Coronavirus Thread (Off Topic, Politics) (12 Viewers)

[NorthernWisdom]

Where I live we have 3 conservative councillors as well as Street and they are all constantly claiming to be against things that are unpopular locally that are the policy of the Conservative government. Makes you wonder if they're in the right party.

tbf it's more what government should be, general support, but willing to hold your own party / government to account if you differ too much. Always used to work that way...

 

---

[djr8369]

Sandwell is tier 2 with 123 cases per 100k and we are tier 1 with 130 cases per 100k?

What are they actually basing this on?

In fairness could also be based on rate of change. Any idea what that is for those two areas? Of course it’s just as likely to be guesswork so don’t put yourself out.

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Going to go out on a limb and guess that they will never say what numbers get you in or out of each tier and eventually the system will just be replaced with another arbitrary set of rules in a few months designed to deflect whatever criticism they are facing at the time.

Newcastle is over 500 per 100,000 but not in Tier 3?

 

[djr8369]

National lockdown by Christmas because they don’t want to spend any more money or curb freedoms further.

 

[David O'Day]

Sandwell



Coventry



So the trend for cov looks worse than Sandwell

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

National lockdown by Christmas because they don’t want to spend any more money or curb freedoms further.

I think that’s quite likely because these restrictions won’t stop increasing infections

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Sandwell
View attachment 17218View attachment 17218


Coventry

View attachment 17219

So the trend for cov looks worse than Sandwell

Let’s get crowds back

 

[djr8369]

Sandwell
View attachment 17218


Coventry

View attachment 17219

So the trend for cov looks worse than Sandwell

Brilliant. Just multiply cases per 1000 by rate of change and define a limit for each tier. This should have been worked out and put in place during the first lockdown, it’s fucking basic stuff.

 

[Saddlebrains]

Never gonna end is it this shit?

 

[fernandopartridge]

Going to go out on a limb and guess that they will never say what numbers get you in or out of each tier and eventually the system will just be replaced with another arbitrary set of rules in a few months designed to deflect whatever criticism they are facing at the time.

Yeah, what happened to the alert levels of a few months ago? Why have we got such a pathetic client media who just amplify this nonsense?

 

[David O'Day]

FFS Boris

 

[fernandopartridge]

Brilliant. Just multiply cases per 1000 by rate of change and define a limit for each tier. This should have been worked out and put in place during the first lockdown, it’s fucking basic stuff.

They hinted that rate of change was part of the consideration in designating tiers but it clearly isn't. Cases alone is a retrospective measure

 

[Jamesimus]

Anyone know why Newcastle upon Tyne isn't in Tier 3 but Liverpool is yet? I imagine there might be a reason, but obviously with our current decision makers, I'm not sure?!

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Never gonna end is it this shit?

Yeah it will. Just not for a long while yet and we've probably got a dark, cold and miserable winter ahead.

Even if it still carries on it'll blow itself out eventually. I mean, if it killed everyone it can't infect anyone else can it.

 

[David O'Day]

Anyone know why Newcastle upon Tyne isn't in Tier 3 but Liverpool is yet? I imagine there might be a reason, but obviously with our current decision makers, I'm not sure?!

Tories hate Scousers

 

[djr8369]

Yeah, what happened to the alert levels of a few months ago? Why have we got such a pathetic client media who just amplify this nonsense?

Exactly.

They hinted that rate of change was part of the consideration in designating tiers but it clearly isn't. Cases alone is a retrospective measure

They always use rate of change as a get out if a journalist asks why one area has certain restrictions but as pointed out it clearly isn’t.

 

[Jamesimus]

Tories hate Scousers

I mean, I'm not denying the truth in this...

I have just looked and Liverpool has a slightly higher number of cases per 100,000 people and a higher increase in the past week, so maybe that's why.

 

[chiefdave]

Yeah, what happened to the alert levels of a few months ago? Why have we got such a pathetic client media who just amplify this nonsense?

