Month long lockdown to 'pay' for 5 days over Christmas

[NotAKaren]

PHE have confirmed Sage advice that for every one day of relaxation over Christmas would require 5 days of restrictions afterwards. So for 5 days relaxation, which is rumoured to be what the government have in mind, would mean 25 days of restrictions. Is it really worth it?

Easy to say no when you are able to see your family frequently. My family lives abroad so I would definitely be happy to lockdown for a month (even with homeschooling the kids as an added bonus) if I can travel to them at Christmas.

Oh fucking hell they are going to do this aren't they?

They know too many people will flout restrictions over Christmas so they preempting what they were going to do anyway but blaming family Christmases this time.

@NoSleepInTheHeat

Easy to say no when you are able to see your family frequently. My family lives abroad so I would definitely be happy to lockdown for a month (even with homeschooling the kids as an added bonus) if I can travel to them at Christmas.

my family lives abroad, haven't seen them since last xmas. I;d be happy to get anything for this to be over as soon as possible, however, I know a big lockdown would kill economy and many people so I'm not asking for that. however, I still think allowing 10 people groups from 4-5 households is madness.

Can't believe this morning's 'three households allowed' drivel. Allegedly so that you don't have to choose between grandparents. So, I have two parents, both remarried and with their respective DPs, and in-laws, three siblings plus single living alone BIL, married BIL and single SIL with long term P (separate households). I can meet with one not both of parents (and respective) DP if I don't see MIL/FIL. If I do, does that mean other siblings can't see them? If they can, because we can all meet up with 2 other households then effectively between us that means 10 households (with lots of school age children- all of whom have been in school since September) in close proximity over a few days. So what's the difference between this and a normal Christmas?

Boris, just grow a pair and either cancel Christmas (cue sub-Churchillian blether) or tell everyone to Christingle- mingle merrily on high ...and accept the spike/ lack of medical care/increased mortality when it comes without hand/wringing or blaming anyone but yourself.

I'm still annoyed about this, this morning. If you have a 'big family Christmas' the likelihood is that we're going to be in this miserable situation for even longer.

I have a friend who 'knows her own mind' and 'won't be told what to do.' People don't seem to understand that COVID doesn't give a fig about this. It doesn't stay away from you and stop spreading because you perceive yourself to be clever enough to outwit it and 'won't be told who you can and can't see.'

It's just wholly selfish attitude for people who continue to do whatever they like and then expect a full NHS service laying on when they get it.

I really, really, think that we need to tone it down, just for this one year. OK maybe have a short window when you can see a small number of people, but this 'I'll do what I like and who are you to tell me otherwise' attitude really is awful.

"It's just wholly selfish attitude for people who continue to do whatever they like and then expect a full NHS service laying on when they get it."

Oh, yes. All those selfish people who play sports, drive, ride motorbikes, go out walking, cycle, climb up ladders, use power tools, eat too much, drink too much, etc etc and then expect a full NHS service laying on.

People live their lives. They assess the risks to them and, to an extent, to those around them. They pay for the NHS. Then they expect the NHS to be there when they need it, even if they contribute to that need. How very dare they?

The reality is, even with a normal Christmas, the majority of people including the old and vulnerable will be absolutely fine because their family members won't even have the virus in the first place. Despite what we are told, we are not all walking around with Covid unknowingly. People should be able to weigh up their own risks, for many elderly, this will be their last Christmas anyway.

Completely agree with you TokyoSushi. As things stand we're seeing a significant reduction in cases in my Tier 3 area (part of Greater Manchester). What people need to understand us that if transmission rates increase among the general population, that means significantly more (otherwise healthy) people will get ill. I'm including people with managed underlying health conditions in the category because having eg Stage1 diabetes doesn't prevent you from having a productive life. So, more illness across the board means a greater need for health care because these people (unlike the frail elderly we've already lost prematurely) have a higher chance of coming through - but only if the medical care they need can be delivered. It's not about saving the nhs; it's about trying to keep people like my lovely, funny, self-deprecating, selfless, hardworking,salt-of-the-earth 40 something friend (son husband , father of 3) alive. In his case, they couldn't but at least they had the resources to try their damndest.

@amicissimma

"It's just wholly selfish attitude for people who continue to do whatever they like and then expect a full NHS service laying on when they get it."

Oh, yes. All those selfish people who play sports, drive, ride motorbikes, go out walking, cycle, climb up ladders, use power tools, eat too much, drink too much, etc etc and then expect a full NHS service laying on.

People live their lives. They assess the risks to them and, to an extent, to those around them. They pay for the NHS. Then they expect the NHS to be there when they need it, even if they contribute to that need. How very dare they?

