Possible 2nd lockdown for Leicester?

[GingerrrFox]

10 minutes ago, Captain... said:

We're not talking kids we're talking fit and healthy adults.

 

I get it, you think you won't get it, or you won't get it badly, it probably won't kill you if you do get it. We are basing all of our numbers on lockdown scenarios, and whilst the odds are low you are massively increasing that risk by coming out of lockdown while there is a spike in cases (you can argue about whether this is a spike in cases in Leicester, but that's a separate issue) and if we should restrict the many to save the few. 

 

It's tough, but there is so much still unknown I would be doing everything in my power to eliminate the virus before winter because winter at the best of times puts a strain on the NHS, covid-19 is thought to thrive in colder months, if we are not rid of this by winter and don't have a vaccine in place it could be catastrophic.

The government isn’t trying to get rid of the virus they are just trying to stop the spread of it. They have acknowledged that this virus isn’t “gone” until there is a vaccine/cure. It’s basically hoping for a miracle to “get rid of the virus”, it’s simply not going to happen, this country is too densely populated and the virus spreads too easily to get rid of it. People need to start facing the reality that we are going to have to learn to live with this virus in the community. 

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, davieG said:

Seems to be a part of the reason for the Leicester lockdown.

 

Age

Public Health England say that “if an excess of infections has occurred then it is occurring in young and middle-aged people”.

Graphs included show that fewer than 10 under 18s a day have tested positive throughout the pandemic, but numbers do rise in June.

 

 

Those are very interesting graphs, Davie:

- Slight increase among under-18s, unsurprisingly with more attending school

- Massive increase in infections among those of working age

- Very little increase in infections among the over-65s

 

That really does strongly suggest that infections in the workplace are the main source of the problem in Leicester.

 

It seems as if the virus isn't spreading much at all within families, otherwise presumably infections would be higher among over-65s and under-18s.

The only alternative is that people of working age are not socially distancing with one another, when they meet socially, but are socially distancing from elderly and very young relatives. Is that how you see it?

[davieG]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Those are very interesting graphs, Davie:

- Slight increase among under-18s, unsurprisingly with more attending school

- Massive increase in infections among those of working age

- Very little increase in infections among the over-65s

 

That really does strongly suggest that infections in the workplace are the main source of the problem in Leicester.

 

It seems as if the virus isn't spreading much at all within families, otherwise presumably infections would be higher among over-65s and under-18s.

The only alternative is that people of working age are not socially distancing with one another, when they meet socially, but are socially distancing from elderly and very young relatives. Is that how you see it?

 

If it was just working age people not socially distancing with one another, when they meet socially wouldn't that mean it was spread all over the city and county.

 

Seems like work places are not set up for social distancing, plus they're likely to be in an enclosed environment and during some very hot weather. Would air condition help or hinder the spread?

 

 It would be good to know how many in the working age group are actually working and what the circumstances are.

 

 

[enmac]

If you haven't seen this already. Worth watching. Sums up the incompetence of our sorry government very succinctly. 

 

https://twitter.com/ByDonkeys/status/1278672584930758656?s=20

[Captain...]

14 minutes ago, GingerrrFox said:

The government isn’t trying to get rid of the virus they are just trying to stop the spread of it. They have acknowledged that this virus isn’t “gone” until there is a vaccine/cure. It’s basically hoping for a miracle to “get rid of the virus”, it’s simply not going to happen, this country is too densely populated and the virus spreads too easily to get rid of it. People need to start facing the reality that we are going to have to learn to live with this virus in the community. 

I get what you're saying, I'd still be doing everything I could to eliminate it, but stopping the spread is also important and part of the lockdown. If we can keep the numbers low enough then we can deal with it. If the numbers get to high then localised lockdowns need to be enforced. What we can't do is ignore a reported spike and do nothing.

[davieG]

13 minutes ago, davieG said:

 

If it was just working age people not socially distancing with one another, when they meet socially wouldn't that mean it was spread all over the city and county.

 

Seems like work places are not set up for social distancing, plus they're likely to be in an enclosed environment and during some very hot weather. Would air condition help or hinder the spread?

 

 It would be good to know how many in the working age group are actually working and what the circumstances are.

