Many news outlets are reporting that London will move to Tier 2 in the Covid alert levels as of midnight on Friday. Local MP Ellie Reeves has been briefed and tweeted the news with a handy link to the BBC article that describes a little about what this means:
From the Beeb article, this entails the following restrictions:
Let’s hope this helps to slow the spread of Covid-19.
Pity. All the SE London boroughs seem to have relatively low levels of infection. The problem areas are in the north and west.
I noticed that. It would be interesting to know why this is. Maybe the lack of tube is a factor?
Might population density and extent of overcrowding be factors?
Are these positive tests? Zoe estimated cases doesn’t show the same pattern.
Oh indeed. It seems unfair on those of us in lower areas but treating London as a whole is the only way to do it.
Good question @Beige!
Noting that the BBC took the data from the gov website, I found this as a much better described map, showing the same tend with a bit more explanation and better resolution (but also some omitted areas!?):
https://coronavirus-staging.data.gov.uk/details/interactive-map
Of course you are not wrong 
. The Zoe data does look different. From COVID Symptom Study :
As if anyone is going to follow such unjustifiable rules. It’s time to push back
The number of Covid-related deaths in England for the week 7-14 October involving individuals under 60 and free from an existing medical condition was … zero.
Source: NHS England LINKS 7th October data: https://england.nhs.uk/statistics/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/10/COVID-19-total-announced-deaths-8-October-2020-weekly-file.xlsx… 14th October data: https://england.nhs.uk/statistics/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/10/COVID-19-total-announced-deaths-15-October-2020-weekly-file.xlsx…
Here is the argument for a more targeted approach, which protects the genuinely vulnerable, if they so choose, while letting everyone else go about their normal lives and business. We cannot go on like this. Enough. Let’s find our backbone.
As posted in the other thread, a “targeted approach” doesnt work in practice. People dont abide by the rules and the vulnerable die.
Here is the post I made in another thread pointing out a couple of examples that would make it extremely difficult to enforce this protection:
One thing you have failed to understand that Covid is not just about living and dying. Thousands of people under 60 have had serious problems, that although may not have led to death, that have forced them into hospital. Hospitals are already nearing capacity, in Liverpool they have said that all ICUs in the city area are at 90% capacity. Imagine what letting the virus roam free would do to these hospitals. The health system would collapse.
Here is a great counter argument piece that I would recommend reading (dont be put off about the title being about the US):
It is but then there are people like myself who live here but have to work in an area with a higher rate with colleagues who also travel in from other areas (like tower hamlets hackney and ealing that all have a higher rate than Lewisham)
Covid has a 99%+ survival rate, and has killed fewer people than flu every week since June.
Hospitals are not at capacity at all. It’s disgraceful - A friend works for NHS trust - their area is now in Tier 2 - they have 9 covid patients. Their friend works for NHS trust in adjacent borough - also put into Tier 2 - that hospital has 2 covid patients . We are being taken for fools…
Lockdowns make no difference to the virus, but they destroy lives, livelihoods and kill thousands.
Yet the entire country is now either an open prison or a high security prison.
Well done. I guess you have a safe and secure job.
Genuine question I never hear discussed:
IF the virus does spread to such an extent (either because we give up or fail at trying to stop it) and we end up with more people requiring hospital care that the NHS is able to provide to and they are forced to somehow triage / deny care to large numbers of people would that outcome be acceptable to the anti-lockdowners? (Can I define acceptable to be that the the risk was worth taking).
Aside, isn’t the risk of this ‘collapse’ the dominant public health / political argument (as opposed to recent death numbers, age and health of dead)?
Even the WHO’s special envoy on Covid-19, Dr David Nabarro, has recently said that lockdowns should only be used to buy authorities time to set up systems that allow society to live with the virus. ‘We really do appeal to all world leaders: stop using lockdown as your primary control method’.
