
So if you can get R down below 1 with a "national lockdown" with holes, then by definition the issue is simply the size of the holes. Which brings into play local restrictions, varied depending on the severity of the current levels of virus spread. Your approach may speed things up. But do much more damage overall.
The only thing in this country that got R below 1 was a national lockdown. End of story.
Just to be clear - you want to shut all the schools again? Bit tricky what to do with all the University students this time though. Might not be best at this moment to send them all home.
University should have been deferred for a year in favour of online learning. I said this at the time.
If there is I suspect it will be because the Mayor has asked for it more than because the Government have decided it necessary.
A countrywide lockdown is needed now.
Why? To avoid you being confused?
Merseyside is at risk of having full hospitals but nowhere else seems to be yet.
No, because cases are out of control.
Barely.
R of 1 or below is under control, R over 1 is exponential growth.
In March R was about 3, hence the national lockdown.
Currently R is estimated to be about 1.2 - so it is exponentially growing but not that fast.
If the Tiers system can get R back below 1 then cases will be under control again.
Exponential growth is exponential growth. Time is basically irrelevant unless you plan to get it down.
Therefore, we need another lockdown.
No it isn't. Doubling time of 11 days right now vs doubling time of 1.5 days in March. That's a world of difference.
You keep banging on about the need for a second lockdown, the first cost 22% of GDP and £300bn in borrowing, it had horrible secondary health effects and it's now thought people are more likely to die of cancer, heart attacks and strokes due to missed diagnosis/screening opportunities. It saw an explosion of mental health conditions and both physical and mental abuse, especially among children. Lockdown is a medicine that's worse than the disease. Whatever the third tier is, is effectively lockdown and it's a failure by all government departments that this is even under consideration. A national one would be a disaster.
If there is I suspect it will be because the Mayor has asked for it more than because the Government have decided it necessary.
A countrywide lockdown is needed now.
Why? To avoid you being confused?
Merseyside is at risk of having full hospitals but nowhere else seems to be yet.
No, because cases are out of control.
Barely.
R of 1 or below is under control, R over 1 is exponential growth.
In March R was about 3, hence the national lockdown.
Currently R is estimated to be about 1.2 - so it is exponentially growing but not that fast.
If the Tiers system can get R back below 1 then cases will be under control again.
Exponential growth is exponential growth. Time is basically irrelevant unless you plan to get it down.
Therefore, we need another lockdown.
No it isn't. Doubling time of 11 days right now vs doubling time of 1.5 days in March. That's a world of difference.
You keep banging on about the need for a second lockdown, the first cost 22% of GDP and £300bn in borrowing, it had horrible secondary health effects and it's now thought people are more likely to die of cancer, heart attacks and strokes due to missed diagnosis/screening opportunities. It saw an explosion of mental health conditions and both physical and mental abuse, especially among children. Lockdown is a medicine that's worse than the disease. Whatever the third tier is, is effectively lockdown and it's a failure by all government departments that this is even under consideration. A national one would be a disaster.
Tories love the new lockdown rules and think they're easy to follow, shocked
So which is the dreadfully complicated part of it all?
Are you allowed to mix with other households in pubs and restaurants?
Depends what tier you are in. Yes at the lowest level.
What about the other tiers?
No? Of course they are going to be dreadfully complicated if you don't actually read them.
Where does it say you can or can't? You're assuming because you don't know. As I said, complicated.
Seriously? The summary states:
The core of Tier One is the "Rule of Six" - viz only six people are allowed in a home or garden, or sitting at a pub table or restaurant table - and there is a 10pm curfew for pubs and restaurants.
It then goes on to say
Tier Two is largely Tier One minus the Rule of Six.
And remember, this is only a journalist's summary.
Home or garden, is that indoors? Outdoors only?
Your home is typically inside and your garden is outside. Now you are just trying to justify your claim that they are complicated.
They are complicated - you've assumed things that aren't there.
How does that assumption make it complicated? There are two scenarios, either you can socialise with the rule of six in pubs and restaurants in tier two, or you can't. Neither of those scenarios are complicated.
I've explained one example, the other is things that are guidance and the law.
It's needlessly complicated and the average person will just not listen
But that example isn't complicated. As for law vs. guidance, I suspect they didn't want to go down the route of making it illegal to see other people.
It is complicated.
Stay home save lives was easy.
This tier stuff is needlessly complicated for something that won't work. We need a full lockdown for everyone with the same rules.
Ah, I see. It's complicated because it isn't the policy you actually want.
I think a lot of other countries have managed with regional variations in their restrictions. There's even an element of that with the difference in approaches between the home nations.
The rules/guidance within the tiers are complicated.
The tiers themselves are complicated.
I would like to support a tier system but I can't because it won't work. We missed the boat on that months ago. A national lockdown is all that is left.
If the summary is accurate I don't see what part of it is confusing.
Tier 3 - pubs/restaurants closed, avoid non-essential travel, don't travel in/out Tier 2 - pubs/restaurants open, but limited to within househoud Tier 1 - rule of six.
It's totally confusing what is the law and what isn't, it's confusing what the tiers mean, it's confusing whether you can socialise indoors or not.
People don't even get the rule of six, Johnson did a good job making that confusing as well.
We need a simple system, or alternatively for the Government to sack Cummings and get some trust back.
Hands Face Space is the best they've done recently.
While this guidance/legality thing is important in terms of enforcement, quite why it would make it more confusing is beyond me. The government are clearly saying this is something you shouldn't be doing.
Confusing what the tiers mean? 1 is good, 3 is bad. There are only three of them, and there are only a small number of differences between the tier. I don't think they could make a multi-tiered system any easier actually.
So - serious question - if I as a Londoner am in Tier 2, how and where can I meet people from outside my very small household? Can I meet them in parks, pubs, restaurants, cafes, or not at all? Or at 2 metres distance on Hampstead High Street, or what?
If there is I suspect it will be because the Mayor has asked for it more than because the Government have decided it necessary.
A countrywide lockdown is needed now.
Why? To avoid you being confused?
Merseyside is at risk of having full hospitals but nowhere else seems to be yet.
No, because cases are out of control.
Barely.
R of 1 or below is under control, R over 1 is exponential growth.
In March R was about 3, hence the national lockdown.
Currently R is estimated to be about 1.2 - so it is exponentially growing but not that fast.
If the Tiers system can get R back below 1 then cases will be under control again.
Exponential growth is exponential growth. Time is basically irrelevant unless you plan to get it down.
Therefore, we need another lockdown.
That's a total logic fail.
More action is being taken with these measures, so if that is sufficient to get R back below 1 then the virus would be under control.
If that happens would we still need another lockdown?
Local lockdowns are already in place. Cases continue to rise.
The only thing that got R down was a national lockdown. We just came out too quickly.
You're wrong, R stayed at 1 or below long after we ended the national lockdown. We just need to get it back down there.
Because of the first lockdown, where people were terrified to go outside. The Tories squandered that as I said above.
My slow strategy would have done much better, instead Johnson said get back to work and the pub, all over by Christmas.
Even by your standards of supporting Johnson whatever, this is pathetic.
No people were not terrified to go outside by the end of lockdown, people were impatient to go outside even before lockdown was lifted. By VE weekend people were already holding street parties before that was legalised.
The idea that people were happy to stay inside is just nonsense. People won't do that forever and would never have done that forever.
Anyway R was at 1 or below after lockdown was lifted making your argument completely facetious.
If there is I suspect it will be because the Mayor has asked for it more than because the Government have decided it necessary.
A countrywide lockdown is needed now.
Why? To avoid you being confused?
Merseyside is at risk of having full hospitals but nowhere else seems to be yet.
No, because cases are out of control.
Barely.
R of 1 or below is under control, R over 1 is exponential growth.
In March R was about 3, hence the national lockdown.
Currently R is estimated to be about 1.2 - so it is exponentially growing but not that fast.
If the Tiers system can get R back below 1 then cases will be under control again.
Exponential growth is exponential growth. Time is basically irrelevant unless you plan to get it down.
Therefore, we need another lockdown.
This is absolute nonsense. Your argument seems to be that only full national lockdown can reduce R rate below 1. Whereas any restrictions short of full national lockdown cannot.
But it's not even clear what you mean by full national lockdown. Because even the harshest viable measures have huge holes. Schools. People travelling and meeting at work. Social contact in shops. etc etc.
So if you can get R down below 1 with a "national lockdown" with holes, then by definition the issue is simply the size of the holes. Which brings into play local restrictions, varied depending on the severity of the current levels of virus spread. Your approach may speed things up. But do much more damage overall.
The only thing in this country that got R below 1 was a national lockdown. End of story.
Just to be clear - you want to shut all the schools again? Bit tricky what to do with all the University students this time though. Might not be best at this moment to send them all home.
University should have been deferred for a year in favour of online learning. I said this at the time.
I did chemistry at university, it involved going into a lab and actually running experiments. How would I have done that online?
Exponential growth means given enough time, cases will keep increasing. Time is irrelevant unless you get the cases down and the R below 1.
We aren't, the cases continue to rise. Local lockdowns have failed.
National lockdown is all that is left. The economy is already in the toilet and isn't going to recover with COVID continuing to be around and the wind-down of furlough.
If there is I suspect it will be because the Mayor has asked for it more than because the Government have decided it necessary.
A countrywide lockdown is needed now.
Why? To avoid you being confused?
Merseyside is at risk of having full hospitals but nowhere else seems to be yet.
No, because cases are out of control.
Barely.
R of 1 or below is under control, R over 1 is exponential growth.
In March R was about 3, hence the national lockdown.