Well yes, but I suppose the difference is with a lot of things, people try to do the activity, use the power tools, drive etc safely, unfortunately sometimes there's an accident and these things go wrong. Of course we're fortunate to have the NHS waiting to pick up the pieces.

It's quite different for people to say 'I won't be told what to do' and go around putting themselves and others at risk, potentially putting extra pressure on the NHS by doing so.

I expect that we might have to agree to disagree on this point though.

I suspect part of the problem is that the people who want to (and will probably have regardless) mass family gatherings at Christmas are probably the sort of people who also mix a lot with other people.

I have some sympathy with the people who are planning to self isolate for 2 weeks before Christmas before visiting grandparents (and just GPs, no other extended family). Particularly if their GPs are elderly and/or vulnerable and/or live along way away and they have scarcely seen them this year.

I don't have so much sympathy for people who want to have a mass family gathering because that's what they always do, and don't see the need to make any concessions to get it.

My parents are vulnerable and live 4 hours away. I've seen them once this year (in August, about the only time of the year it was possible within restrictions). I'd like to see them at Christmas but both they and I would prioritise

• the children continuing to get an education (particularly as they have have GDC in exam years)
• DD getting medical treatment that massively affects her quality of live but is constantly pushed back due to pressures on the health service
• my mother getting medical treatment (as for DD)
• being able to live a normal as possible life on a day to day basis i.e things like non-essential shops, restaurants, leisure facilities being open
• family members not losing jobs due to businesses no longer being viable

The people who say they must have their big family gathering are either in very fortunate positions or unable to look beyond their own little bubble.

How do you know that you haven't got the virus oneday? You might be an asymptomatic carrier. Frankly, your attitude sucks amicissimma. Usually, I'd agree with you on the concept of personal risk but even then I'd think that your assumption of your right to free medical care needs to be tempered by a degree of self- responsibility. Now, it's not about your right to care 'because you paid for it' but about our wider responsibility to care for others. Unless everyone you come into contact with ( and everyone they ..,and do on) agrees to accept the risk of infection you don't have the right to impose it upon them.
Apologies in advance if your comment was meant to be ironic and I 'misheard' the tone.

@RedskyAtnight

I suspect part of the problem is that the people who want to (and will probably have regardless) mass family gatherings at Christmas are probably the sort of people who also mix a lot with other people.

I have some sympathy with the people who are planning to self isolate for 2 weeks before Christmas before visiting grandparents (and just GPs, no other extended family). Particularly if their GPs are elderly and/or vulnerable and/or live along way away and they have scarcely seen them this year.

I don't have so much sympathy for people who want to have a mass family gathering because that's what they always do, and don't see the need to make any concessions to get it.

My parents are vulnerable and live 4 hours away. I've seen them once this year (in August, about the only time of the year it was possible within restrictions). I'd like to see them at Christmas but both they and I would prioritise

• the children continuing to get an education (particularly as they have have GDC in exam years)
• DD getting medical treatment that massively affects her quality of live but is constantly pushed back due to pressures on the health service
• my mother getting medical treatment (as for DD)
• being able to live a normal as possible life on a day to day basis i.e things like non-essential shops, restaurants, leisure facilities being open
• family members not losing jobs due to businesses no longer being viable

The people who say they must have their big family gathering are either in very fortunate positions or unable to look beyond their own little bubble.

Completely agree!

ABSOLUTELY 100% NO!!!!!!!

The gov should offer at the very most - families to meet up (max of three households) for just one day! Christmas day and/or Boxing - no overnight stays, and strict regulations about distancing etc. Then we could avoid the kind of disaster that will unfold in January with a five day mash up. There is no way they should even consider a five day christmas!!! With nearly a month afterwards of strict lockdown and everything that will do to the economy and the NHS.

This is beyond madness. It is one bloody day - most of us are not even remotely religious!!!

WHO EVEN HAS A FIVE DAY CHRISTMAS??????

Can you tell I am cross people?

Ha Friends I concur entirely

It’s bloody madness

Have they updated this morning? Or still speculation

Marsha it's an idea that comes under the vague tag line 'under plans being considered', so another non-leak (aka advance warning of further fuckwittery) to test the water/'prepare' the proletariat?

If you're reading this thread DilynsMummy, maybe you could have a word with DilynsDad?

One day sounds like a more sensible plan Friends, tho it won't suit everyone -

I'd be prepared for another 5 days of lockdown as a result. But honestly, those 5 days would make absolutely no difference to me on a practical level as in GManchester we've been locked down, since March. 11 days reprieve in July and then shunted into Tier3.

