Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The UK response - Part II - read OP
Comments
-
The problem is that the UK's aspirations to go beyond mediocrity tend to be matched with performance that acheives well below mediocrity. The UK doesn't need solutions that are world-beating; it just needs solutions that work to beat coronavirus. And it doesn't need unique or bespoke solutions; it would be better served to collaborate with other countries in implementing common solutions, or simply to copy what has worked elsewhere.having an aspiration to achieve something beyond mediocrity is a good thing, is it not? Well, most countries would think that anyway.
Not if the same goal could have been acheived at a lower cost. Even assuming the testing system has the economic benefits that is hoped, it shouldn't cost 100bn, and to the extent that you have paid over the odds to achieve that outcome, that is not money well spent. (And it will turn out to be money particularly badly spent if it fails to achieve the hoped-for outcome.)everything has a cost/benefit balance. If this gets the economy back on to almost a normal standing then £100bn (which lets face it, we all know is hugely exaggerated for headline reasons) may be money well spent.
I see no reason to be confident of this. That wasn't what happened with the contact-tracing app, was it?If you work on the basis that everything is exaggerated for political reasons, either by Boris or by those detracting from his statement, you realise that somewhere in among this, there is actually a reasonable position to go for and this is what the people tasked with delivering this will strive for. Quietly, diligently and in the back ground away from the political point scoring.
There's a serious point here. Before the pandemic broke, the UK was assessed by most observers - and not just UK observers - as one of the best-prepared countries in Europe for a pandemic. And yet when the moment came, it performed very badly, and had one of the worst experiences in Europe, despite not being the first hit, and having had more opportunity than most to learn from the experience of other countries. Clearly, the assessment was wrong.
This is worrying. I don't think we can ascribe it all to failings in Johnson's leadership (although they undoubtedly played a part) and I certainly don't think we can say that if you look behind the Johnsonian bluster and oomph all is secretly well. The UK is a country that has been characterised for a long time by a proud tradition of good governance, and it should have had the resilience to react quickly, flexibly and effectively. It didn't, and I don't think we can blame all that on the leadership vacuum at the top, because a resilient state should have the resources to cope with an isolated failure, even at the very top. I do think UK state capacity has been seriously degraded in the austerity years, not just by being starved of investment but also by being hollowed out by relentless years of a right-wing anti-state, anti-expertise, anti-public service ideology and mindset. The medium-term challenge for the UK is to rebuild the capacity it once had - though, obviously, that project won't start as long as the Johson-Cummings regime is in power.0 -
So it shouldn’t be done, is that what you’re saying?
The Times have come up with a radical view on this -
The Times view on Boris Johnson’s coronavirus testing plan: Moonshot or Moonshine?
The prime minister should stop fantasising about daily mass-testing the whole population and focus on making the existing test and trace programme work
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/the-times-view-on-boris-johnsons-coronavirus-testing-plan-moonshot-or-moonshine-kdg9hwj5q
I guess he's now bored of test and trace so he has to move onto the latest wheeze and there are always the gullible out there who lap up his nonsense.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »There's a serious point here. Before the pandemic broke, the UK was assessed by most observers - and not just UK observers - as one of the best-prepared countries in Europe for a pandemic. And yet when the moment came, it performed very badly, and had one of the worst experiences in Europe, despite not being the first hit, and having had more opportunity than most to learn from the experience of other countries. Clearly, the assessment was wrong.
This is worrying. I don't think we can ascribe it all to failings in Johnson's leadership (although they undoubtedly played a part) and I certainly don't think we can say that if you look behind the Johnsonian bluster and oomph all is secretly well. The UK is a country that has been characterised for a long time by a proud tradition of good governance, and it should have had the resilience to react quickly, flexibly and effectively. It didn't, and I don't think we can blame all that on the leadership vacuum at the top, because a resilient state should have the resources to cope with an isolated failure, even at the very top. I do think UK state capacity has been seriously degraded in the austerity years, not just by being starved of investment but also by being hollowed out by relentless years of a right-wing anti-state, anti-expertise, anti-public service ideology and mindset. The medium-term challenge for the UK is to rebuild the capacity it once had - though, obviously, that project won't start as long as the Johson-Cummings regime is in power.