Currently R is estimated to be about 1.2 - so it is exponentially growing but not that fast.
If the Tiers system can get R back below 1 then cases will be under control again.
Exponential growth is exponential growth. Time is basically irrelevant unless you plan to get it down.
Therefore, we need another lockdown.
This is absolute nonsense. Your argument seems to be that only full national lockdown can reduce R rate below 1. Whereas any restrictions short of full national lockdown cannot.
But it's not even clear what you mean by full national lockdown. Because even the harshest viable measures have huge holes. Schools. People travelling and meeting at work. Social contact in shops. etc etc.
So if you can get R down below 1 with a "national lockdown" with holes, then by definition the issue is simply the size of the holes. Which brings into play local restrictions, varied depending on the severity of the current levels of virus spread. Your approach may speed things up. But do much more damage overall.
The only thing in this country that got R below 1 was a national lockdown. End of story.
Just to be clear - you want to shut all the schools again? Bit tricky what to do with all the University students this time though. Might not be best at this moment to send them all home.
University should have been deferred for a year in favour of online learning. I said this at the time.
I'm not talking about what should have happened. I'm talking about your "national lockdown NOW" policy.
BTW - you think all medical training should have been suspended for a year?
If there is I suspect it will be because the Mayor has asked for it more than because the Government have decided it necessary.
A countrywide lockdown is needed now.
Why? To avoid you being confused?
Merseyside is at risk of having full hospitals but nowhere else seems to be yet.
No, because cases are out of control.
Barely.
R of 1 or below is under control, R over 1 is exponential growth.
In March R was about 3, hence the national lockdown.
Currently R is estimated to be about 1.2 - so it is exponentially growing but not that fast.
If the Tiers system can get R back below 1 then cases will be under control again.
Exponential growth is exponential growth. Time is basically irrelevant unless you plan to get it down.
Therefore, we need another lockdown.
This is absolute nonsense. Your argument seems to be that only full national lockdown can reduce R rate below 1. Whereas any restrictions short of full national lockdown cannot.
But it's not even clear what you mean by full national lockdown. Because even the harshest viable measures have huge holes. Schools. People travelling and meeting at work. Social contact in shops. etc etc.
So if you can get R down below 1 with a "national lockdown" with holes, then by definition the issue is simply the size of the holes. Which brings into play local restrictions, varied depending on the severity of the current levels of virus spread. Your approach may speed things up. But do much more damage overall.
The only thing in this country that got R below 1 was a national lockdown. End of story.
Just to be clear - you want to shut all the schools again? Bit tricky what to do with all the University students this time though. Might not be best at this moment to send them all home.
University should have been deferred for a year in favour of online learning. I said this at the time.
I did chemistry at university, it involved going into a lab and actually running experiments. How would I have done that online?
In your case, the degree should have been deferred a year until you could use a lab.
Another exile option come 21st January, added to Trump's list.
So the Orange Messiah was a yellow mole all along? I'm not saying he was, but has any other individual on this planet done more for the spread of the Chinavirus?
Indeed
Something that has always troubled me with Trump, was that during the Cold War he was allowed through the Iron Curtain without being troubled. This was at a time when anyone attempting to escape from East to West Germany was shot by the Stasi.
Indeed.
I sometimes feel we have still some things to learn about the past - and present - of Donald J. Trump.
If there is I suspect it will be because the Mayor has asked for it more than because the Government have decided it necessary.
A countrywide lockdown is needed now.
Why? To avoid you being confused?
Merseyside is at risk of having full hospitals but nowhere else seems to be yet.
No, because cases are out of control.
Barely.
R of 1 or below is under control, R over 1 is exponential growth.
In March R was about 3, hence the national lockdown.
Currently R is estimated to be about 1.2 - so it is exponentially growing but not that fast.
If the Tiers system can get R back below 1 then cases will be under control again.
Exponential growth is exponential growth. Time is basically irrelevant unless you plan to get it down.
Therefore, we need another lockdown.
This is absolute nonsense. Your argument seems to be that only full national lockdown can reduce R rate below 1. Whereas any restrictions short of full national lockdown cannot.
But it's not even clear what you mean by full national lockdown. Because even the harshest viable measures have huge holes. Schools. People travelling and meeting at work. Social contact in shops. etc etc.
So if you can get R down below 1 with a "national lockdown" with holes, then by definition the issue is simply the size of the holes. Which brings into play local restrictions, varied depending on the severity of the current levels of virus spread. Your approach may speed things up. But do much more damage overall.
The only thing in this country that got R below 1 was a national lockdown. End of story.
Just to be clear - you want to shut all the schools again? Bit tricky what to do with all the University students this time though. Might not be best at this moment to send them all home.
University should have been deferred for a year in favour of online learning. I said this at the time.
I'm not talking about what should have happened. I'm talking about your "national lockdown NOW" policy.
BTW - you think all medical training should have been suspended for a year?
Yes, all study that could not have been done in person should have been suspended for a year. Perhaps six months might have been enough but definitely not going back this year.
If there is I suspect it will be because the Mayor has asked for it more than because the Government have decided it necessary.
A countrywide lockdown is needed now.
Why? To avoid you being confused?
Merseyside is at risk of having full hospitals but nowhere else seems to be yet.
No, because cases are out of control.
Barely.
R of 1 or below is under control, R over 1 is exponential growth.
In March R was about 3, hence the national lockdown.
Currently R is estimated to be about 1.2 - so it is exponentially growing but not that fast.
If the Tiers system can get R back below 1 then cases will be under control again.
Exponential growth is exponential growth. Time is basically irrelevant unless you plan to get it down.
Therefore, we need another lockdown.
No it isn't. Doubling time of 11 days right now vs doubling time of 1.5 days in March. That's a world of difference.
You keep banging on about the need for a second lockdown, the first cost 22% of GDP and £300bn in borrowing, it had horrible secondary health effects and it's now thought people are more likely to die of cancer, heart attacks and strokes due to missed diagnosis/screening opportunities. It saw an explosion of mental health conditions and both physical and mental abuse, especially among children. Lockdown is a medicine that's worse than the disease. Whatever the third tier is, is effectively lockdown and it's a failure by all government departments that this is even under consideration. A national one would be a disaster.
Then tell me how you get cases down.
Local lockdowns here have not worked.
Who says they've not worked?
Manchester numbers seem to have stabilised besides students. In which case it is working, Freshers Flu (Covid Edition) will burn through the student population but if it is under control in the rest of the nation then the local restrictions have done a great job.
Tories love the new lockdown rules and think they're easy to follow, shocked
So which is the dreadfully complicated part of it all?
Are you allowed to mix with other households in pubs and restaurants?
Depends what tier you are in. Yes at the lowest level.
What about the other tiers?
No? Of course they are going to be dreadfully complicated if you don't actually read them.
Where does it say you can or can't? You're assuming because you don't know. As I said, complicated.
Seriously? The summary states:
The core of Tier One is the "Rule of Six" - viz only six people are allowed in a home or garden, or sitting at a pub table or restaurant table - and there is a 10pm curfew for pubs and restaurants.
It then goes on to say
Tier Two is largely Tier One minus the Rule of Six.
And remember, this is only a journalist's summary.
Home or garden, is that indoors? Outdoors only?
Your home is typically inside and your garden is outside. Now you are just trying to justify your claim that they are complicated.
They are complicated - you've assumed things that aren't there.
How does that assumption make it complicated? There are two scenarios, either you can socialise with the rule of six in pubs and restaurants in tier two, or you can't. Neither of those scenarios are complicated.
I've explained one example, the other is things that are guidance and the law.
It's needlessly complicated and the average person will just not listen
But that example isn't complicated. As for law vs. guidance, I suspect they didn't want to go down the route of making it illegal to see other people.
It is complicated.
Stay home save lives was easy.
This tier stuff is needlessly complicated for something that won't work. We need a full lockdown for everyone with the same rules.
Ah, I see. It's complicated because it isn't the policy you actually want.
I think a lot of other countries have managed with regional variations in their restrictions. There's even an element of that with the difference in approaches between the home nations.
The rules/guidance within the tiers are complicated.
The tiers themselves are complicated.
I would like to support a tier system but I can't because it won't work. We missed the boat on that months ago. A national lockdown is all that is left.
If the summary is accurate I don't see what part of it is confusing.
Tier 3 - pubs/restaurants closed, avoid non-essential travel, don't travel in/out Tier 2 - pubs/restaurants open, but limited to within househoud Tier 1 - rule of six.
It's totally confusing what is the law and what isn't, it's confusing what the tiers mean, it's confusing whether you can socialise indoors or not.
People don't even get the rule of six, Johnson did a good job making that confusing as well.
We need a simple system, or alternatively for the Government to sack Cummings and get some trust back.
Hands Face Space is the best they've done recently.
While this guidance/legality thing is important in terms of enforcement, quite why it would make it more confusing is beyond me. The government are clearly saying this is something you shouldn't be doing.
Confusing what the tiers mean? 1 is good, 3 is bad. There are only three of them, and there are only a small number of differences between the tier. I don't think they could make a multi-tiered system any easier actually.
So - serious question - if I as a Londoner am in Tier 2, how and where can I meet people from outside my very small household? Can I meet them in parks, pubs, restaurants, cafes, or not at all? Or at 2 metres distance on Hampstead High Street, or what?
Here's a better description by the Guardian that may answer your question.
If there is I suspect it will be because the Mayor has asked for it more than because the Government have decided it necessary.
A countrywide lockdown is needed now.
Why? To avoid you being confused?
