http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboard/
http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=50349
Gyms and leisure centres stay openAwayfromburnley wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:07 amIs that actually the case? I thought the idea was if you were in a tier the rules were all the same?
Please tell me there isn't a 'less severe' tier 3?
They won’t make a difference because they’re half measures. It’s not just down to people. But then you look over at Italy and the “proper lockdown” they had, and now they’re recording the highest numbers since this began. I don’t think you can stop this thing.fidelcastro wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:28 amThese measures won't make any difference. Selfish people will continue to do whatever they like. I see it every day.
Still there are folk who actually doubt the virus exists.
Tricky one to explain to gym owners in Liverpool though isn't it?arise_sir_charge wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:49 amSurely regional variances are better than one blanket rule?
We've had regional variances before though.arise_sir_charge wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:49 amSurely regional variances are better than one blanket rule?
It is yeahduncandisorderly wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 12:02 pmSilliest question of the year;
00.01 on Saturday is 12 hours from now isn't it....?
From when lockdown was introduced back in March to when it started to be lifted, most people made an effort. I say most, because there is no doubt there’s been plenty of selfish people.fidelcastro wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:28 amThese measures won't make any difference. Selfish people will continue to do whatever they like. I see it every day.
Still there are folk who actually doubt the virus exists.
Sure, but everyone knows by now that you're meant to wear a mask in a shop or on public transport.Dyched wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 12:07 pmFrom when lockdown was introduced back in March to when it started to be lifted, most people made an effort. I say most, because there is no doubt there’s been plenty of selfish people.
But now, I feel the percentage of selfish people has remained the same whilst some strict rule keepers from the nationwide lockdown are genuinely confused on what is and isn’t allowed imho.
They need to take that up with their local council leaders. Appears ours have done a better job than theirs.
The absolute principle of the tiers was standardisation......arise_sir_charge wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 12:28 pmThey need to take that up with their local council leaders. Appears ours have done a better job than theirs.
By the way, if people genuinely think that being allowed to go to the gym in one area and not in another is confusing then God help them. If they know where they live, they should quite easily be able to work out if they can go to the gym.
Do you not feel that these inconsistencies undermine the message somewhat? It might help if there was an explanation as to why Lancashire's gyms are safer than the ones in Liverpool. Your second statement is just deliberately missing the point I feel.arise_sir_charge wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 12:28 pmThey need to take that up with their local council leaders. Appears ours have done a better job than theirs.
By the way, if people genuinely think that being allowed to go to the gym in one area and not in another is confusing then God help them. If they know where they live, they should quite easily be able to work out if they can go to the gym.
It makes these new tiers somewhat pointless though if there are going to be different regulations for the same tier depending on area.arise_sir_charge wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 12:28 pmThey need to take that up with their local council leaders. Appears ours have done a better job than theirs.
By the way, if people genuinely think that being allowed to go to the gym in one area and not in another is confusing then God help them. If they know where they live, they should quite easily be able to work out if they can go to the gym.
Why does it?
Best suggestion I have seen in 6 months.CrosspoolClarets wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 1:07 pmWhat needs to happen is intensive local testing, everyone in a high probability category in Tier 3 (needn’t include low risk like primary school kids and the shielding elderly) should be tested once or twice a week (I would say the latter for uni students and pub / hairdresser workers). Isolation in light of a positive test should be the law and punished with a heavy fine (not the slap on the wrist like now).
Option 2 would be to offer voluntary testing once a week, and only those who undertake it can visit premises like pubs.
Then places could stay open, but would be much lower risk. Why oh why do SAGE scientists with brains supposedly the size of Venus not propose some of this stuff? I do despair of them, its like they are stuck in one gear and cannot think outside the box, with regional creativity. I’ve worked a lot with scientists over the decades and most are like this.
It is in essence what some other countries are doing with far more targeted measures.
He understands the tiers. He’s obviously talking about why are different people in different areas allowed to do something or bot when both areas are Tier 3. That’s the issue. Why have tiers if you then are going to change the rules of those? That’s where it’s gonna get silly and people take less and less notice.arise_sir_charge wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 1:11 pmWhy does it?
In your area, you are Tier 3 and you are allowed to do the following things. You are not allowed to do these other things.
Honestly some folk must still need their parents to tie their shoe laces and cut up their chicken nuggets.
Imagine, in pursuit of road safety, you had set up a national traffic lights system for cars. Red, amber and green. Then you said, but actually the colours will mean slightly different things depending on where in England you are driving. You could then legitimately ask, what is the point of a national system then?arise_sir_charge wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 1:11 pmWhy does it?
In your area, you are Tier 3 and you are allowed to do the following things. You are not allowed to do these other things.
Honestly some folk must still need their parents to tie their shoe laces and cut up their chicken nuggets.
If that the case. How many test are done in Burnley per week currently? (I honestly don’t know). If we only allowed people who’ve tested negative to enter Bars/Pubs etc how are those business going to survive?CrosspoolClarets wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 1:07 pmWhat needs to happen is intensive local testing, everyone in a high probability category in Tier 3 (needn’t include low risk like primary school kids and the shielding elderly) should be tested once or twice a week (I would say the latter for uni students and pub / hairdresser workers). Isolation in light of a positive test should be the law and punished with a heavy fine (not the slap on the wrist like now).
