Coronavirus

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Blanketing London boroughs & the City of London into one tier is a ridiculous move.

One of the boroughs has a current case rate nearly the same as MIddlesbrough.. There are also several boroughts with cases less than 100/100,000

It'll be a nightmare to police it. You would have one pub closed in Finsbury Park and then another open a street away in Holloway. London may have different boroughs but a lot of London operates as one city. You're not going to have someone in Hacknet obeying tier 3 if in Islington they're operating as tier 2.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Damien

It'll be a nightmare to police it. You would have one pub closed in Finsbury Park and then another open a street away in Holloway. London may have different boroughs but a lot of London operates as one city. You're not going to have someone in Hacknet obeying tier 3 if in Islington they're operating as tier 2.

I'm sorry but that's twaddle,

At the start of the tiering system Middlesbrough was in Tier 2, whilst Stockton on Tees was in Tier 3

By your own logic & argument it's impossible to police the whole tiering system, so just put the entire country into tier 3

In this instance, London is not special, nor does it deserve special treatment.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

A lot of people are starting to have had enough.

Some of the new rules/guidelines/laws are utterly ridiculous.

4,000 people or 50% capacity (whichever is less) can attend football matches/concerts in Tier 2? Yet, I cannot visit my elderly father in law in his own home in and goes out once a day for a walk ? (not easy for him mentally as he normally spends all of his spring/summer & autumn on his motorbikes)

There's no cohesion, It would also appear a lack of evidence based decision making in certain rules.

---------- Post added at 13:26 ---------- Previous post was at 13:24 ----------



You'll have to explain that one to me, sorry, not enough coffee.

Every part of London is well inter-connected. So virus movement is almost guaranteed.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

A lot of people are starting to have had enough.

Some of the new rules/guidelines/laws are utterly ridiculous.

4,000 people or 50% capacity (whichever is less) can attend football matches/concerts in Tier 2? Yet, I cannot visit my elderly father in law in his own home in and goes out once a day for a walk ? (not easy for him mentally as he normally spends all of his spring/summer & autumn on his motorbikes)

There's no cohesion, It would also appear a lack of evidence based decision making in certain rules.

---------- Post added at 13:26 ---------- Previous post was at 13:24 ----------



You'll have to explain that one to me, sorry, not enough coffee.

The evidence (for football matches) is that outdoor activities are generally safe. There aren't significant concerns about larger groups in football stadia, the concerns really lie around linked activities. Getting sloshed on a supporters bus, packing into pubs around grounds, using public transport to get to/from a game.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Every part of London is well inter-connected. So virus movement is almost guaranteed.

Thanks for the clarification.

Hasn't the government set out what should be done between travelling between tiers ?

The distance between between some London boroughs, is greater than (and again i use the north east as an example) Middlesbrough & Stockton (both well interconnected), yet as per my previous post the government had no issues with them operating in different tiers

---------- Post added at 13:38 ---------- Previous post was at 13:37 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

The evidence (for football matches) is that outdoor activities are generally safe. There aren't significant concerns about larger groups in football stadia, the concerns really lie around linked activities. Getting sloshed on a supporters bus, packing into pubs around grounds, using public transport to get to/from a game.

Yet despite those concerns, it can still go ahead.... hmmmm, i wonder why?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

I'm sorry but that's twaddle,

At the start of the tiering system Middlesbrough was in Tier 2, whilst Stockton on Tees was in Tier 3

By your own logic & argument it's impossible to police the whole tiering system, so just put the entire country into tier 3

In this instance, London is not special, nor does it deserve special treatment.

If you look at the public transport systems in Middlesbrough and London you'll appreciate the difference - London really is one region.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

I'm sorry but that's twaddle,

At the start of the tiering system Middlesbrough was in Tier 2, whilst Stockton on Tees was in Tier 3

By your own logic & argument it's impossible to police the whole tiering system, so just put the entire company into tier 3

In this instance, London is not special, nor does it deserve special treatment.

There will always be cases where the border between tiers will go directly through a town or city that the locals have treated as one but that's not the same as the hyper-local tiers that'll be created by dividing up London into segments.