Merseyside is at risk of having full hospitals but nowhere else seems to be yet.
No, because cases are out of control.
Barely.
R of 1 or below is under control, R over 1 is exponential growth.
In March R was about 3, hence the national lockdown.
Currently R is estimated to be about 1.2 - so it is exponentially growing but not that fast.
If the Tiers system can get R back below 1 then cases will be under control again.
Exponential growth is exponential growth. Time is basically irrelevant unless you plan to get it down.
Therefore, we need another lockdown.
That's a total logic fail.
More action is being taken with these measures, so if that is sufficient to get R back below 1 then the virus would be under control.
If that happens would we still need another lockdown?
Local lockdowns are already in place. Cases continue to rise.
The only thing that got R down was a national lockdown. We just came out too quickly.
You're wrong, R stayed at 1 or below long after we ended the national lockdown. We just need to get it back down there.
Because of the first lockdown, where people were terrified to go outside. The Tories squandered that as I said above.
My slow strategy would have done much better, instead Johnson said get back to work and the pub, all over by Christmas.
Even by your standards of supporting Johnson whatever, this is pathetic.
No people were not terrified to go outside by the end of lockdown, people were impatient to go outside even before lockdown was lifted. By VE weekend people were already holding street parties before that was legalised.
The idea that people were happy to stay inside is just nonsense. People won't do that forever and would never have done that forever.
Anyway R was at 1 or below after lockdown was lifted making your argument completely facetious.
R was below 1 BECAUSE of the lockdown.
R before lockdown - above 1
R after lockdown - below 1
You're just doing your best to defend your hero BoJo, as usual.
Tories love the new lockdown rules and think they're easy to follow, shocked
So which is the dreadfully complicated part of it all?
Are you allowed to mix with other households in pubs and restaurants?
Depends what tier you are in. Yes at the lowest level.
What about the other tiers?
No? Of course they are going to be dreadfully complicated if you don't actually read them.
Where does it say you can or can't? You're assuming because you don't know. As I said, complicated.
Seriously? The summary states:
The core of Tier One is the "Rule of Six" - viz only six people are allowed in a home or garden, or sitting at a pub table or restaurant table - and there is a 10pm curfew for pubs and restaurants.
It then goes on to say
Tier Two is largely Tier One minus the Rule of Six.
And remember, this is only a journalist's summary.
Home or garden, is that indoors? Outdoors only?
Your home is typically inside and your garden is outside. Now you are just trying to justify your claim that they are complicated.
They are complicated - you've assumed things that aren't there.
How does that assumption make it complicated? There are two scenarios, either you can socialise with the rule of six in pubs and restaurants in tier two, or you can't. Neither of those scenarios are complicated.
I've explained one example, the other is things that are guidance and the law.
It's needlessly complicated and the average person will just not listen
But that example isn't complicated. As for law vs. guidance, I suspect they didn't want to go down the route of making it illegal to see other people.
It is complicated.
Stay home save lives was easy.
This tier stuff is needlessly complicated for something that won't work. We need a full lockdown for everyone with the same rules.
Ah, I see. It's complicated because it isn't the policy you actually want.
I think a lot of other countries have managed with regional variations in their restrictions. There's even an element of that with the difference in approaches between the home nations.
The rules/guidance within the tiers are complicated.
The tiers themselves are complicated.
I would like to support a tier system but I can't because it won't work. We missed the boat on that months ago. A national lockdown is all that is left.
If the summary is accurate I don't see what part of it is confusing.
Tier 3 - pubs/restaurants closed, avoid non-essential travel, don't travel in/out Tier 2 - pubs/restaurants open, but limited to within househoud Tier 1 - rule of six.
It's totally confusing what is the law and what isn't, it's confusing what the tiers mean, it's confusing whether you can socialise indoors or not.
People don't even get the rule of six, Johnson did a good job making that confusing as well.
We need a simple system, or alternatively for the Government to sack Cummings and get some trust back.
Hands Face Space is the best they've done recently.
While this guidance/legality thing is important in terms of enforcement, quite why it would make it more confusing is beyond me. The government are clearly saying this is something you shouldn't be doing.
Confusing what the tiers mean? 1 is good, 3 is bad. There are only three of them, and there are only a small number of differences between the tier. I don't think they could make a multi-tiered system any easier actually.
So - serious question - if I as a Londoner am in Tier 2, how and where can I meet people from outside my very small household? Can I meet them in parks, pubs, restaurants, cafes, or not at all? Or at 2 metres distance on Hampstead High Street, or what?
Have a little patience. All your questions will be answered tomorrow, I'm sure.
If there is I suspect it will be because the Mayor has asked for it more than because the Government have decided it necessary.
A countrywide lockdown is needed now.
Why? To avoid you being confused?
Merseyside is at risk of having full hospitals but nowhere else seems to be yet.
No, because cases are out of control.
Barely.
R of 1 or below is under control, R over 1 is exponential growth.
In March R was about 3, hence the national lockdown.
Currently R is estimated to be about 1.2 - so it is exponentially growing but not that fast.
If the Tiers system can get R back below 1 then cases will be under control again.
Exponential growth is exponential growth. Time is basically irrelevant unless you plan to get it down.
Therefore, we need another lockdown.
This is absolute nonsense. Your argument seems to be that only full national lockdown can reduce R rate below 1. Whereas any restrictions short of full national lockdown cannot.
But it's not even clear what you mean by full national lockdown. Because even the harshest viable measures have huge holes. Schools. People travelling and meeting at work. Social contact in shops. etc etc.
So if you can get R down below 1 with a "national lockdown" with holes, then by definition the issue is simply the size of the holes. Which brings into play local restrictions, varied depending on the severity of the current levels of virus spread. Your approach may speed things up. But do much more damage overall.
The only thing in this country that got R below 1 was a national lockdown. End of story.
Just to be clear - you want to shut all the schools again? Bit tricky what to do with all the University students this time though. Might not be best at this moment to send them all home.
University should have been deferred for a year in favour of online learning. I said this at the time.
I did chemistry at university, it involved going into a lab and actually running experiments. How would I have done that online?
In your case, the degree should have been deferred a year until you could use a lab.
What should he have done with himself in the mean time?
If there is I suspect it will be because the Mayor has asked for it more than because the Government have decided it necessary.
A countrywide lockdown is needed now.
Why? To avoid you being confused?
Merseyside is at risk of having full hospitals but nowhere else seems to be yet.
No, because cases are out of control.
Barely.
R of 1 or below is under control, R over 1 is exponential growth.
In March R was about 3, hence the national lockdown.
Currently R is estimated to be about 1.2 - so it is exponentially growing but not that fast.
If the Tiers system can get R back below 1 then cases will be under control again.
Exponential growth is exponential growth. Time is basically irrelevant unless you plan to get it down.
Therefore, we need another lockdown.
That's a total logic fail.
More action is being taken with these measures, so if that is sufficient to get R back below 1 then the virus would be under control.
If that happens would we still need another lockdown?
Local lockdowns are already in place. Cases continue to rise.
The only thing that got R down was a national lockdown. We just came out too quickly.
You're wrong, R stayed at 1 or below long after we ended the national lockdown. We just need to get it back down there.
Because of the first lockdown, where people were terrified to go outside. The Tories squandered that as I said above.
My slow strategy would have done much better, instead Johnson said get back to work and the pub, all over by Christmas.
Even by your standards of supporting Johnson whatever, this is pathetic.
No people were not terrified to go outside by the end of lockdown, people were impatient to go outside even before lockdown was lifted. By VE weekend people were already holding street parties before that was legalised.
The idea that people were happy to stay inside is just nonsense. People won't do that forever and would never have done that forever.
Anyway R was at 1 or below after lockdown was lifted making your argument completely facetious.
R was below 1 BECAUSE of the lockdown.
R before lockdown - above 1
R after lockdown - below 1
You're just doing your best to defend your hero BoJo, as usual.
If there is I suspect it will be because the Mayor has asked for it more than because the Government have decided it necessary.
A countrywide lockdown is needed now.
Why? To avoid you being confused?
Merseyside is at risk of having full hospitals but nowhere else seems to be yet.
No, because cases are out of control.
Barely.
R of 1 or below is under control, R over 1 is exponential growth.
In March R was about 3, hence the national lockdown.
Currently R is estimated to be about 1.2 - so it is exponentially growing but not that fast.
If the Tiers system can get R back below 1 then cases will be under control again.
Exponential growth is exponential growth. Time is basically irrelevant unless you plan to get it down.
Therefore, we need another lockdown.
That's a total logic fail.
More action is being taken with these measures, so if that is sufficient to get R back below 1 then the virus would be under control.
If that happens would we still need another lockdown?
Local lockdowns are already in place. Cases continue to rise.
The only thing that got R down was a national lockdown. We just came out too quickly.
You're wrong, R stayed at 1 or below long after we ended the national lockdown. We just need to get it back down there.
Because of the first lockdown, where people were terrified to go outside. The Tories squandered that as I said above.
My slow strategy would have done much better, instead Johnson said get back to work and the pub, all over by Christmas.
Even by your standards of supporting Johnson whatever, this is pathetic.
No people were not terrified to go outside by the end of lockdown, people were impatient to go outside even before lockdown was lifted. By VE weekend people were already holding street parties before that was legalised.
The idea that people were happy to stay inside is just nonsense. People won't do that forever and would never have done that forever.
Anyway R was at 1 or below after lockdown was lifted making your argument completely facetious.
R was below 1 BECAUSE of the lockdown.
R before lockdown - above 1
R after lockdown - below 1
You're just doing your best to defend your hero BoJo, as usual.