Option 2 would be to offer voluntary testing once a week, and only those who undertake it can visit premises like pubs.
Then places could stay open, but would be much lower risk. Why oh why do SAGE scientists with brains supposedly the size of Venus not propose some of this stuff? I do despair of them, its like they are stuck in one gear and cannot think outside the box, with regional creativity. I’ve worked a lot with scientists over the decades and most are like this.
It is in essence what some other countries are doing with far more targeted measures.
That would assume a testing system that gave an answer in hours not days. The tests to provide such a quick response are only just emerging. Besides, isn’t this just ‘Operation Moonshot’, so I’m sure Boris has got this all in hand because he said he would.CrosspoolClarets wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 1:07 pmWhat needs to happen is intensive local testing, everyone in a high probability category in Tier 3 (needn’t include low risk like primary school kids and the shielding elderly) should be tested once or twice a week (I would say the latter for uni students and pub / hairdresser workers). Isolation in light of a positive test should be the law and punished with a heavy fine (not the slap on the wrist like now).
Option 2 would be to offer voluntary testing once a week, and only those who undertake it can visit premises like pubs.
Then places could stay open, but would be much lower risk. Why oh why do SAGE scientists with brains supposedly the size of Venus not propose some of this stuff? I do despair of them, its like they are stuck in one gear and cannot think outside the box, with regional creativity. I’ve worked a lot with scientists over the decades and most are like this.
It is in essence what some other countries are doing with far more targeted measures.
Excellent points CC, and it shouldn't be beyond the wit of our testing regime to carry out extreme local testing in areas with high rates, but this is precisely why testing should be overseen at a local level, and not outsourced to private companies to make a quick buck or two.CrosspoolClarets wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 1:07 pmWhat needs to happen is intensive local testing, everyone in a high probability category in Tier 3 (needn’t include low risk like primary school kids and the shielding elderly) should be tested once or twice a week (I would say the latter for uni students and pub / hairdresser workers). Isolation in light of a positive test should be the law and punished with a heavy fine (not the slap on the wrist like now).
Option 2 would be to offer voluntary testing once a week, and only those who undertake it can visit premises like pubs.
Then places could stay open, but would be much lower risk. Why oh why do SAGE scientists with brains supposedly the size of Venus not propose some of this stuff? I do despair of them, its like they are stuck in one gear and cannot think outside the box, with regional creativity. I’ve worked a lot with scientists over the decades and most are like this.
It is in essence what some other countries are doing with far more targeted measures.
which hasn't been answered yet, is how do regions which are placed over tier 3 restrictions actually emerge from those said restrictions, I thought the whole point of these curbs was that they're supposed to be a short term measure to drive the numbers down, and then allow places to gradually return to some form of normality, out of all the various areas placed into local lockdowns, only Luton has so far met the criteria to escape from these rigid measures, this is one of the main reasons why local officials are averse to implementing them, because there doesn't appear to be an obvious exit strategy to later remove them, and now the government support is waning, quite rightly many are worried about their livelihoods.It’s not that that’s the issue. Why are gyms allowed to open in Burnley with it’s chart topping infection rates but not parts of Merseyside with lower infection rates. If you’re going to take the public with you you have to demonstrate absolute consistency or have a very good explanation for the inconsistencies.arise_sir_charge wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 1:11 pmWhy does it?
In your area, you are Tier 3 and you are allowed to do the following things. You are not allowed to do these other things.
Honestly some folk must still need their parents to tie their shoe laces and cut up their chicken nuggets.
Slightly different, the road network is a fixed national infrastructure than has been in place for decades. I’m sure the first person to arrive at a red light was confused. I’m sure light systems have also developed over time to what we see today (filters etc etc).RMutt wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 1:20 pmImagine, in pursuit of road safety, you had set up a national traffic lights system for cars. Red, amber and green. Then you said, but actually the colours will mean slightly different things depending on where in England you are driving. You could then legitimately ask, what is the point of a national system then?
It was running at around 3,500 a week, not sure now.Dyched wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 1:21 pm
If that the case. How many test are done in Burnley per week currently? (I honestly don’t know). If we only allowed people who’ve tested negative to enter Bars/Pubs etc how are those business going to survive?
If we change testing strategy, how far down the list are those people who wanna get tested so they can go have a pint? Way down the bottom.
Yes, but Crosspools suggestion would in theory put the testing resource where it was most needed.
It's been apparent from statements by Chris Whitty that tier 3 provides a basis on which more severe restrictions can be added locally. Now I'm not normally a conspiracy theorist but it looks to me as if the government are effectively saying to local authorities..."You're in tier 3 so decide what you want to do. If it's unpopoular- it's your fault, if it doesn't work...it's your fault".Dyched wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 1:17 pmHe understands the tiers. He’s obviously talking about why are different people in different areas allowed to do something or bot when both areas are Tier 3. That’s the issue. Why have tiers if you then are going to change the rules of those? That’s where it’s gonna get silly and people take less and less notice.