Didn't they quickly break their own system and start removing restrictions when we were still in a level where they should remain in place? Seem to remember they got quietly dropped and never mentioned again after that.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Exactly.

They always use rate of change as a get out if a journalist asks why one area has certain restrictions but as pointed out it clearly isn’t.

There is probably some sort of bell curve related to economic impact underpinning the whole thing or something

 

[David O'Day]

To be serious for a minute, Boris did seem to say in the HoC that he wanted more areas to be Tier 3 but the local leaders were putting their foot down

 

[djr8369]

To be serious for a minute, Boris did seem to say in the HoC that he wanted more areas to be Tier 3 but the local leaders were putting their foot down

That’s true but part of the reason they are putting their foot down is because there isn’t enough support available for the businesses closing.

 

[David O'Day]

 

[robbiekeane]

Not really, Medpro's template website: https://ppemedpro.com/about/



This is an obvious scam. I am an NHS buyer, I can see it.

So they are claiming they own the factories..? Ffs

 

[Jamesimus]

 

[skybluetony176]

Piss up in a brewery.

 

[David O'Day]

Piss up in a brewery.

I do like the one were they seemingly didn't know Wigan was in Greater Manchester

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

To be serious for a minute, Boris did seem to say in the HoC that he wanted more areas to be Tier 3 but the local leaders were putting their foot down

Which is where leadership comes in and having a clear, definable equation that sets the levels based on the scientific data matched to clear restrictions at each tier.

We've got cases per 100k, R rate, positive test %, hospitalisations and percentage of capacity etc - all of which could be used to set an automatic tier level. Doesn't then need govt or local authorities arguing over what should or shouldn't be done. It's all there already.

You could try and add them all into one equation if you wanted although that makes it complicated and puts people off. So instead you could take each criteria and set a tier to a figure for it.
i.e.
R rate
Tier 1 - 1 or below
Tier 2 - 1.1 - 1.4
Tier 3 - 1.5 and above

Cases per 100k
Tier 1 - under 250
Tier 2 - 250-500
Tier 3 - above 500

Hospital capacity
Tier 1 - under a third
Tier 2 - under two-thirds
Tier 3 - above two-thirds

*these are examples - proper figures would be agreed with the relevant scientists and experts to prevent transmission.

Then the tier for each area is set based on the highest tier from all these, so if you're tier 1 on all criteria but tier 3 in another, you're in tier 3.

It's clear, indisputable and sets out what will happen at defined points. Of course people would be annoyed by it but I reckon we're far more likely to be accepting of it if the criteria is plainly set out and what each tier means in terms of restrictions.

It's the constant arbitrary decisions with exemptions for some things and not others not seemingly based on any evidence whatsoever that riles most people. Have the balls to say "these are the criteria for each tier, these are the restrictions that will be imposed for each tier, no exceptions"

 

[NorthernWisdom]

I do like the one were they seemingly didn't know Wigan was in Greater Manchester

How about inviting only one Sunderland MP, and being surprised there were actually three?

 

[David O'Day]

How about inviting only one Sunderland MP, and being surprised there were actually three?

amazing

 

[djr8369]

Is this the longest this thread has gone on without Grendel making an appearance to point out a mistake labour made over 10 years ago?

 

[Skybluefaz]

At least this 3 tier system has made everything a lot easier to understand

 

[CCFCSteve]

Which is where leadership comes in and having a clear, definable equation that sets the levels based on the scientific data matched to clear restrictions at each tier.

We've got cases per 100k, R rate, positive test %, hospitalisations and percentage of capacity etc - all of which could be used to set an automatic tier level. Doesn't then need govt or local authorities arguing over what should or shouldn't be done. It's all there already.