 

 

Merc

 

Some Leicester textile firms flouting lockdown say campaigners

Labour Behind the Label has produced a report highlighting bad practice by some city firms

 

By

Dan MartinPolitics Reporter

Amy OrtonLocal Democracy Reporter

15:56, 1 JUL 2020

NEWS

Concerns have been raised about the city's textile industry

 

Conditions and work practices at some of Leicester’s small textile factories could have played a part in the recent coronavirus outbreak, a campaign group has said.

Labour Behind the Label has produced a 20-page report highlighting links between the city’s clothing industry and the recent spike in number of cases of the virus that has led to the current localised lockdown.

The city has more than 1,000 garment factories, and while the campaign group says most have acted responsibly and within the restrictions, some have not.

The group says it has had reports of factories not shutting down during the lockdown, sometimes under pressure to fulfil retailers’ orders, and staff being forced to go to work under threat of losing their jobs and even having to work through illness having tested positive for the virus.

Labour Behind the Label, which works to raise awareness of conditions in the clothing trade, says it has spoken to employees who say their small workshops are operating outside Covid-19-secure guidelines.

It also suggests some firms are committing furlough fraud.

 

 

Labour Behind the Label says in its report: “Garment manufacturing is a major industry in Leicester with over 1,000 known sites, excluding homeworking.

"Most factories in Leicester are small workshops, often housed in dilapidated buildings with little investment in building safety and modern ventilation.

"It is inconceivable that such factories would be able to operate at full capacity whilst ensuring social distancing and adequate Covid-19 protection measures.

“We have also heard of workers – positive for Covid-19 – being required to work throughout their sickness in order to fulfil orders."

The organisation said it had "received reports that workers have been told to come into work – even when they showed symptoms of Covid-19 – otherwise they would lose their job".

“We have heard of several incidents whereby workers who had tested positive were told to come into work, and of managers telling workers not to tell anyone else about positive cases," it added.

“We have received information which details numerous reports of furlough fraud, workers being forced to come into work while sick with Covid-19, workers wishing to isolate being denied pay, factories operating illegally throughout lockdown and of workers being forced to work in conditions of modern slavery."

 

Conservative MP for North West Leicestershire Andrew Bridgen said there were going to be “questions asked” of the police in Leicester about why the force had not done more to deal with “sweatshops” in the city, which he claimed had contributed to the spread of coronavirus.

Speaking to presenter Emma Barnett on BBC Radio 5 Live, Mr Bridgen said there had been a “perfect storm” of conditions in Leicester which had led to the first local lockdown being imposed.

The MP said the city had "generally got younger people living in it" and that "we know that younger people have been less likely to comply with the lockdown rules, in some cases maybe even 50 per cent of them have been flouting the rules".

He added: "We’ve got the biggest ethnic minority population of any city, so you’ve got multi-generational households, where the young people have probably been going out socialising in breach of the lockdown, probably coming home with the virus, maybe showing no symptoms, and then you’ve got grandma and grandad getting ill, going to hospital, in the same household.”

In addition, Mr Bridgen said he was aware of businesses in the garment industry in Leicester which had flouted lockdown rules, and said he had reported the issue to the Home Office.

Mr Bridgen was also critical of the role that police in Leicester had played in making sure that lockdown measures were adhered to, saying: “I think there are certainly going to be questions to be asked of the police in Leicester with regard to their policing of the lockdown."

LeicestershireLive has asked the police, Leicester City Council and Public Health England what action it has taken following the reports of poor practice within the industry and what further steps will be taken during the localised lockdown.

A spokesperson for the Department for Health and Social Care said of the local lockdown: "We think there are multiple reasons why infection rates are higher in Leicester than in other parts of the country, which is why we are putting these measures in place.

"Observational data and the epidemiology suggest that workplace transmission may be contributing to the current situation."

[Leicester_Loyal]

33 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Not withstanding @Captain...'s valid point that increased viral load might increase the risk to younger, healthier people, as things stand the virus is killing a tiny proportion of 10-39-year-olds.

 

But a tiny proportion can become a big number in absolute terms if you end up with most younger people getting infected.

 

There's also the point that @FoxesDeb made with her links: this virus can do a lot of damage even to those who don't die - including younger people - potentially leaving them with weak hearts, devastated lungs and other conditions for the rest of their lives - and the information about this is pretty sketchy so far, so it makes sense to err on the side of caution until we understand the impact better.