I wouldn't disagree with that. There were clear failings and what these were need to be fully understood. I don't think it is as simple as saying it is down to austerity though, I think they just had a script of what they expected to happen and it didn't go that way.
The belief that the virus was going to come in from China and quarantining people coming from there was a reasonable move, but they were obsessed with finding patient zero and as it turned out, there were at least 1300 patient zeros, with over 75% coming in from Italy, Spain and France. https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52993734#:~:text=The%20study%2C%20by%20the%20Covid,started%20the%20whole%20UK%20outbreak.&text=The%20researchers%20analysed%20the%20genetic,with%20coronavirus%20in%20the%20UK.0 -
This article had me laughing heartily this morning.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8720329/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Heir-Churchill-No-Boris-Johnson-Second-Coming-Warden-Hodges.html
Oh it is worse than that - much worse
Councils in England, which the government said would be expected to employ teams of marshals at their own expense, said they had received no warning from government about the announcement, and had been given little detail since about what was expected of them.
“Bearing in mind the government is introducing the new rules from Monday, they have given us no indication of additional resources, no staff, no powers of enforcement and no time to prepare people for the roles or carry out security checks. It is serial incompetence,” said Nick Forbes, the leader of Newcastle city council.
and the best line - Yet again, it is government by press release,
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/10/boris-johnson-covid-marshals-plan-criticised-shambolic-england0 -
I guess he's now bored of test and trace so he has to move onto the latest wheeze and there are always the gullible out there who lap up his nonsense.
and there are always the gullible who just want to distract and criticise.
From a management perspective, I would agree that Boris is bored of test and trace. He is a strategic thinker and usually, strategic thinkers don't do detail. They define the strategy, give people the tools to do it and then back away and let them get on with it.
Typically, a strategic thinker would ask the question what do you need to get test and trace done?
"Well, we need call centres staffed with 25,000 people".
"OK, there's your 25,000 people, make it happen. Next?"
it is a frustrating trait for a PM to have and the fact it is wrapped up in bluster and self aggrandisement is truly infuriating, I know, because I have worked for people who do the same, but from his point of view, that is his job.0 -
Advertisement
-
and there are always the gullible who just want to distract and criticise.
From a management perspective, I would agree that Boris is bored of test and trace. He is a strategic thinker and usually, strategic thinkers don't do detail. They define the strategy, give people the tools to do it and then back away and let them get on with it.
Typically, a strategic thinker would ask the question what do you need to get test and trace done?
"Well, we need call centres staffed with 25,000 people".
"OK, there's your 25,000 people, make it happen. Next?"
it is a frustrating trait for a PM to have and the fact it is wrapped up in bluster and self aggrandisement is truly infuriating, I know, because I have worked for people who do the same, but from his point of view, that is his job.
Ok so repeating the post from above -
Councils in England, which the government said would be expected to employ teams of marshals at their own expense, said they had received no warning from government about the announcement, and had been given little detail since about what was expected of them.
“Bearing in mind the government is introducing the new rules from Monday, they have given us no indication of additional resources, no staff, no powers of enforcement and no time to prepare people for the roles or carry out security checks. It is serial incompetence,” said Nick Forbes, the leader of Newcastle city council.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/sep/10/boris-johnson-covid-marshals-plan-criticised-shambolic-england
It does not sound like the councils have been given the tools, guidance or even insight into what they are supposed to be doing with Covid marshals. That is not strategic thinking or management - not even close.0 -
That article is pretty scathing:
As others have said before, Cummings is discovering that governing is not the same as campaigning. His position however is bulletproof, as his "boss" is too lazy to do the work.The Guardian wrote:The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) said councils could draw on existing staff or volunteers to fill the roles.
...
The ministry said that further details would be published “in due course”, although it added that councils were best placed to “determine the model of deployment and responsibilities of marshals in their areas”. It suggested that versions of Covid marshals already operated in Leeds and in various towns in Cornwall.
