COVID-19

It is completely true that many local Tory councillors and MPs supported Burnham's stance and urged him to stand up to the government.

 

The words we choose to use are important @Offcomedun

You are right that they Manchester MPs wanted to push the government for more money and more information. That's is their job on behalf of their constituents and displays the sort of non-partisan approach that I actually respect.

That is completely different to being in "complete agreement" with Andy Burnham for the very major points of political brinkmanship that I mentioned before.

 

Once again words are important. I didn't say that anything was untrue per se, I said they lack enough context and detail for the reader to form a true opinion. The Mail do the same thing so this isn't a left vs right viewpoint but those articles are designed to generate anger, not to actually inform. I'll have a proper look over it when I get back home.

They now have a system using both which I think it fairly balanced. The lack of competitive tendering is a speed thing obviously, giving contracts to people you have worked with before is a trust thing, I'm not sure the public sector is any more knowledgeable about a pandemic or easily scalable either but you know this.

That's not to say that money hasn't been wasted or there are certain factors that need to be investigated but this broad brush approach where we should just be mad because its cost £12b to set up a testing infrusture from scratch (for example) I just don't get without actually digging into the details.

 

South Yorkshire expected to announce going into tier 3 later today. No political posturing from Dan Jarvis there it would seem after productive talks with the Government.

 

I'm not sure they actually did when I've looked into it but I could stand corrected on that if we have more detail?

 

Seriously? What now you want to disagree with the scientist?

The reason for doing it is to getting the testing right and the track/trace plus you giving people an end date.

Also, you don't have a country divide.

Stop acting like Boris's puppet it's shameful. We will end up with a national circuit break in a few weeks anyway.

 

They would have been.It's clear conversations happening with the government all the time about different things

Liverpool gym reopening. Government u-turn. So is this because the science was wrong in the first place or because they bent the rules to allow gyms to stay open in Tory areas?

Get your head out of the clouds mate.

 

Confused. I'm not disagreeing with the scientists.

I said I'm not sure that SAGE did actually recommend a circuit breaker, from what I've actually seen they just presented it as one of several options.

3 separate points though on this though.

• How would a 2 week lockdown solve the test and trace - doesn't seem like any of the issues can be solved by a break
• Why should people in Cornwall be locked down because the rate is high in Manchester and Liverpool
• What happens at the end of the 2 week circuit breaker - if it just puts the rate back 28 days are we looking at continual circuit breakers every 6 weeks?

I won't expect any detail to be fair. Just some generic insult about backing Boris and not understanding life but whatever floats your boat.

 

Lets focus on Bradford for a second, most of us either live near or around the district so most of us are tied into the rules.

As it stands we are in tier 2, but there is every chance we could move up to tier 3, so what will change and what impact if any will it have on lowering the rate?

So childrens play areas will be forced to closed. What impact will that have? Seeing as most of the under 16s anyhow are going to school each and every day and are sharing an indoor space with a minumum of 30 others at anyone time stopping them from going to a play area really is not going to do much at all. Any effect is going to be marginal at best.

Then we have pubs which don't serve food having to shut, seeing as you can't go to the pub with anyone outside your own household at present in tier 2 what effect will this have? Pretty much none. We are going from a Covid secure enviroment where thousands of pounds have been spent to keep pubs safe without being able to meet people outside your household to not being able to go at all. The impact again is marginal at best. It's a complete waste of time.

Look at Leeds Road in Bradford, one of the places in the district where the rates have been at the highest since July, and as of yesterday was touching 3 figures. Not one business on that road would be shut down as they are all restaurants and takeaway. So at a place where the virus is highest tier 3 will have no effect whatsoever.

Bookies, Casinos and Bingo Halls will be forced to close. Well talk again about minimal impact, we are talking marginal benefits at best.

Gyms will have to close, or will they as they are reopening now in Merseyside after initially being told to close, plus in Lancshire they were exempt anyhow and so it seems in Manchester and in Sheffield. A softening of the rules within days of the tier system being brought in. Closing gyms would only have a marginal impact anyhow.

At the very best with the restrictions above we are talking about a 5% (and I am being generous there) reduction in the spread of cases but we are looking at a large proportion of local jobs and businesses being lost. Lets remember this has knock on concequences as the supply chain won't get any help as they are deemed not required to close but they are clearly effected.

Everywhere that the governement wants to put in tier 3 with restrictions at present will see those restrictions kill off far more jobs and businesses than reduce the level of the virus. They could take the tier 3 areas, fund them properly and lock the areas down fully.

Anyone who thinks that shutting a bar or bookies will lower the rates whilst the Broadway, Cannon Mills, Leeds Road, etc are all still in full flow is being sold a lie.

 

Isn't that the crux of the issue though? If you shut everything down the government - and therefore the taxpayer - couldn't prop everything up so they have to let some things continue and partly prop up others.

The idea that the government could just step in and fund the whole of the Bradford economy for both business owners and all the employees is weird to me.

But I agree that a full lockdown is the ideal situation in terms of controlling the virus, it's the idea that we could do this and have no negative economic effects that I can't get my head around.