 

 

 

How long for, though? Weeks? Months? Years? If infection rates remain high and keep spreading among younger people, such protection could be required for years if there's no early vaccine.

 

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm guessing you're in the younger age-group. If so, how would you feel if the roles were reversed and a virus mainly affected the young? That happened with the Spanish flu of 1918, I think.

How would you feel if less vulnerable older people were saying: "We'll protect you. You stay at home and put your life on hold for an indefinite period - could be months/years - while we get on with our lives"?

 

I'm not elderly or extremely vulnerable, but I am late 50s and have a heart condition that makes it inadvisable to have much social contact if the virus remains at high levels.

Frankly, this lockdown is doing my head in already. I can tolerate it for a few more weeks or whatever is required.....but life on hold being "protected" indefinitely - potentially for months or years? How would you feel if you faced that?

I get that we're obviously taking precautions as we don't know a lot about the virus, but we won't for a number of years. What about all the young people that are dying from cancer because they can't get treatment due to the lockdown.

 

The infection rate will keep spreading regardless, we will not wipe this out unless we stop all travel to and from the country while having a hard lockdown with no-one leaving their house etc. NZ has completely got rid of it not too long ago, now it's back and people are dying from it again.

 

I'd feel shit about it, but extending this lockdown for a few weeks isn't going to change the situation, the virus will still be around and numbers will creep up again because that's what it does. Once this lockdown if lifted you'll still need to be protected as soon as the numbers raise up again.

 

As an alternative, how would you feel if you were young and you knew you were going to be paying for this through taxes etc. for the rest of your life. There isn't an easy answer for this, but as it stands at the minute businesses are going down the pan everyday this continues. People will be losing jobs, careers, homes, everything. We'll see a lot of attitudes change regarding this virus as soon as the Furlough period ends in 3 months time.

 

EDIT: I'm not saying we don't need to lockdown for a couple of weeks when needed, just that we can't carry on doing this for weeks at a time every 2/3 months.

Edited 2 July 2020 by Leicester_Loyal

[enmac]

2 hours ago, Vestan Pance said:

Colin Gibson, Gary Mills, Bobby Davidson

 

9 minutes ago, davieG said:

Merc

 

Some Leicester textile firms flouting lockdown say campaigners

Labour Behind the Label has produced a report highlighting bad practice by some city firms

 

By

Dan MartinPolitics Reporter

Amy OrtonLocal Democracy Reporter

15:56, 1 JUL 2020

NEWS

Concerns have been raised about the city's textile industry

 

Conditions and work practices at some of Leicester’s small textile factories could have played a part in the recent coronavirus outbreak, a campaign group has said.

Labour Behind the Label has produced a 20-page report highlighting links between the city’s clothing industry and the recent spike in number of cases of the virus that has led to the current localised lockdown.

The city has more than 1,000 garment factories, and while the campaign group says most have acted responsibly and within the restrictions, some have not.

The group says it has had reports of factories not shutting down during the lockdown, sometimes under pressure to fulfil retailers’ orders, and staff being forced to go to work under threat of losing their jobs and even having to work through illness having tested positive for the virus.

Labour Behind the Label, which works to raise awareness of conditions in the clothing trade, says it has spoken to employees who say their small workshops are operating outside Covid-19-secure guidelines.

It also suggests some firms are committing furlough fraud.

 

 

Labour Behind the Label says in its report: “Garment manufacturing is a major industry in Leicester with over 1,000 known sites, excluding homeworking.

"Most factories in Leicester are small workshops, often housed in dilapidated buildings with little investment in building safety and modern ventilation.

"It is inconceivable that such factories would be able to operate at full capacity whilst ensuring social distancing and adequate Covid-19 protection measures.

“We have also heard of workers – positive for Covid-19 – being required to work throughout their sickness in order to fulfil orders."

The organisation said it had "received reports that workers have been told to come into work – even when they showed symptoms of Covid-19 – otherwise they would lose their job".

“We have heard of several incidents whereby workers who had tested positive were told to come into work, and of managers telling workers not to tell anyone else about positive cases," it added.

“We have received information which details numerous reports of furlough fraud, workers being forced to come into work while sick with Covid-19, workers wishing to isolate being denied pay, factories operating illegally throughout lockdown and of workers being forced to work in conditions of modern slavery."