You could try and add them all into one equation if you wanted although that makes it complicated and puts people off. So instead you could take each criteria and set a tier to a figure for it.
i.e.
R rate
Tier 1 - 1 or below
Tier 2 - 1.1 - 1.4
Tier 3 - 1.5 and above

Cases per 100k
Tier 1 - under 250
Tier 2 - 250-500
Tier 3 - above 500

Hospital capacity
Tier 1 - under a third
Tier 2 - under two-thirds
Tier 3 - above two-thirds

*these are examples - proper figures would be agreed with the relevant scientists and experts to prevent transmission.

Then the tier for each area is set based on the highest tier from all these, so if you're tier 1 on all criteria but tier 3 in another, you're in tier 3.

It's clear, indisputable and sets out what will happen at defined points. Of course people would be annoyed by it but I reckon we're far more likely to be accepting of it if the criteria is plainly set out and what each tier means in terms of restrictions.

It's the constant arbitrary decisions with exemptions for some things and not others not seemingly based on any evidence whatsoever that riles most people. Have the balls to say "these are the criteria for each tier, these are the restrictions that will be imposed for each tier, no exceptions"

Agreed SBD. I might be wrong but I thought this was based on cases per 100k. Problem is Bham is on 160 and Manc is on 500+ and yet both in same tier, which indicates other parameters should be considered (as you suggest something like hospital capacity)

The bigger issue for me is robust scientific evidence to actually back up the restrictions ie closing pubs. I’m not sure there is any. So much of recent increases in cases (not admissions, ICU, deaths) appear to be uni driven

Basically the scientific advisors and government have shat it, backed by polling which says 2/3 want more restrictions.

I can understand when it gets to Liverpool levels (ie causing nhs concerns) but not convinced about the rest of it

 

[NorthernWisdom]

Agreed SBD. I might be wrong but I thought this was based on cases per 100k. Problem is Bham is on 160 and Manc is on 500+ and yet both in same tier, which indicates other parameters should be considered (as you suggest something like hospital capacity)

The bigger issue for me is robust scientific evidence to actually back up the restrictions ie closing pubs. I’m not sure there is any. So much of recent increases in cases (not admissions, ICU, deaths) appear to be uni driven

Basically the scientific advisors and government have shat it, backed by polling which says 2/3 want more restrictions.

I can understand when it gets to Liverpool levels (ie causing nhs concerns) but not convinced about the rest of it

They're sticking the restrictions in the wrong places, in the need to be seen to be doing something.

And in that they'll leave the main places to carry on unfettered.

Utter shambles.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Agreed SBD. I might be wrong but I thought this was based on cases per 100k. Problem is Bham is on 160 and Manc is on 500+ and yet both in same tier, which indicates other parameters should be considered (as you suggest something like hospital capacity)

The bigger issue for me is robust scientific evidence to actually back up the restrictions ie closing pubs. I’m not sure there is any. So much of recent increases in cases (not admissions, ICU, deaths) appear to be uni driven

Basically the scientific advisors and government have shat it, backed by polling which says 2/3 want more restrictions.

I can understand when it gets to Liverpool levels (ie causing nhs concerns) but not convinced about the rest of it

As you say this system would be fine IF it were clear how they're making the decisions. No-one seems to be able to make it out as the cases/100k doesn't match up. Some with higher figures are in lower tiers than other with lower.

It's basically a rehash of the 5 step system we had before that's been forgotten about because no-one could work out the rules or they were just blatantly ignored.

If your going to set up a system like this then you have to say what will happen and at what points and, this is the crucial point, stick to it. If it's unpopular sobeit. That's what leadership is about - making decisions that might be unpopular and enforcing them. Otherwise you're not a leader, you're just someone offering suggestions and you'll have no respect or authority.

 

[djr8369]

They're sticking the restrictions in the wrong places, in the need to be seen to be doing something.

And in that they'll leave the main places to carry on unfettered.

Utter shambles.

It’s getting harder to believe they are actually this shit. Is it intentional? I don’t get it.