Cycling UK Forum

Is it possible or sensible to be that selective when there are still so many unknowns?

I work for a company that's similar size, perhaps only a few more people. We've got people into their 70s. One guy came off furlough for 2 days then never came in again. His wife of late 50s early 69s had covid then their daughter got it even worse but due to the time differences between cases the daughter got it from a second source. He's still not back.

Not a high frequency but it goes to show what a small sample set can do to your perception of risk. We were 50 employees but now nearer 45 or even less. Certainly not more than 40 actually at work. Still two cases that I know of in the bubbles of my colleagues I'd a higher infection rate than national average I bet. With such small numbers it's really only chance whether someone gets it from work, it's certainly not something to base your opinions on I reckon. Maybe you know more about small sample size issues than me to make more of your situation.

landsurfer wrote:.......Should a national C-19 policy and the tiers and restrictions not take into account the demographic of the victims both dying with and of the virus rather than a blanket of restrictions that will lead to greater damage to the population than the virus itself can cause.....

Yes. So the additional questions are:
1. What exactly is the demographic of the people dying?
2. What exactly is the acceptable risk of dying?
3. What exactly are the short and long term health impacts for those who survive?
4. What exactly is the acceptable risk of long term health damage?
4. What exactly are the economic impacts of high levels of death, illness, absenteeism, low public confidence and overwhelmed health and public services on the economy?

I'm very glad Covid 19 has had little direct impact on you. I know 3 people that have died, probably as a result of letting the Cheltenham race meeting go ahead and avoiding the economic impact of cancelling it.

Looking around the world the countries that have taken the most rigorous control of the virus seem to have suffered the least economic impact and vice versa.

MartinC wrote:....
Looking around the world the countries that have taken the most rigorous control of the virus seem to have suffered the least economic impact and vice versa.

Which to me makes complete sense. Continually bouncing in and out of nth waves, nth lockdown with hospitals overloaded and other medical treatments (even for the younger generations) on hold and massive pay-outs to encourage people to go out to restaurants (and further drive us into another wave and lockdown) - all bound to severely damage an economy.

So early action (rather than ongoing dithering) before the virus has spread too far is bound to have a lesser impact on an economy. Other countries have demonstrated that but our leaders seem to want to ignore their experience and refuse to learn from the successes of others.

We deserve better.

Ian

landsurfer wrote:Our business employs 32 staff.
Not a single one has suffered the health effects of C-19.
Non of their immediate families have.
Possibly a lot to do with the demographic of the company.
At 62 i'm the oldest by 10 years. So a mostly sub 50 workforce.
So either none of us have had C-19 or all of us have ....??

Should a national C-19 policy and the tiers and restrictions not take into account the demographic of the victims both dying with and of the virus rather than a blanket of restrictions that will lead to greater damage to the population than the virus itself can cause.

This question is being asked, but those that do ask it normally get shouted down and howled at by those that feel otherwise. And repeatedly accused of being a Troll ... trust me ...

It's a valid question to which i've seen no constructive answer.

It is a good question.

Before I try and respond I'd like to understand a bit more of what you're saying.

1 How many people in the UK do you think have died from COVID-19?

2 Do you accept that people can be infectious without symptoms? (I think that you do from the wording of your second sentence.)

3 Could you suggest an example of how guidance or regulation could take this into account.

Thanks

Jonathan

...without wishing to state the obvious, the trouble is we dealing with an invisible enemy, and always days after its visited. Because of that, any weapon we employ is bound to very very blunt indeed. It's like trying to play footie with a blindfold on, two weeks after the visiting team swept through the park! And not really being sure which park they visited in the first place...

mjr wrote:

TrevA wrote:We were in Tier 3 before lockdown and “the Countryside” means just that - any where that is not in a built up area. I’m surrounded by countryside but miles from a National Park.

Accessible to the public means roads, footpaths, bridleways, village greens, commons, canal towpaths, etc - anywhere that is not private land. So a bike ride in a group of 6 on country lanes is fine.

This is my expectation too, but we will have to wait to see the regulations to confirm this. They are not published yet (of course! This is the Dither And Delay Government, after all) but there is a slot in the Commons calendar for their approval on Tuesday afternoon.

Regulations were published yesterday afternoon. Here's the relevant bit about outdoor gatherings in Tier 3 areas: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/202 ... aph/2/made

As you can see, this (combined with paragraph 2s of the previous 2 schedules) means that group rides of up to six in Tier 3 areas are allowed as long as you do not go into any paid area except for "sports facilities; (ii)botanical gardens; (iii)gardens or grounds of a [...] heritage site"

mjr wrote:

Jdsk wrote:Updated advice from Cycling UK:
https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/coronavirus-qa-cycling-guidance

"It will be updated in the near future to take account of the new tier system in England when the current national lockdown ends on 2 December "

They know no more than us yet!