You're wrong and everyone can see you're wrong. This is embarrassing for you.
When did R go above 1? When did national lockdown end?
Just answer those two questions with dates please.
Tories love the new lockdown rules and think they're easy to follow, shocked
So which is the dreadfully complicated part of it all?
Are you allowed to mix with other households in pubs and restaurants?
Depends what tier you are in. Yes at the lowest level.
What about the other tiers?
No? Of course they are going to be dreadfully complicated if you don't actually read them.
Where does it say you can or can't? You're assuming because you don't know. As I said, complicated.
Seriously? The summary states:
The core of Tier One is the "Rule of Six" - viz only six people are allowed in a home or garden, or sitting at a pub table or restaurant table - and there is a 10pm curfew for pubs and restaurants.
It then goes on to say
Tier Two is largely Tier One minus the Rule of Six.
And remember, this is only a journalist's summary.
Home or garden, is that indoors? Outdoors only?
Your home is typically inside and your garden is outside. Now you are just trying to justify your claim that they are complicated.
They are complicated - you've assumed things that aren't there.
How does that assumption make it complicated? There are two scenarios, either you can socialise with the rule of six in pubs and restaurants in tier two, or you can't. Neither of those scenarios are complicated.
I've explained one example, the other is things that are guidance and the law.
It's needlessly complicated and the average person will just not listen
But that example isn't complicated. As for law vs. guidance, I suspect they didn't want to go down the route of making it illegal to see other people.
It is complicated.
Stay home save lives was easy.
This tier stuff is needlessly complicated for something that won't work. We need a full lockdown for everyone with the same rules.
Ah, I see. It's complicated because it isn't the policy you actually want.
I think a lot of other countries have managed with regional variations in their restrictions. There's even an element of that with the difference in approaches between the home nations.
The rules/guidance within the tiers are complicated.
The tiers themselves are complicated.
I would like to support a tier system but I can't because it won't work. We missed the boat on that months ago. A national lockdown is all that is left.
If the summary is accurate I don't see what part of it is confusing.
Tier 3 - pubs/restaurants closed, avoid non-essential travel, don't travel in/out Tier 2 - pubs/restaurants open, but limited to within househoud Tier 1 - rule of six.
It's totally confusing what is the law and what isn't, it's confusing what the tiers mean, it's confusing whether you can socialise indoors or not.
People don't even get the rule of six, Johnson did a good job making that confusing as well.
We need a simple system, or alternatively for the Government to sack Cummings and get some trust back.
Hands Face Space is the best they've done recently.
While this guidance/legality thing is important in terms of enforcement, quite why it would make it more confusing is beyond me. The government are clearly saying this is something you shouldn't be doing.
Confusing what the tiers mean? 1 is good, 3 is bad. There are only three of them, and there are only a small number of differences between the tier. I don't think they could make a multi-tiered system any easier actually.
So - serious question - if I as a Londoner am in Tier 2, how and where can I meet people from outside my very small household? Can I meet them in parks, pubs, restaurants, cafes, or not at all? Or at 2 metres distance on Hampstead High Street, or what?
We don't know. As I said above or below, in the NE we are not supposed to meet anyone outside our household to socialise either indoors or out. This is not the case in Manchester. However, both are Tier 2 apparently. All will become crystal when the PM speaks I don't doubt.
If there is I suspect it will be because the Mayor has asked for it more than because the Government have decided it necessary.
A countrywide lockdown is needed now.
Why? To avoid you being confused?
Merseyside is at risk of having full hospitals but nowhere else seems to be yet.
No, because cases are out of control.
Barely.
R of 1 or below is under control, R over 1 is exponential growth.
In March R was about 3, hence the national lockdown.
Currently R is estimated to be about 1.2 - so it is exponentially growing but not that fast.
If the Tiers system can get R back below 1 then cases will be under control again.
Exponential growth is exponential growth. Time is basically irrelevant unless you plan to get it down.
Therefore, we need another lockdown.
No it isn't. Doubling time of 11 days right now vs doubling time of 1.5 days in March. That's a world of difference.
You keep banging on about the need for a second lockdown, the first cost 22% of GDP and £300bn in borrowing, it had horrible secondary health effects and it's now thought people are more likely to die of cancer, heart attacks and strokes due to missed diagnosis/screening opportunities. It saw an explosion of mental health conditions and both physical and mental abuse, especially among children. Lockdown is a medicine that's worse than the disease. Whatever the third tier is, is effectively lockdown and it's a failure by all government departments that this is even under consideration. A national one would be a disaster.
Then tell me how you get cases down.
Local lockdowns here have not worked.
The R has begun to fall already. Last week we had a doubling time of around 9 days, when the scientists gave their doom lecture it was 7 days (hence the chart of doom), it's about 11 days right now judging by hospital admissions, maybe even 12 or 13 days going on cases.
The case for a second national lockdown hasn't been proven. This isn't March, we're not at R=3, we're at 1.2 and falling. You do understand the difference, yes?
If there is I suspect it will be because the Mayor has asked for it more than because the Government have decided it necessary.
A countrywide lockdown is needed now.
Why? To avoid you being confused?
Merseyside is at risk of having full hospitals but nowhere else seems to be yet.
No, because cases are out of control.
Barely.
R of 1 or below is under control, R over 1 is exponential growth.
In March R was about 3, hence the national lockdown.
Currently R is estimated to be about 1.2 - so it is exponentially growing but not that fast.
If the Tiers system can get R back below 1 then cases will be under control again.
Exponential growth is exponential growth. Time is basically irrelevant unless you plan to get it down.
Therefore, we need another lockdown.
That's a total logic fail.
More action is being taken with these measures, so if that is sufficient to get R back below 1 then the virus would be under control.
If that happens would we still need another lockdown?
Local lockdowns are already in place. Cases continue to rise.
The only thing that got R down was a national lockdown. We just came out too quickly.
You're wrong, R stayed at 1 or below long after we ended the national lockdown. We just need to get it back down there.
Because of the first lockdown, where people were terrified to go outside. The Tories squandered that as I said above.
My slow strategy would have done much better, instead Johnson said get back to work and the pub, all over by Christmas.
Even by your standards of supporting Johnson whatever, this is pathetic.
No people were not terrified to go outside by the end of lockdown, people were impatient to go outside even before lockdown was lifted. By VE weekend people were already holding street parties before that was legalised.
The idea that people were happy to stay inside is just nonsense. People won't do that forever and would never have done that forever.
Anyway R was at 1 or below after lockdown was lifted making your argument completely facetious.
R was below 1 BECAUSE of the lockdown.
R before lockdown - above 1
R after lockdown - below 1
You're just doing your best to defend your hero BoJo, as usual.
You're wrong and everyone can see you're wrong. This is embarrassing for you.
When did R go above 1? When did national lockdown end?
Just answer those two questions with dates please.
He also wants to put in place a national lockdown now on the basis of the "success" of the lockdown in March, even though it is not realistic to replicate the conditions of the lockdown in March. Because schools, universities with loads of Covid etc.
Tories love the new lockdown rules and think they're easy to follow, shocked
So which is the dreadfully complicated part of it all?
Are you allowed to mix with other households in pubs and restaurants?
Depends what tier you are in. Yes at the lowest level.
What about the other tiers?
No? Of course they are going to be dreadfully complicated if you don't actually read them.
Where does it say you can or can't? You're assuming because you don't know. As I said, complicated.
Seriously? The summary states:
The core of Tier One is the "Rule of Six" - viz only six people are allowed in a home or garden, or sitting at a pub table or restaurant table - and there is a 10pm curfew for pubs and restaurants.
It then goes on to say
Tier Two is largely Tier One minus the Rule of Six.
And remember, this is only a journalist's summary.
Home or garden, is that indoors? Outdoors only?
Your home is typically inside and your garden is outside. Now you are just trying to justify your claim that they are complicated.
They are complicated - you've assumed things that aren't there.
How does that assumption make it complicated? There are two scenarios, either you can socialise with the rule of six in pubs and restaurants in tier two, or you can't. Neither of those scenarios are complicated.
I've explained one example, the other is things that are guidance and the law.
It's needlessly complicated and the average person will just not listen
But that example isn't complicated. As for law vs. guidance, I suspect they didn't want to go down the route of making it illegal to see other people.
It is complicated.
Stay home save lives was easy.
This tier stuff is needlessly complicated for something that won't work. We need a full lockdown for everyone with the same rules.
Ah, I see. It's complicated because it isn't the policy you actually want.
I think a lot of other countries have managed with regional variations in their restrictions. There's even an element of that with the difference in approaches between the home nations.
The rules/guidance within the tiers are complicated.
The tiers themselves are complicated.
I would like to support a tier system but I can't because it won't work. We missed the boat on that months ago. A national lockdown is all that is left.
If the summary is accurate I don't see what part of it is confusing.
Tier 3 - pubs/restaurants closed, avoid non-essential travel, don't travel in/out Tier 2 - pubs/restaurants open, but limited to within househoud Tier 1 - rule of six.
It's totally confusing what is the law and what isn't, it's confusing what the tiers mean, it's confusing whether you can socialise indoors or not.
People don't even get the rule of six, Johnson did a good job making that confusing as well.
We need a simple system, or alternatively for the Government to sack Cummings and get some trust back.
Hands Face Space is the best they've done recently.
While this guidance/legality thing is important in terms of enforcement, quite why it would make it more confusing is beyond me. The government are clearly saying this is something you shouldn't be doing.
Confusing what the tiers mean? 1 is good, 3 is bad. There are only three of them, and there are only a small number of differences between the tier. I don't think they could make a multi-tiered system any easier actually.