Nabarro notes that the ‘middle way’ (an idea of medium term alternative to lockdowns) proposed requires a “remarkable degree of engagement by the people”.
It comprises physical distancing, mask-wearing, testing and contact tracing and isolation.
I hope we manage a better stab at this the next time around:
You can find opinions from medical professionals and politicians to support either side of the debate. Suddenly everyone is an expert! You make the point about hospitals not being overwhelmed - surely that is just a matter of time. The absolute number of people dying is still ‘relatively’ low compared to April at its peak, so what is happening right this very minute is irrelevant. In the end, no one definitively knows the right answer as although it feels like we’ve been living with covid for a long time, we haven’t and there is still a lot to learn.
I think I would trust the mayor of Liverpool over “your friend”:
(Apologies it was 80% not 90%)
Would be interesting to see your source on it “has killed fewer people than flu every week since June”. As you can see in the post above showing figures from the ONS that is factually incorrect. Is that something you could share?
Whilst lockdowns might not be the answer at least it puts rules/regulations in place to try and force people to abide by the social distancing that they seem to forget about almost instantly after the restrictions were lifted in the summer. Again as your video points out, the only way to avoid lockdowns and extremely high number of deaths is for the general population to be engaged with the new way of thinking. Which we have tried, and failed at.
There are in fact fewer ICU beds are occupied than last year
On paper the 95 per cent statistic, revealed earlier this week by Liverpool city councillor Paul Brant, conjures up a disturbing image of overflowing hospitals and inadequate care.
So rest assured that it bears no relation to reality. Indeed on Thursday, Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust dismissed Mr Brant’s claim, insisting that its units were only 80 per cent full with just 47 of its 61 critical care beds occupied.
That may still seem high, but it is actually perfectly normal for ICU beds to be full at this time of year.
Last year, for example, 51 out of 59 ICU beds in Liverpool’s hospitals were full, while in 2018 it was 52 out of 59 beds.
Meanwhile, if there is a surge in demand for intensive care beds for Covid-19 patients, let’s not forget how quickly the NHS was able to repurpose general and acute care hospital beds during the first coronavirus spike.
In fact, only on Thursday Liverpool’s Aintree University Hospital revealed that it has already fitted 40 beds with ventilators and a further 30 beds with specialist CPAP breathing equipment.
Anonse23 - I’m sorry the facts don’t back up your need to destroy the economy and refuse to face up the fact that life necessitates risk. You can remain hiding under your bed, but the rest of us believe that life is for living.
People who are overweight should shield if they want to. Mind you the stats are stacked very much in their favour of not even showing symptoms - 80% - and of recovering should they get it. The long term issues do seem to be all the pro lockdown people have now. There are loads of awful side effects to all kinds of conditions and diseases. We don’t shut down society unless the numbers are significant enough to justify it, and there not even anywhere near. Lockdown will / has caused far more destruction than covid. Sorry. But I’ve witnessed such an inexplicably disproportionate response to such low risk to the vast majority of people. It’s a profanity removed by moderator travesty. The compliance of people willing to wreak s o much damage in the name of being good is astonishing. Life is risk, and it would appear western societies have been insulted from it for so long we’ve become too easily spooked by what lies at the marrow of life. Our cowardly response to this is embarrassing at best and wilfully destructive at worst.
@anonSE23 was questioning the reliability of one of your sources (in much the same way you are questioning the facts presented by the govt). How do we go from this to making broad assumptions about a persons attitude to risk?
We’ve heard your view of why the coverage and fear is overblown and also about how the country should manage the situation, but nothing about the possibility of it being worse than you expect or there being insufficient healthcare provision.
Also there have been 673,622 cases to date in the UK to date. If 99% of people survived 6736 people would have died.
43,293 people have died. By ONS statistics over 50,000.
This post was flagged and is temporarily hidden.
This post was flagged and is temporarily hidden.
Please can we avoid personal attacks - they don’t improve the discussion in any way.