 

Conservative MP for North West Leicestershire Andrew Bridgen said there were going to be “questions asked” of the police in Leicester about why the force had not done more to deal with “sweatshops” in the city, which he claimed had contributed to the spread of coronavirus.

Speaking to presenter Emma Barnett on BBC Radio 5 Live, Mr Bridgen said there had been a “perfect storm” of conditions in Leicester which had led to the first local lockdown being imposed.

The MP said the city had "generally got younger people living in it" and that "we know that younger people have been less likely to comply with the lockdown rules, in some cases maybe even 50 per cent of them have been flouting the rules".

He added: "We’ve got the biggest ethnic minority population of any city, so you’ve got multi-generational households, where the young people have probably been going out socialising in breach of the lockdown, probably coming home with the virus, maybe showing no symptoms, and then you’ve got grandma and grandad getting ill, going to hospital, in the same household.”

In addition, Mr Bridgen said he was aware of businesses in the garment industry in Leicester which had flouted lockdown rules, and said he had reported the issue to the Home Office.

Mr Bridgen was also critical of the role that police in Leicester had played in making sure that lockdown measures were adhered to, saying: “I think there are certainly going to be questions to be asked of the police in Leicester with regard to their policing of the lockdown."

LeicestershireLive has asked the police, Leicester City Council and Public Health England what action it has taken following the reports of poor practice within the industry and what further steps will be taken during the localised lockdown.

A spokesperson for the Department for Health and Social Care said of the local lockdown: "We think there are multiple reasons why infection rates are higher in Leicester than in other parts of the country, which is why we are putting these measures in place.

"Observational data and the epidemiology suggest that workplace transmission may be contributing to the current situation."

Bridgen blaming the police. Typical of him. 

This government has cut HSE to the bone and actively encouraged them not to perform surprise checks. Telling them to only respond to whistle blowers. 

[Stivo]

10 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

What about all the young people that are dying from cancer because they can't get treatment due to the lockdown.

That’s back to front surely?  The problem with treatments being delayed was because all the NHS resources were needed to deal with covid19 patients - to the extent that we were trying to build Nightingale hospitals.  A major goal of the lockdown was to prevent a complete collapse of the health service.  If we allow a second wave by acting carelessly then we risk the same thing happening again.

Edited 2 July 2020 by Stivo

[Leicester_Loyal]

8 minutes ago, Stivo said:

That’s back to front surely?  The problem with treatments being delayed was because all the NHS resources were needed to deal with covid19 patients - to the extent that we were trying to build Nightingale hospitals.  A major goal of the lockdown was to prevent a complete collapse of the health service.  If we allow a second wave by acting carelessly then we risk the same thing happening again.

My point was that we're probably saving a few hundred or thousand people dying from COVID, while thousands die from lack of cancer treatment etc.

 

Around 6.3% of people tested positive with antibodies. That's a lot more than I expected, 2.8 million people.

[Legend_in_blue]

Well, according to govt guidance on schools, come September social distancing in them will be virtually non existent.  What then for local spikes/lockdowns?

[foxile5]

6 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

Well, according to govt guidance on schools, come September social distancing in them will be virtually non existent.  What then for local spikes/lockdowns?

Very odd stance isn't it? 

 

Social distance in public, ppe worn on transport and in public, neither to be used in school. 

 

Any good done by using them in public is undone in the school system. 

[Filbert_Ross]

Been delivering around parts of the problem areas today. Seen a few phone repair type shops open. They essential? 🤷🏻‍♂️

[enmac]

19 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

Very odd stance isn't it? 

 

Social distance in public, ppe worn on transport and in public, neither to be used in school. 

 

Any good done by using them in public is undone in the school system. 

Irrational isn't it. Does this government know what it's doing or is it making it up as it goes along? I think it doesn't have a clue and quite frankly it doesn't really care one way or another. 

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

I get that we're obviously taking precautions as we don't know a lot about the virus, but we won't for a number of years. What about all the young people that are dying from cancer because they can't get treatment due to the lockdown.

 

The infection rate will keep spreading regardless, we will not wipe this out unless we stop all travel to and from the country while having a hard lockdown with no-one leaving their house etc. NZ has completely got rid of it not too long ago, now it's back and people are dying from it again.

 

I'd feel shit about it, but extending this lockdown for a few weeks isn't going to change the situation, the virus will still be around and numbers will creep up again because that's what it does. Once this lockdown if lifted you'll still need to be protected as soon as the numbers raise up again.