The document at https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/coron ... g-guidance has been updated within the last few hours (and most of the blame for the last-day update should go to gov.uk for being so late in publishing the regulations!)

mjr wrote:

mjr wrote:

Jdsk wrote:Updated advice from Cycling UK:
https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/coronavirus-qa-cycling-guidance

"It will be updated in the near future to take account of the new tier system in England when the current national lockdown ends on 2 December "

They know no more than us yet!

The document at https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/coron ... g-guidance has been updated within the last few hours (and most of the blame for the last-day update should go to gov.uk for being so late in publishing the regulations!)

They needed to await the parliamentary vote, perhaps.

Edit: just happening now.

mjr wrote:

mjr wrote:

Jdsk wrote:Updated advice from Cycling UK:
https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/coronavirus-qa-cycling-guidance

"It will be updated in the near future to take account of the new tier system in England when the current national lockdown ends on 2 December "

They know no more than us yet!

The document at https://www.cyclinguk.org/article/coron ... g-guidance has been updated within the last few hours (and most of the blame for the last-day update should go to gov.uk for being so late in publishing the regulations!)

To me it seems a bit "poor planning" when Parliament passes major legislation at 19:00 and whole country impacted and expected to comply 5 hrs later!

Ian

Thanks for the update.

Jonathan

One of the questions which has been raised here and elsewhere relates to people travelling from one tier to another for a purpose which is lawful in a lower tier.

I've just had a perhaps superficial look at the regs linked above and I can see nothing obvious which expressly prohibits travel between tiers, and all the published stuff I've seen uses phrases like "advised against."

This story has appeared in several papers and I've linked to the first I found on line. The version in the Daily Telegraph talks of a fleet of ten cars "used solely for covid-related matters."

Cornwall will become the only place in mainland England where boozers can go drinking in a pub without having to order a "substantial meal".

This has raised fears that people will drive from Tier 2 or 3 regions into Cornwall to take advantage of the relaxed restrictions.

The Government has said it is against the rules for anyone not living in Cornwall to travel into it, either by road or sea, to go to the pub.

A spokesperson for Devon and Cornwall Police said its patrols would be "solely used for Covid-related matters" to ensure the new tier-based rules were all adhered to.

Police have said these patrols will be "at various locations across the force area".

This could include key crossing points such as the Tamar Bridge.

Pub landlords just past the border in Cornwall say they've already received calls from people in Devon asking when they will open.

Landlady Amy Newland at the White Hart in Chilsworthy, Cornwall, which is right on the Devon border, said: "People have been ringing me up from across the border in Plymouth already saying they are going to be popping over for a beer and asking what time we open.

"It's scary as we are just a small country pub and it is going to be very difficult for us to police.

"You don't know where people are coming from."

Craig Howe, owner of The Rising Sun just over the border in Gunnislake, Cornwall, added: "We do think people are going to be jumping over the border and we might have to put on extra staff to make sure everybody is sticking to the rules."

(No mention of whether any old salts are getting stroppy over scotch eggs in there)

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13336492/ ... nk-tier-1/

I'm only talking here about England (including Cornwall.)

So do we think that patrolling bye ways looking for people is the correct use of police time? What a rediculous, farcical situation. But then, these slavish, spineless Chief Constables and their toadying underlings will be on the rank and file like a rash!
The police are stretched as it is, especially in rural areas.

arnsider wrote:So do we think that patrolling bye ways looking for people is the correct use of police time? What a rediculous, farcical situation. But then, these slavish, spineless Chief Constables and their toadying underlings will be on the rank and file like a rash!
The police are stretched as it is, especially in rural areas.

One interpretation of the way this is reported is that D&C police are simply saying they will police the regulations and allowing the media to build it up by assuming the regs include the government advice not to go into other tiers.

I've searched on the D&C website but all the covid stuff brings up an error message.

Right at the start of the section defining tier 3 restrictions, immediately after defining the size of indoor and outdoor gatherings that people may attend within tier 3 areas, is a paragraph defining the sizes of gatherings that people living in tier 3 areas may attend within tier 2 areas, these sizes being the same. So it is clear that moving from tier 3 to tier 2 areas is permitted, but that you carry your tier 3 restrictions with you. (SI 2020 No 1374)

The general exception for permitted organised gatherings, defined as on business, charitable, philanthropic, or institutional premises, or, organised by such a corporate body in a public outside space, with risk assessment defined measures applied, also seems to apply across all tiers.

Bristol City Council seem to have interpreted this as "Avoiding travel outside of the city unless absolutely necessary", which is wrong in two ways. First the tier 3 area extends well outside the city. Secondly, the regulations plainly allow leaving the tier 3 area. This unfortunately is just the latest example of people, including official bodies, misinterpreting the regulations, either because they have misunderstood them, or because they think they should be stricter than the government has decided. In the lockdown shortly to end exercise was quite clearly defined as being a reasonable excuse for being outside your dwelling, and travel to public open spaces also a reasonable excuse. Someone writing the central government guidance referred to travelling a reasonable distance, which is an addition to the regulations where travelling for exercise is defined as a reasonable excuse, without further reasonable qualifications being added.