 

Do you not agree that the tier 3 restriction within Bradford will have a very minimal if any impact on reducing rates?

 

If I'm honest I'm not sure - I think we're in a stage where we can only wait and see what outcomes result from it.

Logically anything that you do to stop people interacting will have some impact but it doesn't feel like they go far enough to me either. I would include restaurants and probably retail too. i'm not sure I agree with you that it is definitely minimal but I also don't think they go far enough to stop it.

The economic impact of that can't be ignored though and the slightly Utopian idea that "ah well, the government will just step in" seems too easy and can't be ignored.

 

The government has to step in. You can't tell people they can't earn a living and then give them anything to live off otherwise you will have no compliance with the rules and by default the rule then don't work.

I stand with my marginal effect. Stopping people from the same household go for a drink in a pub has no effect if they can't meet with anyone, they will more than likely just go to a restaurant or cafe instead and be under the same risk.

The Broadway, Cannon Mills, Leeds Road, White Rose, Trinity Centre, Supermarkets, etc, in full flow means nothing will change.

The stance of tier 3 is far more damaging on business than it is on preventing the spread. In a month when nothing has change we will then be hit with stricter measure than if were put in place now would have had more effect.

 

I haven't got time for detail.

However, to keep it short the country will go into a circuit break and Boris hasn't ruled it out. The delay is because he knows the testing and track & trace is shite and his delaying it until we are closer to having better testing and track & trace.

Anyone, that thinks the tier system will work is an idiot because like @Edin Nowhere has pointed out it won't. Oh gyms now allowed to stay up in tier 3. This government doesn't know what day it is.

 

Hmmm. Firstly Why do they have to? (business owners take risks, employees aren't guaranteed wages regardless of circumstances, etc, etc).

Secondly - and more importantly - how can we expect them to and it have no negative financial repercussions down the road. This money isn't actually free.

Let's just say that the rules around the pubs are being stretched a little. I know 2 people from different households who spent all day in the pub on Sunday but obviously just said they were living together and nobody could prove otherwise. Shutting them completely takes that margin out.

Your marginal thought process is a guess and it's a fair one, nobody can disprove it until we start seeing the effects and as I've said I agree with you about restaurants and retail.

But the idea that there isn't a balance to be struck between restrictions and taxpayers finance - and risk being spread between the population and the government - seems like utter nonsense to me.

 

I didn't think you'd have "time" for detail. Too difficult isn't it and why the discussion with you is pointless.

Carry on with the cliche's and easy answers.

 

These people are being told it is illegal to open their businesses, and you are saying that those who imposed this law have no responsibility with the consequences?

I said yesterday that the more businesses and jobs you throw on the scrap heap, the less taxpayers and the more depenants you create. Paying benefits to people down the line because you took their livelihood away isn't free either.

That’s week enforcement. Why is raising the level of restrictions the answer? Why isn't enforcing the restrictions we have being put into place. If they are willing to do that in a pub whats to say they won't just go round each others house instead. The problem hasn't disappeared it's just been moved elsewhere, so no the margin hasn't been taken out.

The school holiday will have a far greater impact on lowering rates in the next week than any tier 3 restriction, this will warp the actual effect of tier 3 lockdown to enable the governement to put an initial positive spin on it. Then when the schools go back a trend back to schools going back in September will happen.

There is a balance and the cry from the government is why should areas with low rates be penalised because of areas with high rates. I agree with that and that’s why funded short regional lockdowns would be far better than dragged out weak lockdowns which cause more unemployment therefore lowering tax take in the long run.

 

I just haven't got time to wear a blue suit.

Please understand I don't care of Boris, conservatives or Labour.

You seem to be more bothered about Boris and backing him and it's a little sad that you haven't got your on mindset. Just so you know Boris Johnson cares as much about you as the rat running around your street at night.

 

1) No - I'm not saying they have no responsibility, quite the opposite. I'm saying that they have shared responsibility. Are you saying that business owners who take risks (including catestrophic risks) have no responsibility? The government are taking 67% of the responsibility (up from 60% under actual furlough) so I'm definitely not saying that their responsibility isn't zero - just that it's not total either.

2) That's true but paying Universal Credit to people or the new furlough is a lot less costly that propping up the entire economy of a county or country obviously. If you're unhappy with the govenrment paying 67% of peoples wages what do you actually want? 100% of every employees wage and 100% of every company's turnover, what are we actually discussing here?

3) How do you enforce those restrictions without impinging on civil liberties. Are you going to need to get people to prove their identity and address before they can sit in a pub? And yes, if people want to break the rules they will find a way but that isn't a reason for removing all rules. We still have speed limits even though everybody speeds.

4) Not sure about the school holidays to be honest - the transmission is tiny among school age kids. maybe when the universities break up it will help - or it will create chaos when they all go home. Who knows? Another thing we're largely guessing about.

5) Goes back to the original point. What guarantee is there that the lockdown would be short and a one off? It doesn't make logical sense based on what we know. How much is funded goes back to the question in point 2.