I don't know what the theory is, but the practice is that they can't even agree amongst themselves (politicians and officers) what restrictions are both acceptable and effective.Or is the theory that the mere existence of higher tiers will scare the bejesus out of the population and cow us into better compliance?
Devastating honesty from Whitty: Tier 3 is not enough. View attachment 552064
But what I don't understand - why would any of theother tiers be enough?
Surely, the implication of this policy is that all areas will progress up through the tiers to a new Tier 4 which Whitty implies?
Or is the theory that the mere existence of higher tiers will scare the bejesus out of the population and cow us into better compliance?
Either of them options are grim the lack of social science around this is deafening. The government don't look to have got even a simple understanding of the basics. Believing that the normal social political way works. Whitty will know this and that will have played into how he handled today he's always been clear and never blamed the masses for the mess. He and the rest of sage appear the only ones to have treated the public as grown up's and told it how it is. He's not into sound bites and being Mr popular he's a man of science and tell's it how it is. Even if the press don't hear the answers they want to hear.It matters very little what the rules are if those imposing them do not have the respect of the public to ensure large scale compliance. Enforcement cannot change population behaviour unless there is move to a police state.
I fear that we will have successive waves with deaths and damaged lives until the general population consistently modify their behaviour in ways that control the virus, or until natural selection and whatever immunity there may be limits the effects.
I didn't like that suggestion. I thought it was almost impossible to police and also it would encourage people to play games to still see everyone. At the moment, it's difficult enough for cycling clubs to get some people to stay in their bloody sixes and not chop and change. If they're now going to say two households, that means most "subgroups" will be two with some threes, fours and rarely more and most subgroups would have no one who feels strongly that the restrictions make enough sense to obey (which means most others comply out of respect for them), so they'd probably be reforming out of sight whenever they caught another subgroup and that would probably end up with more than six having been exposed if anyone falls ill, even though that wouldn't be classed as close contacts at the moment, but it's all probabilistic.Rule of six is still a problem it's open to too many households mixing. Thought the BMA a few days again had a better idea of no more than two households up to a max of 6 people in total. i'd have liked the government to also taken up the BMA on extending use of face coverings.
I thought there would be an "oh cr@p" tier equivalent to an almost total local lockdown.
Here spokes someone who as not got a clue.
What you thinking it maybe called ?As long as it isn't called national and appears less severe, even if it isn't (for Boris's benefit).
What you thinking it maybe called ?
We have 1m+ so tier 4 + (don't blame us local leaders asked for it) maybe ?
I didn't like that suggestion. I thought it was almost impossible to police and also it would encourage people to play games to still see everyone. At the moment, it's difficult enough for cycling clubs to get some people to stay in their bloody sixes and not chop and change. If they're now going to say two households, that means most "subgroups" will be two with some threes, fours and rarely more and most subgroups would have no one who feels strongly that the restrictions make enough sense to obey (which means most others comply out of respect for them), so they'd probably be reforming out of sight whenever they caught another subgroup and that would probably end up with more than six having been exposed if anyone falls ill, even though that wouldn't be classed as close contacts at the moment, but it's all probabilistic.
And the same would probably happen with every surviving social activity, so it'd probably backfire and I'm not sure what the BMA were thinking would happen. Did they think more would comply with tighter restrictions?
Whose forcing people onto public transport. Some have no other options when it comes to getting to work.Restaurant reviewer joins the complaints:
"It is unclear how forcing everyone on to public transport at roughly the same time, while simultaneously slashing the profits of every hospitality outlet that has survived thus far, is helping us combat the virus, but still, I trust those in charge implicitly."
https://www.theguardian.com/food/20...-a-bit-of-genius-grace-dent-restaurant-review
It appears from latest minutes that my views on the useless dithering of the govt are shared by their scientific advisers.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...roposals-from-sage-to-avert-covid-second-wave