I suspect that we'll get 3 days ( to allow for travel) 3 households or max 15 people, whichever's less, and then complete lockdown between Christmas and January 2nd, then more tier 3& even 4 when cases spike from the start of the year.

Still speculation marsha I very much hope the idea of a five day christmas will be filed in the bin. Children mostly only care about presents at christmas, parents mainly only care about not burning the turkey and drinking copious amounts of wine. All these things can be enjoyed safely without any risk. Every family that can COPE alone, should do so. All those that alone, elderly etc should be able to bubble up for one day. Why are they making such a dogs dinner of this as well?

I don't know anyone that celebrates christmas from Thursday to Monday! And I love christmas! Love parties, but this year - and for this year only we are having a quiet christmas and we hope to follow the true meaning of christmas, which is goodwill to all men/women and try and keep as many of them alive as possible.

I feel like I am living in an open air asylum most days. Where has our collective common sense gone?!

One day - three households max and not encouraged - 2 metres apart - windows open. Church services limited in numbers and to one service - no singing. Anyone alone allowed to bubble for the day

Someone send this memo from MN to No10 please

What with NY too, I am beginning to think January is going to be the mother of all months when it comes to NHS strain and covid cases spiking unless there is a much stronger message about SAVING lives this christmas. We should be seeing a rolling campaign of Grannies at christmas dying in covid wards, not planning on five days christmases. We need to find our moral compass.
Many people will die if we continue with this idea of we must save christmas. No, we need to save Granny and that way she will be here next christmas, and many more after that if we are lucky.

We need to be taking a grown up view of this, and teaching our children not to be sentimental and over emotional. It is one day and people's lives are more important. I can hardly believe adults are behaving like little kids about this christmas. It is one day - and next year we will be more or less back to normal and that is the year we will plan the big parties and christmases, not this one.

@Friendsoftheearth

What with NY too, I am beginning to think January is going to be the mother of all months when it comes to NHS strain and covid cases spiking unless there is a much stronger message about SAVING lives this christmas. We should be seeing a rolling campaign of Grannies at christmas dying in covid wards, not planning on five days christmases. We need to find our moral compass. Many people will die if we continue with this idea of we must save christmas. No, we need to save Granny and that way she will be here next christmas, and many more after that if we are lucky.

We need to be taking a grown up view of this, and teaching our children not to be sentimental and over emotional. It is one day and people's lives are more important. I can hardly believe adults are behaving like little kids about this christmas. It is one day - and next year we will be more or less back to normal and that is the year we will plan the big parties and christmases, not this one.

Are you for fucking real? We've seen death counts daily since March. We've seen the photos and video clips of many poor souls who have been taken this year. Teaching kids not to be sentimental? You can't unteach that.

One poster mentioned earlier about her father having stage 4 cancer, she wants to give him a good Christmas and too bloody right. None of us know how long we've got. People ARE in the main complying with these restrictions but the truth is none of us know how long we've got left! Christmas for some is the only time of year that they get a break.

Just because Covid is killing lots of people right now, it's not the only killer. People have died as a result of disease or other people's consequences for years. This is not new.

@Requinblanc

Sage seriously needs to be investigated for the abysmal advice they have been giving throughout the whole pandemic. Nonsense after nonsense....

I find it very weird for sure how the government appears to be in thrall to them and imperial college also.

I think it's good that they're trying a new approach.

"More People Will Die If You Do This" doesn't work on a staggering proportion of the population.

"You Risk Infecting And Potentially Hospitalising Or Killing Your Loved Ones" also doesn't seem to have an impact on some people.

But

"Never Mind Other People Dying, You Personally Will Have To Live With More Restrictions For Longer" apparently hots the spot with many of those who are impervious to calls to altruism.

So I'm glad they've found something that the non-altruistic respond to.

It would make it safer to relax the rules for one or two days.

I originally said back to the rule if 6 indoors for two days would be preference to balance out the needs of people to "have Christmas" with the need of the country not to increase spread. However I think a one day free for all might also work.

I also see the sense of limiting you to a couple of households for those five days if it stops you socialising with many more households over course of the long weekend.

I also like the idea of breaking schools up early to reduce children's likelihood of being unknowingly infected on Christmas Day with Grandad.

Families like mine, there's five of us, we care more about not endangering my parents than having a normal Christmas, and we will just stay self contained for the day.

My parents will probably end up with one of my siblings or both on Boxing Day because they won't want to hurt their feelings by telling them not to come.

They'd prefer a blanket ban they could complain about whilst being relieved at not having to make the decision to upset family or risk endangerment from having a household full of people who have had hundreds of contacts every day during the Winter Peak when they themselves have been Shielding hard since March.