So - serious question - if I as a Londoner am in Tier 2, how and where can I meet people from outside my very small household? Can I meet them in parks, pubs, restaurants, cafes, or not at all? Or at 2 metres distance on Hampstead High Street, or what?
Here's a better description by the Guardian that may answer your question.
So, yes, you can't meet anyone outside your house in "hospitality settings".
If that is actually enforced, it means the certain bankruptcy of almost every restaurant and pub in London. Who goes to the pub, or a restaurant, to have a dinner with their family or flatmates, a dinner or drink that they could have at home, cheaper? Especially during a plague?
It's mad. It is a law designed to be flouted. Or it is a law to send pubs and restos to the wall, without having to bail them out.
I'd prefer it if my government was honest, and just said this.
Tories love the new lockdown rules and think they're easy to follow, shocked
So which is the dreadfully complicated part of it all?
Are you allowed to mix with other households in pubs and restaurants?
Depends what tier you are in. Yes at the lowest level.
What about the other tiers?
No? Of course they are going to be dreadfully complicated if you don't actually read them.
Where does it say you can or can't? You're assuming because you don't know. As I said, complicated.
Seriously? The summary states:
The core of Tier One is the "Rule of Six" - viz only six people are allowed in a home or garden, or sitting at a pub table or restaurant table - and there is a 10pm curfew for pubs and restaurants.
It then goes on to say
Tier Two is largely Tier One minus the Rule of Six.
And remember, this is only a journalist's summary.
Home or garden, is that indoors? Outdoors only?
Your home is typically inside and your garden is outside. Now you are just trying to justify your claim that they are complicated.
They are complicated - you've assumed things that aren't there.
How does that assumption make it complicated? There are two scenarios, either you can socialise with the rule of six in pubs and restaurants in tier two, or you can't. Neither of those scenarios are complicated.
I've explained one example, the other is things that are guidance and the law.
It's needlessly complicated and the average person will just not listen
But that example isn't complicated. As for law vs. guidance, I suspect they didn't want to go down the route of making it illegal to see other people.
It is complicated.
Stay home save lives was easy.
This tier stuff is needlessly complicated for something that won't work. We need a full lockdown for everyone with the same rules.
Ah, I see. It's complicated because it isn't the policy you actually want.
I think a lot of other countries have managed with regional variations in their restrictions. There's even an element of that with the difference in approaches between the home nations.
The rules/guidance within the tiers are complicated.
The tiers themselves are complicated.
I would like to support a tier system but I can't because it won't work. We missed the boat on that months ago. A national lockdown is all that is left.
If the summary is accurate I don't see what part of it is confusing.
Tier 3 - pubs/restaurants closed, avoid non-essential travel, don't travel in/out Tier 2 - pubs/restaurants open, but limited to within househoud Tier 1 - rule of six.
It's totally confusing what is the law and what isn't, it's confusing what the tiers mean, it's confusing whether you can socialise indoors or not.
People don't even get the rule of six, Johnson did a good job making that confusing as well.
We need a simple system, or alternatively for the Government to sack Cummings and get some trust back.
Hands Face Space is the best they've done recently.
While this guidance/legality thing is important in terms of enforcement, quite why it would make it more confusing is beyond me. The government are clearly saying this is something you shouldn't be doing.
Confusing what the tiers mean? 1 is good, 3 is bad. There are only three of them, and there are only a small number of differences between the tier. I don't think they could make a multi-tiered system any easier actually.
So - serious question - if I as a Londoner am in Tier 2, how and where can I meet people from outside my very small household? Can I meet them in parks, pubs, restaurants, cafes, or not at all? Or at 2 metres distance on Hampstead High Street, or what?
We don't know. As I said above or below, in the NE we are not supposed to meet anyone outside our household to socialise either indoors or out. This is not the case in Manchester. However, both are Tier 2 apparently. All will become crystal when the PM speaks I don't doubt.
Isn't it likely that the restrictions will just be standardised? Well, it's what I would do.
If there is I suspect it will be because the Mayor has asked for it more than because the Government have decided it necessary.
A countrywide lockdown is needed now.
Why? To avoid you being confused?
Merseyside is at risk of having full hospitals but nowhere else seems to be yet.
No, because cases are out of control.
Barely.
R of 1 or below is under control, R over 1 is exponential growth.
In March R was about 3, hence the national lockdown.
Currently R is estimated to be about 1.2 - so it is exponentially growing but not that fast.
If the Tiers system can get R back below 1 then cases will be under control again.
Exponential growth is exponential growth. Time is basically irrelevant unless you plan to get it down.
Therefore, we need another lockdown.
No it isn't. Doubling time of 11 days right now vs doubling time of 1.5 days in March. That's a world of difference.
You keep banging on about the need for a second lockdown, the first cost 22% of GDP and £300bn in borrowing, it had horrible secondary health effects and it's now thought people are more likely to die of cancer, heart attacks and strokes due to missed diagnosis/screening opportunities. It saw an explosion of mental health conditions and both physical and mental abuse, especially among children. Lockdown is a medicine that's worse than the disease. Whatever the third tier is, is effectively lockdown and it's a failure by all government departments that this is even under consideration. A national one would be a disaster.
Then tell me how you get cases down.
Local lockdowns here have not worked.
The R has begun to fall already. Last week we had a doubling time of around 9 days, when the scientists gave their doom lecture it was 7 days (hence the chart of doom), it's about 11 days right now judging by hospital admissions, maybe even 12 or 13 days going on cases.
The case for a second national lockdown hasn't been proven. This isn't March, we're not at R=3, we're at 1.2 and falling. You do understand the difference, yes?
Precisely. We don't need a sledgehammer approach. A tweak to R getting it back below 1 will be sufficient, there is no need for overkill.
The whole series is fascinating but no-one seems to care. Perhaps it is priced in that Trump is a crook. The NYT link I posted earlier today about Vegas included one payment whose accounting was amusingly described as either tax fraud or an illegal campaign contribution.
What it does do is lend credence to the theory -- albeit the version posted yesterday was clearly fake news -- that Trump might step down in return for a pardon. (Tbh I suspect that even if he does carry on to the end (and lose), Biden might pardon him anyway in order to protect the institution of the presidency, but Trump might not feel he can rely on that.)
Why would pardoning a criminal protect the institution ?
Tories love the new lockdown rules and think they're easy to follow, shocked
So which is the dreadfully complicated part of it all?
Are you allowed to mix with other households in pubs and restaurants?
Depends what tier you are in. Yes at the lowest level.
What about the other tiers?
No? Of course they are going to be dreadfully complicated if you don't actually read them.
Where does it say you can or can't? You're assuming because you don't know. As I said, complicated.
Seriously? The summary states:
The core of Tier One is the "Rule of Six" - viz only six people are allowed in a home or garden, or sitting at a pub table or restaurant table - and there is a 10pm curfew for pubs and restaurants.
It then goes on to say
Tier Two is largely Tier One minus the Rule of Six.
And remember, this is only a journalist's summary.
Home or garden, is that indoors? Outdoors only?
Your home is typically inside and your garden is outside. Now you are just trying to justify your claim that they are complicated.
They are complicated - you've assumed things that aren't there.
How does that assumption make it complicated? There are two scenarios, either you can socialise with the rule of six in pubs and restaurants in tier two, or you can't. Neither of those scenarios are complicated.
I've explained one example, the other is things that are guidance and the law.
It's needlessly complicated and the average person will just not listen
But that example isn't complicated. As for law vs. guidance, I suspect they didn't want to go down the route of making it illegal to see other people.
It is complicated.
Stay home save lives was easy.
This tier stuff is needlessly complicated for something that won't work. We need a full lockdown for everyone with the same rules.
Ah, I see. It's complicated because it isn't the policy you actually want.
I think a lot of other countries have managed with regional variations in their restrictions. There's even an element of that with the difference in approaches between the home nations.
The rules/guidance within the tiers are complicated.
The tiers themselves are complicated.
I would like to support a tier system but I can't because it won't work. We missed the boat on that months ago. A national lockdown is all that is left.
If the summary is accurate I don't see what part of it is confusing.
Tier 3 - pubs/restaurants closed, avoid non-essential travel, don't travel in/out Tier 2 - pubs/restaurants open, but limited to within househoud Tier 1 - rule of six.
It's totally confusing what is the law and what isn't, it's confusing what the tiers mean, it's confusing whether you can socialise indoors or not.
People don't even get the rule of six, Johnson did a good job making that confusing as well.
We need a simple system, or alternatively for the Government to sack Cummings and get some trust back.
Hands Face Space is the best they've done recently.
While this guidance/legality thing is important in terms of enforcement, quite why it would make it more confusing is beyond me. The government are clearly saying this is something you shouldn't be doing.
Confusing what the tiers mean? 1 is good, 3 is bad. There are only three of them, and there are only a small number of differences between the tier. I don't think they could make a multi-tiered system any easier actually.
So - serious question - if I as a Londoner am in Tier 2, how and where can I meet people from outside my very small household? Can I meet them in parks, pubs, restaurants, cafes, or not at all? Or at 2 metres distance on Hampstead High Street, or what?
You didn’t even stay at home the first time, when it was regulation, so it isn’t obvious why you should be worrying about a load of new stuff that is almost entirely guidance, with nothing compelling you to observe it except your own sense of responsibility.
If there is I suspect it will be because the Mayor has asked for it more than because the Government have decided it necessary.
A countrywide lockdown is needed now.
Why? To avoid you being confused?
Merseyside is at risk of having full hospitals but nowhere else seems to be yet.