Previously we have had some interesting data and differing viewpoints, and that’s fine, but from the FAQ, please:
Thanks @ForestHull . Not sure why my post has been hidden though?
Answered in PM 
Now, if anyone would like to continue the discussion on topic, that would be great. Otherwise please contact @moderators privately to avoid further fouling the discourse
Judging by my daily experience travelling to and from work and seeing people out and about in the west end still a good 20% of people dont wear masks or observe social distancing (just use the interchange at Canada Water station to see what I mean)
The track and trace app relies on people actually using it-I have lost count of the amount of times I see people not bothering to scan in at restaurants or my gym.
I use it purely because I would rather know if I am likely to have come in contact with someone with the virus because I care about my loved ones and dont want to put anyones life at risk.
Many people clearly dont give a damn.
This post was flagged and is temporarily hidden.
I was shielding as I think I have said before the 1st time. But having got used to face, hands, space etc…I am not going to again unless it seems like it is getting out of hand again. As has been said already, if everybody respected the rules, then maybe we would be able to get on with our lives while living with the virus.
I don’t do anything to particularly put me at risk. I only meet with friends (3 or 4 at the most) who I know are sensible like me. Any shops that look particularly crowded I wouldn’t go in & always look to open windows on buses. I haven’t been on the tube, as I’m avoiding the crowds.
It is a lottery & I could go out later & catch it, but what do you do?
We all have to be mindful & look after each other as best we can.
Of course if track & trace worked properly, then hooray!
I haven’t downloaded the app as my phone is too old, but I’m happy to give my contact details where necessary or pre-book to go to the Brockley Jack.
Just wondering what the data source was for that, particularly what the relevance of the ‘since June’ part is…
According to the BBC:
That is five to 25 times more deadly than a seasonal flu infection, despite ongoing myths that Covid is just like flu.
Aside from that, they’re mirroring your stats but not necessarily the conclusions. Partial lockdown is about trying to balance infection (and therefore hospitalisation) rates by varying the amount of lockdown whilst keeping as much of the economy and education system going as make sense.
The area that troubles me is that the Government strategy is basically there will be an effective vaccine early 2021. That is rightly, Plan A. But what is Plan B if it takes longer to get a vaccine (remember that the Govt said life would be normalised in November!). Sorry, it could be years.
I don’t think Plan B of going back and forth into lockdowns for potentially years is realistic. COVID clearly results in deaths. But so I would argue does lockdown (economic collapse, people not going for cancer treatment because they are scare of COVID, depression, suicide, increased domestic violence etc etc). Remember that in any other situation we would describe lockdown as a lamentable disaster - because it is - you enter into it only to prevent a worse disaster (But lockdown is still a disaster).
So what we need is a Plan B - how to live with COVID without lockdowns. There is currently Government silence on this and this needs to end. I suspect the answer is an Asian model of effective track and trace and the ability to test frequently. Not that we seem to be close to this.
I agree 100% with this. We will always be near a vaccine that may not come for years, how do we deal with that scenario and look at the overall picture for the population, trying to protect as many people as possible.
Independent Sage briefings provide more analysis and clarity than the government seems willing to share every Friday at 1.30 on YouTube. Also on catch up. Yesterday they published a plan to get us to a kind of stability. A plan that the government will probably ignore.
Ah yes David King. Another yesterday’s man. The man who told us to switch to diesel cars.
Was that a bad decision given the information available at the time?
presumably you mean to discredit Independent Sage for some reason. I’d recommend anyone to have a look at their work.
From this Guardian article …
David King, who until last week served Labour and Tory governments as special representative for climate change, said he was misled by carmakers over the amount of poisonous nitrogen oxides (NOx) diesel cars would emit on the road.
