Coronavirus (COVID-19) General Chat

[Bandit]

The UK's coronavirus alert level is being upgraded from 3 to 4, meaning transmission is "high or rising exponentially", its chief medical officers have said.

The alert level was reduced from level four to three on 19 June, but is now being put back up to level four.

That means the epidemic is in general circulation and transmission is "high or rising exponentially".

The change was announced on 21 September by the chief medical officers of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

In a statement they said cases were "rising rapidly and probably exponentially in significant parts of all four nations".

They said that to avoid significant excess deaths and exceptional pressure on the NHS "everyone has to follow the social distancing guidance, wear face coverings correctly and wash their hands regularly".

Probably new restrictions announced tomorrow.

 

[Soffie]

Most of what Boris Johnson has just announced is what we already have here in Scotland. I reckon Nicola Sturgeon will go further than this. Going to be an interesting afternoon.

Doesn't really sound like much is changing in England?

Pubs are closing slightly earlier, home working recommended and only being able to socialise in groups of 6 people (unless you're in an educational setting).

Cases are higher than they were under a proper lockdown but these measures are going to halt the second wave?

 

[Gemma]

A summary of what Nicola Sturgeon just said

• Nicola Sturgeon says that household visits will be banned across Scotland from tomorrow. That restriction is already in operation in the west of Scotland
• In a similar way to England, pubs in Scotland will have to shut at 10pm from Friday onwards
• One person with coronavirus has died within the past 24 hours and there have been 383 new positive cases which represents 7.6% of those tested
• The UK's coronavirus alert level has been raised from three to four meaning transmission of the virus is now high or rising at an increasing rate

The first minister announces "the most difficult part of today's announcement, further restrictions on household gatherings".

• from tomorrow visiting other households will not be permitted
• this will be reviewed every three weeks
• this restriction is starting to slow the rise of cases in the west of Scotland where it is already in place.
• exceptions to the new regulation include those living alone, or alone with children who form extended households
• also exempt will be couples who have formed non-cohabiting relationships, as will be informal childcare and for trades people

 

[hannah]

What makes a 'bubble' again? Does one of the households have to be one person or can a household of 2 meet another household of 2 indoors?

 

[Snoops]

What makes a 'bubble' again? Does one of the households have to be one person or can a household of 2 meet another household of 2 indoors?

I'm sure the rule is one single person household can form a bubble with one solitary household. You cannot be in a bubble with more than one other household.

Exemptions for non-cohabiting couples and people providing care.

 

[Janey]

What makes a 'bubble' again? Does one of the households have to be one person or can a household of 2 meet another household of 2 indoors?

An 'extended household' (as it's known in Scotland) involves someone who lives alone or with children all under 18 creating a household with one other household of any size/makeup between adults and children.

A household of 2 cannot meet another household of 2 indoors.

 

[Alex]

I don't disagree with the new restrictions at this point in time but it's a hell of a balancing act to get right. People will only buy into the switching on and off of restrictions a finite amount of times before serious questions begin being asked regarding what is actually being done to resolve the situation.

I would be fully against further tightening to the point of another lockdown, though, even if no marked improvement is shown by the latest band of restrictions. For me, this would be deep into the territory of stemming a public health crisis but creating a widespread mental health one and one that will potentially be far more long-lasting than COVID ever will be. A second lockdown over winter would be the nuclear option and not one worth taking IMO.

 

[Janey]

I don't disagree with the new restrictions at this point in time but it's a hell of a balancing act to get right. People will only buy into the switching on and off of restrictions a finite amount of times before serious questions begin being asked regarding what is actually being done to resolve the situation.

I would be fully against further tightening to the point of another lockdown, though, even if no marked improvement is shown by the latest band of restrictions. For me, this would be deep into the territory of stemming a public health crisis but creating a widespread mental health one and one that will potentially be far more long-lasting than COVID ever will be. A second lockdown over winter would be the nuclear option and not one worth taking IMO.

I'm fairly confident a lockdown of the extent we had previously won't happen, and the mental health issues that further restrictions would provoke absolutely must be considered, but they shouldn't, and don't need to, be competing with each other directly.

It should be a case of considering mental health (as well as a variety of other things, including the economy,) whilst deciding how to best manage the virus, which needs to be number one priority.

You see that with outdoor gatherings with family being permitted as well as pubs and shops staying open.

Agree the balancing act is extremely difficult to manage, but abandoning all (most) measures because people would rather have full houses and their full family round at Christmas is not something that should be considered until there is no hope of getting this under control in an acceptable amount of time imo.

 

[Mouth]

While I appreciate the societal importance of education compared to other areas which are facing restrictions, waiting for hard substantive evidence for the driver behind the spread of the virus and not taking action until that evidence emerges gives the virus more time to spread in the meantime; that approach for schools is the exact opposite of the approach we're taking with everything else.

There's also no hard substantive evidence that eg pubs are the driver behind the increase, but that hasn't prevented that already severely under pressure sector being given more hoops to jump through just on the off chance it helps as we need to limit indoor interaction between people from different households as much as possible. Introducing further restrictions in one area to limit that interaction is inconsistent when the places which have the most indoor interaction between households still carry on as normal, despite the opening of those areas perfectly correlating with the increase in cases.

 

[Jess]

Looking at this data it surprises me that England hasn't banned household visits.