I hear rumours....
Wife went to the Royal (City Centre) last week. Problems with eyes. Seen by St. Paul's eye unit. Nurses tell her loads of cases again and wards full.
Fazarkerly appears to be close to being overwhelmed. Wards that aren't Covid wards are being used for Covid patients.
Know a nurse who works in a hospital (not sure which one - might be Fazarkerly) who tells me that they may have to start turning people away (to go home and die).
Don't know about Arrowe Park or South Liverpool, though I have a cousin who works in Arrowe Park and she's resumed her heavy 'STAY THE F*CK HOME' postings on Facebook which may give some clue.....
If there is I suspect it will be because the Mayor has asked for it more than because the Government have decided it necessary.
A countrywide lockdown is needed now.
Why? To avoid you being confused?
Merseyside is at risk of having full hospitals but nowhere else seems to be yet.
No, because cases are out of control.
Barely.
R of 1 or below is under control, R over 1 is exponential growth.
In March R was about 3, hence the national lockdown.
Currently R is estimated to be about 1.2 - so it is exponentially growing but not that fast.
If the Tiers system can get R back below 1 then cases will be under control again.
Exponential growth is exponential growth. Time is basically irrelevant unless you plan to get it down.
Therefore, we need another lockdown.
That's a total logic fail.
More action is being taken with these measures, so if that is sufficient to get R back below 1 then the virus would be under control.
If that happens would we still need another lockdown?
Local lockdowns are already in place. Cases continue to rise.
The only thing that got R down was a national lockdown. We just came out too quickly.
You're wrong, R stayed at 1 or below long after we ended the national lockdown. We just need to get it back down there.
Unfortunately, we've added schools, universities and horrible autumn weather to the mix, all of which have piled onto R. Something has to compensate. In an ideal world, that would be contact tracing, but that got lost in the rush to improve the "number of tests done" tractor statistics.
And whilst the idea of gently turning the restrictions dial up until we return to R = 1 is attractive, it doesn't really work like that. Exponential growth is still exponential growth. It's a good thing that the doubling time is running at 10 - 12 days or so and not much faster, but that's still 3 doublings in a month, and 3 doublings from here takes the UK back to where we were at the end of March. Over-reacting now is better than having to really over-react in a few weeks time.
If there is I suspect it will be because the Mayor has asked for it more than because the Government have decided it necessary.
A countrywide lockdown is needed now.
Why? To avoid you being confused?
Merseyside is at risk of having full hospitals but nowhere else seems to be yet.
No, because cases are out of control.
Barely.
R of 1 or below is under control, R over 1 is exponential growth.
In March R was about 3, hence the national lockdown.
Currently R is estimated to be about 1.2 - so it is exponentially growing but not that fast.
If the Tiers system can get R back below 1 then cases will be under control again.
Exponential growth is exponential growth. Time is basically irrelevant unless you plan to get it down.
Therefore, we need another lockdown.
That's a total logic fail.
More action is being taken with these measures, so if that is sufficient to get R back below 1 then the virus would be under control.
If that happens would we still need another lockdown?
Local lockdowns are already in place. Cases continue to rise.
The only thing that got R down was a national lockdown. We just came out too quickly.
You're wrong, R stayed at 1 or below long after we ended the national lockdown. We just need to get it back down there.
Because of the first lockdown, where people were terrified to go outside. The Tories squandered that as I said above.
My slow strategy would have done much better, instead Johnson said get back to work and the pub, all over by Christmas.
Even by your standards of supporting Johnson whatever, this is pathetic.
No people were not terrified to go outside by the end of lockdown, people were impatient to go outside even before lockdown was lifted. By VE weekend people were already holding street parties before that was legalised.
The idea that people were happy to stay inside is just nonsense. People won't do that forever and would never have done that forever.
Anyway R was at 1 or below after lockdown was lifted making your argument completely facetious.
R was below 1 BECAUSE of the lockdown.
R before lockdown - above 1
R after lockdown - below 1
You're just doing your best to defend your hero BoJo, as usual.
You're wrong and everyone can see you're wrong. This is embarrassing for you.
When did R go above 1? When did national lockdown end?
Just answer those two questions with dates please.
R went above one when the boozers reopened. And the government bribed folk to go.
If there is I suspect it will be because the Mayor has asked for it more than because the Government have decided it necessary.
A countrywide lockdown is needed now.
Why? To avoid you being confused?
Merseyside is at risk of having full hospitals but nowhere else seems to be yet.
I hear rumours....
Wife went to the Royal (City Centre) last week. Problems with eyes. Seen by St. Paul's eye unit. Nurses tell her loads of cases again and wards full.
Fazarkerly appears to be close to being overwhelmed. Wards that aren't Covid wards are being used for Covid patients.
Know a nurse who works in a hospital (not sure which one - might be Fazarkerly) who tells me that they may have to start turning people away (to go home and die).
Don't know about Arrowe Park or South Liverpool, though I have a cousin who works in Arrowe Park and she's resumed her heavy 'STAY THE F*CK HOME' postings on Facebook which may give some clue.....
Indeed. There is a reason Merseyside is going to be in Tier 3 definitely and there's no chance of watching the Merseyside Derby next weekend in a local pub.
If there is I suspect it will be because the Mayor has asked for it more than because the Government have decided it necessary.
A countrywide lockdown is needed now.
Why? To avoid you being confused?
Merseyside is at risk of having full hospitals but nowhere else seems to be yet.
No, because cases are out of control.
Barely.
R of 1 or below is under control, R over 1 is exponential growth.
In March R was about 3, hence the national lockdown.
Currently R is estimated to be about 1.2 - so it is exponentially growing but not that fast.
If the Tiers system can get R back below 1 then cases will be under control again.
Exponential growth is exponential growth. Time is basically irrelevant unless you plan to get it down.
Therefore, we need another lockdown.
No it isn't. Doubling time of 11 days right now vs doubling time of 1.5 days in March. That's a world of difference.
You keep banging on about the need for a second lockdown, the first cost 22% of GDP and £300bn in borrowing, it had horrible secondary health effects and it's now thought people are more likely to die of cancer, heart attacks and strokes due to missed diagnosis/screening opportunities. It saw an explosion of mental health conditions and both physical and mental abuse, especially among children. Lockdown is a medicine that's worse than the disease. Whatever the third tier is, is effectively lockdown and it's a failure by all government departments that this is even under consideration. A national one would be a disaster.
Then tell me how you get cases down.
Local lockdowns here have not worked.
The R has begun to fall already. Last week we had a doubling time of around 9 days, when the scientists gave their doom lecture it was 7 days (hence the chart of doom), it's about 11 days right now judging by hospital admissions, maybe even 12 or 13 days going on cases.
The case for a second national lockdown hasn't been proven. This isn't March, we're not at R=3, we're at 1.2 and falling. You do understand the difference, yes?
He doesn't seem to understand that R=1 isn't an impenetrable barrier. R=1 doesn't even have any special status as a barrier. There is no reason why going from R=1.2 to R=1.1 is any easier or harder than going from R=1.05 to R=0,95. If you can do the former, you can do the latter.
He's probably right that in an ideal world the Government was too quick to lift restrictions earlier in the year. But all the evidence was that it had broken down already, so they were actually following rather than leading.
If there is I suspect it will be because the Mayor has asked for it more than because the Government have decided it necessary.
A countrywide lockdown is needed now.
Why? To avoid you being confused?
Merseyside is at risk of having full hospitals but nowhere else seems to be yet.
No, because cases are out of control.
Barely.
R of 1 or below is under control, R over 1 is exponential growth.
In March R was about 3, hence the national lockdown.
Currently R is estimated to be about 1.2 - so it is exponentially growing but not that fast.
If the Tiers system can get R back below 1 then cases will be under control again.
Exponential growth is exponential growth. Time is basically irrelevant unless you plan to get it down.
Therefore, we need another lockdown.
That's a total logic fail.
More action is being taken with these measures, so if that is sufficient to get R back below 1 then the virus would be under control.
If that happens would we still need another lockdown?
Local lockdowns are already in place. Cases continue to rise.
The only thing that got R down was a national lockdown. We just came out too quickly.
You're wrong, R stayed at 1 or below long after we ended the national lockdown. We just need to get it back down there.
Because of the first lockdown, where people were terrified to go outside. The Tories squandered that as I said above.
My slow strategy would have done much better, instead Johnson said get back to work and the pub, all over by Christmas.
Even by your standards of supporting Johnson whatever, this is pathetic.
No people were not terrified to go outside by the end of lockdown, people were impatient to go outside even before lockdown was lifted. By VE weekend people were already holding street parties before that was legalised.
The idea that people were happy to stay inside is just nonsense. People won't do that forever and would never have done that forever.
Anyway R was at 1 or below after lockdown was lifted making your argument completely facetious.
R was below 1 BECAUSE of the lockdown.
R before lockdown - above 1
R after lockdown - below 1
You're just doing your best to defend your hero BoJo, as usual.
You're wrong and everyone can see you're wrong. This is embarrassing for you.
When did R go above 1? When did national lockdown end?
Just answer those two questions with dates please.
R went above one when the boozers reopened. And the government bribed folk to go.
Based on what statistics? The ONS survey showed it flat until mid-Sep.
If there is I suspect it will be because the Mayor has asked for it more than because the Government have decided it necessary.
A countrywide lockdown is needed now.
Why? To avoid you being confused?
Merseyside is at risk of having full hospitals but nowhere else seems to be yet.
No, because cases are out of control.
Barely.
R of 1 or below is under control, R over 1 is exponential growth.
