This is a Premium feature
Local lockdowns....(42 Posts)
... and the threat of them would be a good way to maintain “good” behaviour re social distancing etc. and if I were the Government I’d be looking at flexing this option.
For instance, “we’ll open shops etc. on 15 June, but only if your R is below 1.” If an area was above 1, shops wouldn’t open for a week until things improved. People in those areas would be outraged and blame would be apportioned in every which direction, and the peer pressure for people to curtail “risky” behaviours would become enormous. Do it once, and it will be unlikely to happen again...
I don't think the local real time R is being measured accurately enough to enforce that threat.
Isn't the main risky behaviour living in a nursing home?
Zoe app indicates infection rates are much higher in some areas than others. Agree local lockdowns are a good idea, particularly keeping schools closed in areas where infection rates are high.
Effective R is an estimate and there are different ways of generating that estimate. Seems a rather cruel way to play with people’s lives - making threats based on something they don’t have a great deal of control over
I’m not arguing against local specific measures btw - just this “punishment” mentality
Yes, it would be harsh and people would complain bitterly, but I bet it would work! I’d argue the means justify the ends in this case if it both saves lives and jobs by allowing the economy to open up.
The R rate is calculated using 3 week old data so not sure how helpful that would be. Plus different organisations use different methods of calculating it and come up with varying results... it’s essentially a made up number (albeit based on data).
Agree Catastro Sounds like keeping the class in at playtime because someone did something naughty - hardly the right approach if you want co-operation and would need more understanding of why the rate has risen.
Up til now the rate in the SW has been much lower than other areas, if it's going up it needs to be specified which areas of the SW (a huge area) and why - is it due to people travelling into those areas in recent weeks? Not something that people who live there can control.
Nah. The R rate can seem higher just because an area has low levels of infection and doesn't necessarily mean anything about community transmission. E.g The South West.
I wouldn't see local lockdowns as something to be done as a punishment. They should be done as a public health measure to get infection rates down. Agree that decisions shouldn't be based on R alone. Also important to consider infection rates as a percentage of the population.
The R rate in the SW was due to an outbreak at Weston General Hospital which came from the hospital and was contained there.
Outside of that, infection rates are lower than most areas of the UK and always have been but it caused the R rate to rise.
Additionally, as the number of cases become lower, the R rate has less meaning. Hence why in Germany it fluctuates between 1.3 and 0.5ish regularly, and is also why it is subject to fluctuation in the SW (far fewer cases to start with).
As a crude example if you have an area with only 3 cases, but those 3 people all pass it to 2 members of their household, the R rate in that area is 2.
“ Yes, it would be harsh and people would complain bitterly, but I bet it would work! I’d argue the means justify the ends in this case if it both saves lives and jobs by allowing the economy to open up.”
Not harsh - actually cruel. You don’t understand how the effective R works if you think it should be used to control people in this way. Thank goodness you aren’t in charge and I hope this is just a wind-up “though experiment” type post where you get to see people being horrified. People do not have direct control over the effective R in the way that you suggest, so it is simple cruelty to use threats of punishment like this. Is this really the society people want to live in?
As I have said - local specific measures and restrictions are not daft ideas. Using them as threats and punishments based on a crude estimate that the local population has minimal Control over is an act of cruelty
Thank goodness you aren’t in charge and I hope this is just a wind-up “though experiment” type post where you get to see people being horrified
Yes, the 'maverick' way of thinking.
Why the R rate went up in the SW but it still maintains some of the lowest rates of infection in the country. Basically, because it had low rates and an outbreak in a hospital pushed the R rate up.
So you feel it is entirely justified to punish the local populace for the behaviour of visitors... I live in the SW and the R is now 1.0 and probably likely to rise further after the recent crowds to the beaches and moorland over half term. The local authorities were begging people not to visit as we have a vulnerable and elderly population with some of the highest levels of poverty in the country. Before the outbreak our limited hospitals had a 600% under supply of critical care beds, the worst in the country.
I literally know of no locals that joined the crowds on these popular beaches, but you would have us suffer the double whammy of not only increased infections, deaths and disabilities, but also also would lockdown further our fragile economy.
Fine! But in that case everyone should be confined to their own geographical regions.
Also, the ones who were keeping to the rules would continue doing so, and the ones who weren’t will continue doing whatever they want. I don’t think the threat of Next not opening would stop people having illegal raves, for example.
onlyfortonight as mentioned upthread, the increase in R rate in the SW was largely due to an outbreak within WSM hospital. Not due to people going to the beach.
If the visitors were only coming into contact with other visitors they won't have had an opportunity to cause an outbreak in the immediate area. It is scientifically impossible for someone to catch the virus inside their home hundreds of metres away from a large gathering, so if those on beaches were the cause locals would have had to have been amongst them.
But in days of SM pitchfork brigade following the guidelines is even seen as breaking the rules.
Exercise at the beach? Rule breaker
Meet two metres apart with one person in the park? Rule breaker etc.
My mil posted a pic in FB of a stock photo of people on the beach and a cemetery.
Personally I hate this finger pointing blame culture. Esp as my kids are in the vunerable group and in the very few vunerable kids who are allowed by school to return. Its damaging in a covert way.
@onlyfortonight Doesn't your post actually make the case for area specific limited lockdowns? eg No travelling into a specific region from outside unless for specified purposes such as work.
If the visitors were only coming into contact with other visitors they won't have had an opportunity to cause an outbreak in the immediate area
Unlikely though - even if locals didn't go to the beaches they would have been working in local food shops, takeaways, petrol stations etc
The current R rate has a lag...as I am sure you are aware. The outbreak in Weston will have contributed to the currently quoted figure but the flood of visitors to the SW will not yet have had time to show. The one to two weeks will be important.
I am actually not against people visiting. I appreciate I live in a great place to live and holiday and I do not mind sharing that space and adapting my own behaviour to reduce the spread when our visitor numbers rise ( as I did last weekend). What I am very against is the casual suggestion of using lockdown to punish a populace for a rise in infections that are little to do with their own behaviour.
I cannot see why anyone would disagree!
Join the discussion
Please login first.