One might have hoped that a Government scientific adviser would not have been “hoodwinked” by car manufacturers but would have relied on truly independent research instead. But then, I suppose what research is truly “independent”? Regardless of the content of the self-identifying"Independent" SAGE report and whether I may think their suggestions sensible or not, the members have a political bias, personal axes to grind and David King loves the limelight.
The problem went right to the top, German govt and poor quality regulations / checks and balances at the EU level. This documentary is brilliantly researched and exposes the whole rotten lot:
https://www.netflix.com/title/80118100?s=i&trkid=13747225
I don’t think the U.K. govt could have done much more to defend us from this - the rot was at the highest level.
Okay folks, this is starting to get a bit wide of the topic here which is “London Moving to Tier 2”
Interesting as other information is, please can we try to stay on that topic, or start a new linked topic.
Thank you!
Going back to Tier 2, it makes all manner of businesses impractical without financial compensation. How can a pub run based on indoor traffic of singletons and family groups only be financially viable? Which is why hospitality businesses prefer Tier 3 as they then have to close but get financial compensation.
But fear not. This bit of Tier 2 is unenforceable. So on Monday I go to the Signal with my sister, we are in a support bubble (this is true BTW). We are legit - but how is that provable!?
Then on Wednesday I go to the Brockley Jack with a friend who is not part of a support bubble, but I either say that I am, or the pub “assumes” that I am because they have to support their business. How can anyone tell?
SoTier 2 rules and hospitality is both unenforceable and nonsensical. Either pubs and restaurants are a clear and present danger and should be closed or you let them be open with some clear and enforceable guidelines. I would prefer the latter of course, but the Tier 2 rules fulfill neither. And when a government puts forward rules that neither make sense or enforceability, then people break them and you have loss of trust!
Or have I got this wrong?
The only thing that’s ‘wrong’ is that you’re breaking the law if you do. People speed all the time too and gamble they’re not going to get caught. That’s essentially what you’re suggesting?
Like getting on a bus? This morning I was sat behind the 181 coming back from Grove Park and it was packed. Surely all public transport should be suspended, no?
frankly if most people I know are finding it neigh on impossible to get a flu vaccine this year and being told by Boots etc they are fully booked for weeks to come or waiting for supplies what hope does the general population without access to expensive private healthcare have in getting a covid jab if?when that becomes available?
From what I’ve seen on the news they’re manufacturing millions of doses already in anticipation of getting it approved The hard part logistically is immunising 60 million people. There was a GP talking about how they’re already planning for it.
Well yes, unenforceable laws will be broken, certainly re alcohol. So either shut down or have guidelines that are enforceable.
This is why we can’t have nice things.
yes, everyone has an opinion don’t they, but Sage and Indie Sage both try to rely on peer reviewed publications to justify theirs. When Sage became generally known, it quickly became clear that its membership and its review of available research and its subsequent advice to government was secretive. It is argued that civil service/expert advice to Ministers should be confidential, and having been in that advisory position myself I tend to agree.
But it became complicated when such a massive public health issue came up and public interest rocketed with such direct threat to lives and livelihoods. Indie Sage set up in order to make data and expert analysis more freely available. Its independence is not that it has some kind of different scientific research to rely on, or a set of alternative facts. The independence is that they are not financed by government, and therefore do not have to follow any particular line, publicly defend government decisions, which no matter how hard they have tried, the government chief scientific officers and others on the government payroll find they have to do.
As it happens, recently released Sage papers show that Sage and Indie Sage advice have been quite closely aligned for a few weeks.
We were in central London yesterday and whilst a lot of people were eating and drinking outside there were a good number of what appeared to be multi adult households inside places.
I have no intention of breaking the restrictions but they are pretty pointless and virtually unenforceable except where it is blatent (eg this is London there will are plenty of legitimate households comprised of three or four young adults)
Does some (many!?) people breaking then make them pointless? Or is it something else?
I think it is almost impossible for pubs and bars to enforce and just creates more confusion.