In March R was about 3, hence the national lockdown.
Currently R is estimated to be about 1.2 - so it is exponentially growing but not that fast.
If the Tiers system can get R back below 1 then cases will be under control again.
Exponential growth is exponential growth. Time is basically irrelevant unless you plan to get it down.
Therefore, we need another lockdown.
That's a total logic fail.
More action is being taken with these measures, so if that is sufficient to get R back below 1 then the virus would be under control.
If that happens would we still need another lockdown?
Local lockdowns are already in place. Cases continue to rise.
The only thing that got R down was a national lockdown. We just came out too quickly.
You're wrong, R stayed at 1 or below long after we ended the national lockdown. We just need to get it back down there.
Because of the first lockdown, where people were terrified to go outside. The Tories squandered that as I said above.
My slow strategy would have done much better, instead Johnson said get back to work and the pub, all over by Christmas.
Even by your standards of supporting Johnson whatever, this is pathetic.
No people were not terrified to go outside by the end of lockdown, people were impatient to go outside even before lockdown was lifted. By VE weekend people were already holding street parties before that was legalised.
The idea that people were happy to stay inside is just nonsense. People won't do that forever and would never have done that forever.
Anyway R was at 1 or below after lockdown was lifted making your argument completely facetious.
R was below 1 BECAUSE of the lockdown.
R before lockdown - above 1
R after lockdown - below 1
You're just doing your best to defend your hero BoJo, as usual.
You're wrong and everyone can see you're wrong. This is embarrassing for you.
When did R go above 1? When did national lockdown end?
Just answer those two questions with dates please.
R went above one when the boozers reopened. And the government bribed folk to go.
Boozers reopened on 4 July so are you saying R went above 1 on 4 July?
Tories love the new lockdown rules and think they're easy to follow, shocked
So which is the dreadfully complicated part of it all?
Are you allowed to mix with other households in pubs and restaurants?
Depends what tier you are in. Yes at the lowest level.
What about the other tiers?
No? Of course they are going to be dreadfully complicated if you don't actually read them.
Where does it say you can or can't? You're assuming because you don't know. As I said, complicated.
Seriously? The summary states:
The core of Tier One is the "Rule of Six" - viz only six people are allowed in a home or garden, or sitting at a pub table or restaurant table - and there is a 10pm curfew for pubs and restaurants.
It then goes on to say
Tier Two is largely Tier One minus the Rule of Six.
And remember, this is only a journalist's summary.
Home or garden, is that indoors? Outdoors only?
Your home is typically inside and your garden is outside. Now you are just trying to justify your claim that they are complicated.
They are complicated - you've assumed things that aren't there.
How does that assumption make it complicated? There are two scenarios, either you can socialise with the rule of six in pubs and restaurants in tier two, or you can't. Neither of those scenarios are complicated.
I've explained one example, the other is things that are guidance and the law.
It's needlessly complicated and the average person will just not listen
But that example isn't complicated. As for law vs. guidance, I suspect they didn't want to go down the route of making it illegal to see other people.
It is complicated.
Stay home save lives was easy.
This tier stuff is needlessly complicated for something that won't work. We need a full lockdown for everyone with the same rules.
Ah, I see. It's complicated because it isn't the policy you actually want.
I think a lot of other countries have managed with regional variations in their restrictions. There's even an element of that with the difference in approaches between the home nations.
The rules/guidance within the tiers are complicated.
The tiers themselves are complicated.
I would like to support a tier system but I can't because it won't work. We missed the boat on that months ago. A national lockdown is all that is left.
If the summary is accurate I don't see what part of it is confusing.
Tier 3 - pubs/restaurants closed, avoid non-essential travel, don't travel in/out Tier 2 - pubs/restaurants open, but limited to within househoud Tier 1 - rule of six.
It's totally confusing what is the law and what isn't, it's confusing what the tiers mean, it's confusing whether you can socialise indoors or not.
People don't even get the rule of six, Johnson did a good job making that confusing as well.
We need a simple system, or alternatively for the Government to sack Cummings and get some trust back.
Hands Face Space is the best they've done recently.
While this guidance/legality thing is important in terms of enforcement, quite why it would make it more confusing is beyond me. The government are clearly saying this is something you shouldn't be doing.
Confusing what the tiers mean? 1 is good, 3 is bad. There are only three of them, and there are only a small number of differences between the tier. I don't think they could make a multi-tiered system any easier actually.
So - serious question - if I as a Londoner am in Tier 2, how and where can I meet people from outside my very small household? Can I meet them in parks, pubs, restaurants, cafes, or not at all? Or at 2 metres distance on Hampstead High Street, or what?
We don't know. As I said above or below, in the NE we are not supposed to meet anyone outside our household to socialise either indoors or out. This is not the case in Manchester. However, both are Tier 2 apparently. All will become crystal when the PM speaks I don't doubt.
Isn't it likely that the restrictions will just be standardised? Well, it's what I would do.
If there is I suspect it will be because the Mayor has asked for it more than because the Government have decided it necessary.
A countrywide lockdown is needed now.
Why? To avoid you being confused?
Merseyside is at risk of having full hospitals but nowhere else seems to be yet.
No, because cases are out of control.
Barely.
R of 1 or below is under control, R over 1 is exponential growth.
In March R was about 3, hence the national lockdown.
Currently R is estimated to be about 1.2 - so it is exponentially growing but not that fast.
If the Tiers system can get R back below 1 then cases will be under control again.
Exponential growth is exponential growth. Time is basically irrelevant unless you plan to get it down.
Therefore, we need another lockdown.
This is absolute nonsense. Your argument seems to be that only full national lockdown can reduce R rate below 1. Whereas any restrictions short of full national lockdown cannot.
But it's not even clear what you mean by full national lockdown. Because even the harshest viable measures have huge holes. Schools. People travelling and meeting at work. Social contact in shops. etc etc.
So if you can get R down below 1 with a "national lockdown" with holes, then by definition the issue is simply the size of the holes. Which brings into play local restrictions, varied depending on the severity of the current levels of virus spread. Your approach may speed things up. But do much more damage overall.
The only thing in this country that got R below 1 was a national lockdown. End of story.
Just to be clear - you want to shut all the schools again? Bit tricky what to do with all the University students this time though. Might not be best at this moment to send them all home.
University should have been deferred for a year in favour of online learning. I said this at the time.
I did chemistry at university, it involved going into a lab and actually running experiments. How would I have done that online?
In your case, the degree should have been deferred a year until you could use a lab.
And if I was in my final year? What I just sit around at home doing fuck all? What about medical students and nursing students? I didn't go into pharma, are you suggesting that the UK starve this most vital industry of chemistry, biochemistry, chemical engineering and biomedical science graduates?
Online makes sense for some courses. For anything practical it's a complete non-starter. I mean you may as well close Imperial for the year and most of UCL, Kings and Cambridge.
No, deferring was never an option. Letting the virus burn itself out among students was the only viable way of doing things, that's pretty much where we're at anyway. The government is completely overreacting to this and so are you.
If there is I suspect it will be because the Mayor has asked for it more than because the Government have decided it necessary.
A countrywide lockdown is needed now.
Why? To avoid you being confused?
Merseyside is at risk of having full hospitals but nowhere else seems to be yet.
I hear rumours....
Wife went to the Royal (City Centre) last week. Problems with eyes. Seen by St. Paul's eye unit. Nurses tell her loads of cases again and wards full.
Fazarkerly appears to be close to being overwhelmed. Wards that aren't Covid wards are being used for Covid patients.
Know a nurse who works in a hospital (not sure which one - might be Fazarkerly) who tells me that they may have to start turning people away (to go home and die).
Don't know about Arrowe Park or South Liverpool, though I have a cousin who works in Arrowe Park and she's resumed her heavy 'STAY THE F*CK HOME' postings on Facebook which may give some clue.....
Why would you have to turn patients away in Liverpool when there are plenty of hospitals elsewhere in the country?
Tories love the new lockdown rules and think they're easy to follow, shocked
So which is the dreadfully complicated part of it all?
Are you allowed to mix with other households in pubs and restaurants?
Depends what tier you are in. Yes at the lowest level.
What about the other tiers?
No? Of course they are going to be dreadfully complicated if you don't actually read them.
Where does it say you can or can't? You're assuming because you don't know. As I said, complicated.
Seriously? The summary states:
The core of Tier One is the "Rule of Six" - viz only six people are allowed in a home or garden, or sitting at a pub table or restaurant table - and there is a 10pm curfew for pubs and restaurants.
It then goes on to say
Tier Two is largely Tier One minus the Rule of Six.
And remember, this is only a journalist's summary.
Home or garden, is that indoors? Outdoors only?
Your home is typically inside and your garden is outside. Now you are just trying to justify your claim that they are complicated.
They are complicated - you've assumed things that aren't there.
How does that assumption make it complicated? There are two scenarios, either you can socialise with the rule of six in pubs and restaurants in tier two, or you can't. Neither of those scenarios are complicated.
I've explained one example, the other is things that are guidance and the law.
It's needlessly complicated and the average person will just not listen
But that example isn't complicated. As for law vs. guidance, I suspect they didn't want to go down the route of making it illegal to see other people.
It is complicated.
Stay home save lives was easy.
This tier stuff is needlessly complicated for something that won't work. We need a full lockdown for everyone with the same rules.
Ah, I see. It's complicated because it isn't the policy you actually want.
I think a lot of other countries have managed with regional variations in their restrictions. There's even an element of that with the difference in approaches between the home nations.
The rules/guidance within the tiers are complicated.