 

As an alternative, how would you feel if you were young and you knew you were going to be paying for this through taxes etc. for the rest of your life. There isn't an easy answer for this, but as it stands at the minute businesses are going down the pan everyday this continues. People will be losing jobs, careers, homes, everything. We'll see a lot of attitudes change regarding this virus as soon as the Furlough period ends in 3 months time.

 

EDIT: I'm not saying we don't need to lockdown for a couple of weeks when needed, just that we can't carry on doing this for weeks at a time every 2/3 months.

 

Figures suggest New Zealand has had no deaths since 28th May. They've been having 2-4 cases per day recently after weeks with none, but no deaths: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/new-zealand/

 

NZ is an extreme case, but have a look at more comparable countries: France, Germany, Spain & Italy.

Spain & Italy have been having 200-300 cases per day for weeks, France & Germany only slightly higher...despite having unlocked weeks ago.

 

You seem unduly fatalistic in saying the "rate will keep spreading" and "numbers will creep up". I agree that we're not likely to eliminate the virus completely without a vaccine, but numbers are not rising in the countries I've mentioned, only in a few places like USA, Brazil, Mexico and India. You also seem unduly fatalistic about the ability of medics/scientists to learn as they go along. It might take years to know everything about the virus, but they've already learned how to treat the illness better, that it spreads much more indoors at colder temperatures & when people are close to one another & shouting, that the virus attacks the heart and other organs, not just the lungs etc.

 

To be clear, I'm not calling for an extended lockdown. The lockdown should have started earlier and been more thorough - but that horse has bolted. I'm just challenging your apparent assumptions that it'll be OK for large numbers of younger people to get infected and for large numbers of older/vulnerable people to remain "protected" (effectively confined to an isolated life at home) for an indefinite period that could last for years.

 

You say you'd "feel shit" if you were one of those effectively under house arrest, but seem happy to accept it happening to others. I doubt you'd be so blase if you were the one confined to home so others could get on with their lives. I agree we're not likely to have a zero-risk scenario for a long time, but we can move forward together - all of us of all ages - by keeping the risk low, as they're doing in France, Germany, Spain, Italy, NZ, Australia, East Asia etc. We might need the odd localised lockdown (like now in Leicester, unfortunately) but hopefully short-lived and in only a few locations.....but it's by minimising infections for all that we'll best do that, not by placing the vulnerable under indefinite house arrest.

 

I take your point about the need to keep the loss of firms/jobs to a minimum. But keeping millions in isolation - with inevitably disastrous impacts on physical/mental health - while hospitals fill up with the unlucky minority among the younger generation isn't going to help the economy. A lot of jobs/firms rely on older people buying things, too. The young being reckless and the old being excluded could cause even more businesses to go down the pan. Likewise, allowing the infection rate to remain too high heading into autumn could actually cause further national lockdowns if the infection rate rises in autumn/winter as many experts expect.

 

On your point about paying through taxes for the rest of your life: the debt is something that society as a whole will have to deal with - via democratic decisions. Big debt is often paid back very gradually over decades or even centuries. We've only recently finished paying back debt for WW2 and, unbelievably, compensation to 19th century slave owners. Whatever has to be paid back more quickly will affect all of us, depending on political decisions. For the next few years, I'd be in the same boat as you, potentially paying more tax. After that, it might affect my pension or health service - or my daughter's taxes, potentially for even longer than yours, or all sorts of public spending, depending on who's elected and what their policies are. Someone else answered the cancer point - of course cancer treatment has to go ahead for the young - and may be less likely if hospitals are swamped with Covid patients & older people fvcked up by home isolation or if people avoid doctors/hospitals out of fear of infection.

[Legend_in_blue]

57 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

Very odd stance isn't it? 

 

Social distance in public, ppe worn on transport and in public, neither to be used in school. 

 

Any good done by using them in public is undone in the school system. 

 

Listening to Williamson this afternoon, he hasn't come across as particularly confident in his briefing.  

 

Felt as though since kids are low risk in terms of the effects of the virus, the fact that everyone else has distanced in order to stop the spread, is less important.

[FoxesDeb]

2 hours ago, enmac said:

If you haven't seen this already. Worth watching. Sums up the incompetence of our sorry government very succinctly. 