I don’t really understand this idea. There are plenty of laws which are difficult to enforce but we don’t repeal or blanket ignore them. Littering and fly tipping are a couple of examples.
Possibly. I also don’t really think it will make much difference tbh.
If I go to the pub on my own and talk to other people there am I breaking the law?
No. Talking is not against any of the Tier 2 rules.
Actually there are a lot of fly tipping and littering going on. And dog poo all over payment. Sorry out of topic!
Pavements
The point is that pubs and restaurants can’t make money if they comply with the rules. And even if they wanted to comply with the rules how?
Take a practical example.
I had a very nice lunch today with my sister in a Forest Hill hostelry. I am in a socal bubble with her. Not that I can prove it to anyone reading this, or indeed the pub in question.
As the bar tender pointed out. If 4 young adults come into the pub, they could be…students living in the same household.
The only way to prove this would be to have signed contracts between those in a bubble and it be registered somewhere. Complete with photo ID etc
So the Tier 2 rules are both economically disastrous for venues if they followed them. But they won’t be followed…because they are also unenforecable.
Absolutely, but that doesn’t meant there wouldn’t be more if it were legal.
Why do you think it is for the venues to follow them? I thought the onus was on us all.
Don’t you think some people will follow them?
But then surely if pubs and restaurants are a clear, provable present danger, London should go to Tier 3, close down, but provide financial assistance to the businesses concerned?
I do feel for restaurants and cafes and how they can do appropriate stock & staff planning and hope to get enough custom through the door. Do feel the onus is more on us to comply than businesses to enforce. As you say no way of checking. We went into london yesterday and would say from peeping in windows it was mainly one or two people at tables. So different experience to @HannahM perhaps I was just lucky around Spitalfields area. However whether lower number of covers will cover the running costs??Anywhere with outside space was much busier!! Restaurant we went to did check upon arrival that we were one household. They had a couple of walk ins during our lunch sitting which was nice as tables with reserved signs stayed empty (hope they were reservations for later and not no shows).
I have told my bf we need to eat out more to support the businesses (already had been at least once a week since wfh) but that isn’t enough to support all the local businesses I like! So anyone reading this thread pls do your bit as well.
I agree. It is the worst of both worlds for everyone.
I think a lot of people will follow the rules but some will think to hell with it.
To be honest I have been eating and drinking outside where possible even if I am on my own or with my partner (who is in my household!)
But that said I am not sure there is much more danger to me drinking inside with a single friend and a group of four young housemates with separate lives.
This seems very hard on single people.
Were you replying to me?
If so:
It would depend on the level of danger as well as the much larger viral/social/economical state of society.
It is! Especially as the only time we can now go into a bar or restaurant is on our own. If I’ve got to eat on my own I might as well stay home. It’s all very well letting us meet up to 6 others outdoors but we hardly have the climate for it from October to April!
I know this isn’t highly practical, but as a single person can you not form a bubble with another single person? \ Not sure if that means you can go to the pub \ eat out together.
Pubs manage to successfully age check teenagers so they’re not liable for serving under age. Is it hard to check addresses as opposed to date of birth?
Its all very confusing as in my job I am inside with a number of people who dont live with me-we sit in an office environment
No one wears masks in the office except me and one other colleague -as far as I can see as long as we are 1m apart there is nothing about it being mandatory to wear a mask in an office.
So why can I spend all day with a bunch of people indoors at work unmasked yet i cant go for a meal lasting just over an hour with 2 friends ?
Personally tier 2 feels like limbo-land I wish they’d just do a 2 week lockdown and done!
rather than this wishy washy confusing stuff
As I understand it a single person can form a bubble with another household of any size and can then meet any of that household in either of their homes or elsewhere e.g.in a restaurant. However you can only form one bubble and therefore it’s easier said than done when friends have multiple social groups or family that aren’t part of their household!
Checking addresses is much harder. Not everyone has a driving licence, so pubs would end up like banks asking for utility bills or council tax statements!