The tiers themselves are complicated.
I would like to support a tier system but I can't because it won't work. We missed the boat on that months ago. A national lockdown is all that is left.
If the summary is accurate I don't see what part of it is confusing.
Tier 3 - pubs/restaurants closed, avoid non-essential travel, don't travel in/out Tier 2 - pubs/restaurants open, but limited to within househoud Tier 1 - rule of six.
It's totally confusing what is the law and what isn't, it's confusing what the tiers mean, it's confusing whether you can socialise indoors or not.
People don't even get the rule of six, Johnson did a good job making that confusing as well.
We need a simple system, or alternatively for the Government to sack Cummings and get some trust back.
Hands Face Space is the best they've done recently.
While this guidance/legality thing is important in terms of enforcement, quite why it would make it more confusing is beyond me. The government are clearly saying this is something you shouldn't be doing.
Confusing what the tiers mean? 1 is good, 3 is bad. There are only three of them, and there are only a small number of differences between the tier. I don't think they could make a multi-tiered system any easier actually.
So - serious question - if I as a Londoner am in Tier 2, how and where can I meet people from outside my very small household? Can I meet them in parks, pubs, restaurants, cafes, or not at all? Or at 2 metres distance on Hampstead High Street, or what?
Here's a better description by the Guardian that may answer your question.
So, yes, you can't meet anyone outside your house in "hospitality settings".
If that is actually enforced, it means the certain bankruptcy of almost every restaurant and pub in London. Who goes to the pub, or a restaurant, to have a dinner with their family or flatmates, a dinner or drink that they could have at home, cheaper? Especially during a plague?
It's mad. It is a law designed to be flouted. Or it is a law to send pubs and restos to the wall, without having to bail them out.
I'd prefer it if my government was honest, and just said this.
It's been like that up here for a month. Personally I go to the Pub to AVOID my household. Many pubs not bothering opening now.
Comments
I think a lot of other countries have managed with regional variations in their restrictions. There's even an element of that with the difference in approaches between the home nations.
The tiers themselves are complicated.
I would like to support a tier system but I can't because it won't work. We missed the boat on that months ago. A national lockdown is all that is left.
Merseyside is at risk of having full hospitals but nowhere else seems to be yet.
Tier 3 - pubs/restaurants closed, avoid non-essential travel, don't travel in/out
Tier 2 - pubs/restaurants open, but limited to within househoud
Tier 1 - rule of six.
Your problem is that like so many Tories - or in your case pretend Tories - is that you don't actually care about any of the people I mentioned.
People don't even get the rule of six, Johnson did a good job making that confusing as well.
We need a simple system, or alternatively for the Government to sack Cummings and get some trust back.
Hands Face Space is the best they've done recently.
Confusing what the tiers mean? 1 is good, 3 is bad. There are only three of them, and there are only a small number of differences between the tier. I don't think they could make a multi-tiered system any easier actually.
'Poll finds Alex Salmond now almost as unpopular as Boris Johnson among Scots
Even among SNP supporters, Mr Salmond had an approval rating of -14, with 49% of the party’s voters having a negative view of him compared to 35% who thought favourably of him.'
https://tinyurl.com/y3vzzq8x
R of 1 or below is under control, R over 1 is exponential growth.
In March R was about 3, hence the national lockdown.
Currently R is estimated to be about 1.2 - so it is exponentially growing but not that fast.
If the Tiers system can get R back below 1 then cases will be under control again.
Therefore, we need another lockdown.
Bold for the Tories.
I'm not saying he was, but has any other individual on this planet done more for the spread of the Chinavirus?
More action is being taken with these measures, so if that is sufficient to get R back below 1 then the virus would be under control.
If that happens would we still need another lockdown?
In July we had a golden opportunity. Public were terrified to go outside.
The solution would have been a new slogan with new laws on what to do.
That should have been meetings outdoors only, in groups of six. Mandatory face coverings in all indoor spaces.
Restaurants/pubs open at lunchtime only.
That should have been in place for at least a month. Then we could have opened up more.
Instead we had Cummings and then about 9000 slogans and then HMG gave up altogether. Incompetence.
The only thing that got R down was a national lockdown. We just came out too quickly.
But it's not even clear what you mean by full national lockdown. Because even the harshest viable measures have huge holes. Schools. People travelling and meeting at work. Social contact in shops. etc etc.
So if you can get R down below 1 with a "national lockdown" with holes, then by definition the issue is simply the size of the holes. Which brings into play local restrictions, varied depending on the severity of the current levels of virus spread. Your approach may speed things up. But do much more damage overall.
Salmond has 35% of Nats still thinking favourably of him, despite his being accused of multiple sexual misdemeanours and actually admitting to some. That is his Pretorian Guard. In the end, many will follow him not her. He has a core of support and they are - as we know from Twitter and indyref - pretty brutal and pugliistic.
How many pubs do you think can pay their bills and pay their staff from being open at lunchtime only?
Heck, could they even get through a keg of ale before it went off being open at lunctime only?
Fine.
Except they currently have different guidance.
Something that has always troubled me with Trump, was that during the Cold War he was allowed through the Iron Curtain without being troubled. This was at a time when anyone attempting to escape from East to West Germany was shot by the Stasi.
End of story.
And I can remember Michael Howard with Paxman.
My slow strategy would have done much better, instead Johnson said get back to work and the pub, all over by Christmas.
Even by your standards of supporting Johnson whatever, this is pathetic.
So why the partisan nonsense from the hyper-partisan loons on here? Does another stack of dead bodies and the Red Wall thrown on the skip make for good times in the future if you are a Tory?
We got below 1 due to the national lockdown and the results of that kept it below 1 as the public was too scared to go outside. That means the national lockdown was responsible, as it was.
We opened up, cases went back up again because we opened up far too quickly. Johnson said get back to work, will all be over by Christmas.
You're wrong. End of story.
You keep banging on about the need for a second lockdown, the first cost 22% of GDP and £300bn in borrowing, it had horrible secondary health effects and it's now thought people are more likely to die of cancer, heart attacks and strokes due to missed diagnosis/screening opportunities. It saw an explosion of mental health conditions and both physical and mental abuse, especially among children. Lockdown is a medicine that's worse than the disease. Whatever the third tier is, is effectively lockdown and it's a failure by all government departments that this is even under consideration. A national one would be a disaster.
Local lockdowns here have not worked.
The idea that people were happy to stay inside is just nonsense. People won't do that forever and would never have done that forever.
Anyway R was at 1 or below after lockdown was lifted making your argument completely facetious.
We aren't, the cases continue to rise. Local lockdowns have failed.
National lockdown is all that is left. The economy is already in the toilet and isn't going to recover with COVID continuing to be around and the wind-down of furlough.
BTW - you think all medical training should have been suspended for a year?
I sometimes feel we have still some things to learn about the past - and present - of Donald J. Trump.
Manchester numbers seem to have stabilised besides students. In which case it is working, Freshers Flu (Covid Edition) will burn through the student population but if it is under control in the rest of the nation then the local restrictions have done a great job.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/11/three-tier-covid-plan-for-england-what-it-means-and-how-it-may-work
R before lockdown - above 1
R after lockdown - below 1
You're just doing your best to defend your hero BoJo, as usual.
When did R go above 1?
When did national lockdown end?
Just answer those two questions with dates please.
As I said above or below, in the NE we are not supposed to meet anyone outside our household to socialise either indoors or out.
This is not the case in Manchester.
However, both are Tier 2 apparently.
All will become crystal when the PM speaks I don't doubt.
The case for a second national lockdown hasn't been proven. This isn't March, we're not at R=3, we're at 1.2 and falling. You do understand the difference, yes?
If that is actually enforced, it means the certain bankruptcy of almost every restaurant and pub in London. Who goes to the pub, or a restaurant, to have a dinner with their family or flatmates, a dinner or drink that they could have at home, cheaper? Especially during a plague?
It's mad. It is a law designed to be flouted. Or it is a law to send pubs and restos to the wall, without having to bail them out.
I'd prefer it if my government was honest, and just said this.
Give him a a fair trial.
Wife went to the Royal (City Centre) last week. Problems with eyes. Seen by St. Paul's eye unit.
Nurses tell her loads of cases again and wards full.
Fazarkerly appears to be close to being overwhelmed. Wards that aren't Covid wards are being used for Covid patients.
Know a nurse who works in a hospital (not sure which one - might be Fazarkerly) who tells me that they may have to start turning people away (to go home and die).
Don't know about Arrowe Park or South Liverpool, though I have a cousin who works in Arrowe Park and she's resumed her heavy 'STAY THE F*CK HOME' postings on Facebook which may give some clue.....
And whilst the idea of gently turning the restrictions dial up until we return to R = 1 is attractive, it doesn't really work like that. Exponential growth is still exponential growth. It's a good thing that the doubling time is running at 10 - 12 days or so and not much faster, but that's still 3 doublings in a month, and 3 doublings from here takes the UK back to where we were at the end of March. Over-reacting now is better than having to really over-react in a few weeks time.
He's probably right that in an ideal world the Government was too quick to lift restrictions earlier in the year. But all the evidence was that it had broken down already, so they were actually following rather than leading.
Are you sure of that?
Online makes sense for some courses. For anything practical it's a complete non-starter. I mean you may as well close Imperial for the year and most of UCL, Kings and Cambridge.
No, deferring was never an option. Letting the virus burn itself out among students was the only viable way of doing things, that's pretty much where we're at anyway. The government is completely overreacting to this and so are you.
Personally I go to the Pub to AVOID my household.
Many pubs not bothering opening now.