 

https://twitter.com/ByDonkeys/status/1278672584930758656?s=20

I stopped watching that after the 3rd mention of Boris not attending Cobra meetings. This has been widely discussed and explained.

[Leicester_Loyal]

19 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Figures suggest New Zealand has had no deaths since 28th May. They've been having 2-4 cases per day recently after weeks with none, but no deaths: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/new-zealand/

 

NZ is an extreme case, but have a look at more comparable countries: France, Germany, Spain & Italy.

Spain & Italy have been having 200-300 cases per day for weeks, France & Germany only slightly higher...despite having unlocked weeks ago.

 

You seem unduly fatalistic in saying the "rate will keep spreading" and "numbers will creep up". I agree that we're not likely to eliminate the virus completely without a vaccine, but numbers are not rising in the countries I've mentioned, only in a few places like USA, Brazil, Mexico and India. You also seem unduly fatalistic about the ability of medics/scientists to learn as they go along. It might take years to know everything about the virus, but they've already learned how to treat the illness better, that it spreads much more indoors at colder temperatures & when people are close to one another & shouting, that the virus attacks the heart and other organs, not just the lungs etc.

 

To be clear, I'm not calling for an extended lockdown. The lockdown should have started earlier and been more thorough - but that horse has bolted. I'm just challenging your apparent assumptions that it'll be OK for large numbers of younger people to get infected and for large numbers of older/vulnerable people to remain "protected" (effectively confined to an isolated life at home) for an indefinite period that could last for years.

 

You say you'd "feel shit" if you were one of those effectively under house arrest, but seem happy to accept it happening to others. I doubt you'd be so blase if you were the one confined to home so others could get on with their lives. I agree we're not likely to have a zero-risk scenario for a long time, but we can move forward together - all of us of all ages - by keeping the risk low, as they're doing in France, Germany, Spain, Italy, NZ, Australia, East Asia etc. We might need the odd localised lockdown (like now in Leicester, unfortunately) but hopefully short-lived and in only a few locations.....but it's by minimising infections for all that we'll best do that, not by placing the vulnerable under indefinite house arrest.

 

I take your point about the need to keep the loss of firms/jobs to a minimum. But keeping millions in isolation - with inevitably disastrous impacts on physical/mental health - while hospitals fill up with the unlucky minority among the younger generation isn't going to help the economy. A lot of jobs/firms rely on older people buying things, too. The young being reckless and the old being excluded could cause even more businesses to go down the pan. Likewise, allowing the infection rate to remain too high heading into autumn could actually cause further national lockdowns if the infection rate rises in autumn/winter as many experts expect.

 

On your point about paying through taxes for the rest of your life: the debt is something that society as a whole will have to deal with - via democratic decisions. Big debt is often paid back very gradually over decades or even centuries. We've only recently finished paying back debt for WW2 and, unbelievably, compensation to 19th century slave owners. Whatever has to be paid back more quickly will affect all of us, depending on political decisions. For the next few years, I'd be in the same boat as you, potentially paying more tax. After that, it might affect my pension or health service - or my daughter's taxes, potentially for even longer than yours, or all sorts of public spending, depending on who's elected and what their policies are. Someone else answered the cancer point - of course cancer treatment has to go ahead for the young - and may be less likely if hospitals are swamped with Covid patients & older people fvcked up by home isolation or if people avoid doctors/hospitals out of fear of infection.

 

Thought I read there was deaths over in NZ recently, might have been new cases, my bad.

 

If the numbers in the other countries aren't going back up, then we should be ok here too?

 

If I was at risk, I'd happily shield. You're going to be putting yourself at risk everytime you leave the house, regardless of a local lockdown, because the virus isn't going to go away. Younger people have more chance of dying in a car accident than from this diesease.

 

While we keep doing this lockdown, businesses are going down the pan, some self employed lads are losing thousands every month.

 

In my opinion the economic risks we are taking far outweigh the health risks we're currently taking. Come the end of October, when job losses are becoming more frequent and employees who get Furloughed will be getting less than 80%, I'd imagine public opinion will definitely have changed.

[FoxesDeb]

1 minute ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

 

Thought I read there was deaths over in NZ recently, might have been new cases, my bad.

 

If the numbers in the other countries aren't going back up, then we should be ok here too?