That's all very well and I assume that you are logical and capable of reading and understanding simple instructions.....as I expect are most people on here. I know at least one person who is very intelligent, thoroughly public spirited and in every way a good person. She is also completely flummoxed by even the simplest deviation from a simple message - watching her using the internet or read a map can be truly painful. I do not think she is unique. In this sort of situation we surely need to cater for everyone and be seen to be fair and straightforward.arise_sir_charge wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 1:11 pmWhy does it?
In your area, you are Tier 3 and you are allowed to do the following things. You are not allowed to do these other things.
Honestly some folk must still need their parents to tie their shoe laces and cut up their chicken nuggets.
What's the point of having tiers if the application is going to be different in each area? We could have just stuck with the previous local lockdowns. The whole point was to provide clarity.arise_sir_charge wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 1:11 pmWhy does it?
In your area, you are Tier 3 and you are allowed to do the following things. You are not allowed to do these other things.
Honestly some folk must still need their parents to tie their shoe laces and cut up their chicken nuggets.
It's a nice plan but the UK decided not to do this early doors when it opted to maybe go herd immunity, maybe go lockdown but regardless opted not to expand testing when there was a golden opportunity to do so. When they eventually twigged that testing was important Boris gave it to his mate to sort out, with the results as expected. I'm sure "the scientists" would love a system as you've suggested but there needs to be a sense of reality about what the government can deliver.CrosspoolClarets wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 1:07 pmWhat needs to happen is intensive local testing, everyone in a high probability category in Tier 3 (needn’t include low risk like primary school kids and the shielding elderly) should be tested once or twice a week (I would say the latter for uni students and pub / hairdresser workers). Isolation in light of a positive test should be the law and punished with a heavy fine (not the slap on the wrist like now).
Option 2 would be to offer voluntary testing once a week, and only those who undertake it can visit premises like pubs.
Then places could stay open, but would be much lower risk. Why oh why do SAGE scientists with brains supposedly the size of Venus not propose some of this stuff? I do despair of them, its like they are stuck in one gear and cannot think outside the box, with regional creativity. I’ve worked a lot with scientists over the decades and most are like this.
It is in essence what some other countries are doing with far more targeted measures.
Well that’s news to the authorities in Liverpool who are currently asking why Lancashire’s gyms are being allowed to remain open while theirs aren’t. If they’d made the decision themselves I’m sure they’d already know the answer.SingaporeClarets wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 1:45 pmIt's local authorities who decide on gyms not the government.
Liverpool chose to shut gyms ontop of the tier 3 restrictions, Lancashire didn't.
Why did they put Dido Harding in charge of the Track and Trace system when she inspires little confidence?aggi wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 2:09 pmIt's a nice plan but the UK decided not to do this early doors when it opted to maybe go herd immunity, maybe go lockdown but regardless opted not to expand testing when there was a golden opportunity to do so. When they eventually twigged that testing was important Boris gave it to his mate to sort out, with the results as expected. I'm sure "the scientists" would love a system as you've suggested but there needs to be a sense of reality about what the government can deliver.
Mmh that is strange, you would thing that shell suits offered greater protection.
What, than racism, doubt it?BleedingClaret wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 2:32 pmMmh that is strange, you would thing that shell suits offered greater protection.
I must admit I was a little surprised by that infographic from SingaporeClarets. I can't find any other reference to the local authority aspect of it. I had a scan of the regulations from government and couldn't see it there either. ( although legal documents are quite difficult to read for me to be honest) At the end it also says 'any other businesses' which seems to be a massive catch all.
Either the description given all along about how local authorities and not the government can take extra measures in Tier 3 is a lie
Have to agree with this. I use a council gym and I'm 100% sure it is safer than a lot of shops and pubs (even those serving "substantial meals"). It's probably safer than walking down a high street where, let's be honest nobody is social distancing anymore.Clarets4me wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 1:25 pmMy son is a gym owner in Lancashire and I suspect you'd be safer there than in Sainsburys, looking at the measures that he has in place ..... Luckily, his members tend to be sensible sorts ...
Sorry, I thought we were throwing around lazy regional stereotypes.
They should produce some stats to back up the ban really (if there are any), but on the face of it an enclosed space where people are breathing hard and sweating all over the place doesn’t sound like a good idea.TheFamilyCat wrote: ↑Fri Oct 16, 2020 2:45 pmHave to agree with this. I use a council gym and I'm 100% sure it is safer than a lot of shops and pubs (even those serving "substantial meals"). It's probably safer than walking down a high street where, let's be honest nobody is social distancing anymore.
yes I was, so your correct 2nd time round, and my apologies to you, if you're, truly, offended by that, and I accept your revised, incorrect, first response.
I agree and maybe the gym I go to isn't the best example. The capacity is limited to 25 and there hasn't been more than 7/8 people in at times I have been so it's been very ealsly keep away from other people.