We're talking about quite small areas geographically. You could take a bus and in less than an hour have been in and out of tier 2 multiple times. London is one city, the boroughs exist for administration purposes. If the boroughs were bigger or more easily defined it wouldn't be so bad. If we were just saying 'North London, East London, West London and South London' then it would be more feasible. It's more obvious. You cross the river and then the tiers change or if anything West of the A10 was tier 2 and anything East is in tier 2. Also easier. Good luck trying to divide Camden/Islington/Hackey though.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

If you look at the public transport systems in Middlesbrough and London you'll appreciate the difference - London really is one region.

I spent a lot of months & years in various parts of London with work, I know how the transport systems operate.

If you want to treat London as one 'region', fair enough, If that's the case then you place the entire 'region' in the tier of which the highest borough should reside. Which would in this case be T3

---------- Post added at 13:53 ---------- Previous post was at 13:53 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

There will always be cases where the border between tiers will go directly through a town or city that the locals have treated as one but that's not the same as the hyper-local tiers that'll be created by dividing up London into segments.

We're talking about quite small areas geographically. You could take a bus and in less than an hour have been in and out of tier 2 multiple times. London is one city, the boroughs exist for administration purposes. If the boroughs were bigger or more easily defined it wouldn't be so bad. If we were just saying 'North London, East London, West London and South London' then it would be more feasible. It's more obvious. You cross the river and then the tiers change or if anything West of the A10 was tier 2 and anything East is in tier 2. Also easier. Good luck trying to divide Camden/Islington/Hackey though.

See above

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Damien

London is one city, the boroughs exist for administration purposes

Key reason for the boroughs is that the Government does not want an alternative seat of power in England challenging its authority. That's why Margaret Thatcher abolished the Greater London Council. The Lord Mayor of London has the weakest powers of all the metro mayors in England.

[heero_yuy]

It'll be interesting to see how the regulation on pubs serving a substantial meal is worded: Do they just need the ability to serve the meal or do you actually have to have the meal to get a pint?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

I spent a lot of months & years in various parts of London with work, I know how the transport systems operate.

If you want to treat London as one 'region', fair enough, If that's the case then you place the entire 'region' in the tier of which the highest borough should reside. Which would in this case be T3

Where have you got Tier 3 from?

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Where have you got Tier 3 from?

Go and look at the case right for the highest borough in London

Then go and see where that would have placed it in the tiering system.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

If you want to treat London as one 'region', fair enough, If that's the case then you place the entire 'region' in the tier of which the highest borough should reside.

Why? If we took some arbitrary area of Liverpool that had high cases should that be used to put all of Liverpool in tier 3?

The issue is you seem to think of London as a loose union of 32 independent boroughs when it's a single city that was divided into these administrative regions that did not reflect the makeup of the city at the time and do not do so now. They don't even reflect what people think of the city. Most people would be surprised to find parts of the City of London are actually in the Camden administrative region for example.



---------- Post added at 14:03 ---------- Previous post was at 14:02 ----------

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

It'll be interesting to see how the regulation on pubs serving a substantial meal is worded: Do they just need the ability to serve the meal or do you actually have to have the meal to get a pint?

I think you need to have the meal but what I am wondering is what is substantial and how long does that then permit you to get multiple pints?

Can I order chips and then spend the rest of the afternoon downing pints or not?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Go and look at the case right for the highest borough in London

Then go and see where that would have placed it in the tiering system.

If you take London as a region, which you accept, then you take the rate for the region, not for one village/town/borough in London.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Damien

Why? If we took some arbitrary area of Liverpool that had high cases should that be used to put all of Liverpool in tier 3?

---------- Post added at 14:03 ---------- Previous post was at 14:02 ----------



I think you need to have the meal but what I am wondering is what is substantial and how long does that then permit you to get multiple pints?

Can I order chips and then spend the rest of the afternoon downing pints or not?

What will lesser measures do in an area that has very high case load ? > 350/100,000

Will the virus magically know to only stay in that area? Will it fail to top up it's Oyster card and have to resort to fair dodging?

---------- Post added at 14:07 ---------- Previous post was at 14:04 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

If you take London as a region, which you accept, then you take the rate for the region, not for one village/town/borough in London.

If depends on if you're concerned about a significant increase of transmission. I guess.

Target your hardest measures for a shorter period of time across a large area, or inevitably see an increase in growth which eventually means that all of that area will be subject to hardest measures for a longer period of time.

To summarise 'Nip it in the bud'