 

If I was at risk, I'd happily shield. You're going to be putting yourself at risk everytime you leave the house, regardless of a local lockdown, because the virus isn't going to go away. Younger people have more chance of dying in a car accident than from this diesease.

 

While we keep doing this lockdown, businesses are going down the pan, some self employed lads are losing thousands every month.

 

In my opinion the economic risks we are taking far outweigh the health risks we're currently taking. Come the end of October, when job losses are becoming more frequent and employees who get Furloughed will be getting less than 80%, I'd imagine public opinion will definitely have changed.

Aren't they entitled to 80% of their wages from the government? 

[Leicester_Loyal]

1 minute ago, FoxesDeb said:

Aren't they entitled to 80% of their wages from the government? 

Not if they're in their first (or second maybe?) year of trading. Got 3 or 4 mates like this, haven't had a penny since this started and have had to live off what they've got saved. Some have had to take up other jobs in supermarkets etc. While others have carried on working illegally because otherwise they'd be homeless soon enough.

 

Obviously it's only a small amount of people in this situation, but there's always another side of the coin.

[foxile5]

16 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

 

Listening to Williamson this afternoon, he hasn't come across as particularly confident in his briefing.  

 

Felt as though since kids are low risk in terms of the effects of the virus, the fact that everyone else has distanced in order to stop the spread, is less important.

Thing is if the kids aren't suffering from it but spreading it then it undoes the hard work. 

[davieG]

Merc

 

Police too stretched to respond to reports of lockdown house party in Eyres Monsell

Neighbours said there was shouting and cheering until 1am

 

By

Dan MartinPolitics Reporter

16:46, 2 JUL 2020

 

Police were unable to attend

 

Police have said officers were too stretched to deal with a lockdown house party in Leicester that went on into the early hours of this morning.

Residents say the party began at about 8pm last night at house in Pawley Gardens, in Eyes Monsell.

One person who lives nearby contacted LeicestershireLive about the gathering, which happened on the second night of the localised lockdown imposed on the city to combat a recent spike in coronavirus cases.

She said there was shouting and cheering going on until about 1am and that although they were called, the police had not come out.

The resident said: “This is why the virus is spreading In Leicester because there is no one enforcing the guidelines on the lawless.”

 

A Leicestershire Police spokeswoman said: “We were called at around 10.50pm yesterday to a report of a gathering at an address in Pawley Gardens.

“It was believed there were a number of people inside the address.

“Due to a significant demand on resources at the time of the report, we were unable to attend.

“Local officers will be carrying out inquiries into the circumstances of the report, offering advice to the occupants and carrying out extra patrols in the area.”

Leicestershire chief constable Simon Cole has urged people to stick to the rules - which restrict gatherings to six people - or ultimately face enforcement. He urged people who became aware of lockdown breaches, such as non-essential travel and gatherings, to report them.

He said: “We understand people are concerned and they are frustrated but the message is pretty simple.

“Stay at home. Only travel if you really need to.

“If you do really need to keep two metres away from others.”

Mr Cole said the sooner people adhered to the lockdown restrictions, the sooner Leicester could start to return to normal.

[FoxesDeb]

4 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Not if they're in their first (or second maybe?) year of trading. Got 3 or 4 mates like this, haven't had a penny since this started and have had to live off what they've got saved. Some have had to take up other jobs in supermarkets etc. While others have carried on working illegally because otherwise they'd be homeless soon enough.

 

Obviously it's only a small amount of people in this situation, but there's always another side of the coin.

I thought the people in that situation could claim universal credit? 

[Leicester_Loyal]

2 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

I thought the people in that situation could claim universal credit? 

Might be able too, but isn't that a really low amount? Like £400 a month? Don't get me wrong it's better than nothing but doesn't go very far when you're running your own business with expenses and then your personal life expenses too. They haven't claimed UC either way.

 

Yeah they probably should have had a bit more money saved tbh, but some have sunk a lot into their businesses/equipment etc.

 

A shitty situation all round though, there's always gonna be winners and losers in every scenario the Government carry out, just as me and Alf were discussing above.

[oxford blue]

4 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

I thought the people in that situation could claim universal credit? 

Certainly can't if they have savings of over £16k. Also UC rarely covers rent: although the Local Housing Allowance (on which UC housing costs based)  rates were increased from 1st April, they were set so that 70%of rents were above this rate