In theory, making venues/transport etc Covidsafe, everyone respecting hands face space when out in public, easily available quick testing and high take uk if track and trace ought to go a long way to controlling spread without constant lockdowns. But not all of these elements are in place do it’s hard to tell if that would be enough.
It’s all about balance and reducing (not eliminating) contact. I heard the similar questions before Tier2 like ‘why can I go to the pub but not to church’. Doing one not the other cuts the amount of interaction while attempting to balance things like economic value. Pubs employ a lot more people than churches. Now it’s come down to reducing interaction again, so the next question is shutdown work for everyone, or stop people mixing in pubs. They chose pubs. Admittedly in theory you should be able to goto the pub with people you work with but then that’s totally unenforceable too.
Are the workers in our local pubs, restaurants and takeaways wearing masks, or just those plastic face shields? As I’ve said on other threads, the face shields protect the wearer but not others. Droplets are funnelled down and out, all over whatever food or drink they’re handling - and all over the client if they’re standing above them (eg cutting hair or taking a food order). Any establishment that doesn’t enforce the wearing of effective and suitable face masks for staff should surely be no go areas.
I saw a local TV news piece a couple of weeks back where people wearing just the face shields were outside a tube station handing out Covid info leaflets on behalf of the NHS and in some cases chatting to members of the public about them. Obviously no social distancing and one young guy even had his face shield pushed up on his head.
Masks have been required for all shop and hospitality staff for some weeks now.
There is only one person who is responsible for ensuring that Covid restrictions are adhered to. Not the government, not shop workers, not a councilor or the police.
Go look in a mirror.
This.
Perhaps if office work was against the guidelines you would be able to go for your meal instead.
Try thinking of the spread of the virus (often measured by R) like a speed limit. Everything one does that involves interacting with others (sitting in an office, going for a meal) adds a little bit of throttle and the government is trying to keep the speed at a manageable level.
If you are a single person household you can form a bubble with another household. But once you’ve formed it you have to remain in that bubble you can’t go off and bubble with another household and neither can person/people you’ve bubbles with. So maybe either find another household you regularly do stuff with and agree to bubble together or do what I’ve done which is to bubble with the household where I’d need to stay the night if I visited. bubbles class as one household so you can go inside still even in tier 2/3. Everyone else I shall see in a nearby park/garden/country walk, wearing lots of layers!!
I appreciate that the simpler the better but it is all to do with contacts and levels of risk. I’m a single person with several single friends. None of us are party-animals and we are all working from home with very limited contacts. With darker nights and colder temperatures, meeting up outdoors is getting harder. In my last few ONS COVD surveys, my number of socially distant contacts has consistently been <1-5 across 7 days.
A family group who has kids at school and where one or both parents are going into the office or work in a shop/pub or as a skilled trade, will have a much greater potential circle of contacts. Add in outdoor playdates/family activities etc and it rapidly rises.
The key thing is risk. If your level of risk is higher because of your work, journeys, friends, then you should be reducing it in other places. If your level of risk is lower because you’re not seeing anyone, then you should have a little more freedom.
My friends and I are all very low risk but because, for the most part, they’ve formed bubbles with elderly parents so they can still visit and drop off shopping, we can’t see one another. I have a colleague who goes out virtually every night to outdoor covered bars to see different groups of six and has a partner who works in a central London shop. Both entirely within the current rules but entirely different levels of spreading risk.
In an ideal world, we’d all have the app and it would be smart enough to count how many different people we’d come into 15-minute contact with and where. Everyone would have a risk ration for the week/month - once you’ve used it up, you’ve effectively locked yourself down. There would still be rules on group numbers etc but it would feel a more effective way of reducing the potential spread. If you’ve modified your behaviour to be less risky, then you probably wouldn’t hit them.
What a great idea @applespider and much fairer on those in single households. For once it’s a shame none of the government are on this forum though! 