Leeds city council said its initiative ... was very different in scope and intention to what the government appeared to envisage for Covid marshals.
Many councils have been deploying environmental health and trading standards staff to informally advise the public and businesses about social distancing rules in shops, markets and in parks. But there is a national shortage of such workers, and environmental health departments have experienced some of the worst cuts under austerity.
“The challenge of starting this policy from scratch, at a few days’ notice, with no money and no guidance, is not something it is possible for councils to do,” said Richard Watts, leader of Islington borough council in London.0 -
This article had me laughing heartily this morning.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-8720329/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-Heir-Churchill-No-Boris-Johnson-Second-Coming-Warden-Hodges.html
Jesus. That article has a photo of Beasty the moderator on it! He gets everywhere that fella0 -
Yes, but a resilient state would be ready for that. "So that's Plan A. In what circumstances will Plan A fail? What will be our first sign of those circumstancess unfolding? In that event, what is Plan B?" and so forth. The system should have been nimble enough to plan like that, but it doesn't appear to have been.I wouldn't disagree with that. There were clear failings and what these were need to be fully understood. I don't think it is as simple as saying it is down to austerity though, I think they just had a script of what they expected to happen and it didn't go that way . . .
Similarly, we can observe the focus on finding patient zero, but ask why there was that focus. What was the benefit of finding patient zero? Why did it matter?
Am I wrong in ascribing this to austerity? Perhaps. But either this erosion of state capacity had been going on for a while, in which case the likely explanations are either (a) austerity, (b) too long a period of Tory rule, with the period changes of government that refresh a democratic state and prevent a single narrow ideology from getting too entrenched, or (c) bit of both; or the erosion was recent and rapid, in which case the likely explanation is Johnson/Cummings and their monstrous Trumpian unfitness for leadership.
The political route to fixing any of these starts with the same step; change of government. But the hollowing out of constitutional resilience and political integrity in the UK has been as bad or worse than the hollowing out of state capacity; we have a PM leading his government into open violation of treaty obligations in defiance both of international law and of his recent electoral mandate, and the parliamentary party that should be, metaphorically speaking, leaving him alone in room with a revolver and one bullet seems prepared to wear this.
These are sad days for Britain.0 -
That article is pretty scathing:
As others have said before, Cummings is discovering that governing is not the same as campaigning. His position however is bulletproof, as his "boss" is too lazy to do the work.
its the Guardian. The Guardian is about as credible as the Daily Mail these days.0 -
Advertisement
-
Typically, a strategic thinker would ask the question what do you need to get test and trace done?
"Well, we need call centres staffed with 25,000 people".
"OK, there's your 25,000 people, make it happen. Next?"
You definition of a strategic thinker is very similar to my definition of a complete spoofer
I once had a manager who would come and ask you to explain the most basic things of what you were working on as she hadn't got a clue. She would write that down and come back the next day and aggressively ask if you had completed what she wrote down while she was reading it back to herself - without the foggiest understanding of what it involved or did! That's probably a strategic thinker by your definition0 -
its the Guardian. The Guardian is about as credible as the Daily Mail these days.
Do you rate sky news any higher - they are running the same story.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-confusion-over-covid-marshals-who-will-have-no-power-to-fine-or-arrest-120682770 -
Donald Trump wrote: »You definition of a strategic thinker is very similar to my definition of a complete spoofer
I once had a manager who would come and ask you to explain the most basic things of what you were working on as she hadn't got a clue. She would write that down and come back the next day and aggressively ask if you had completed what she wrote down while she was reading it back to herself - without the foggiest understanding of what it involved or did! That's probably a strategic thinker by your definition
Mmmm, Boris Johnson - strategic thinker or complete spoofer?
Can I come back to you on that one?0 -
The latest rise in cases is disappointing. The UK are still doing better than other European countries. There's a lot of room for improvement to make sure that the testing resources aren't disproportionately lumped in hotspots and inaccessible elsewhere.
I'm a bit sceptical about Johnson's mass testing idea if it is only going to be used to get people into theatres or work.
I'm just back from going to Gloucestershire on holiday and stopped into more restaurants or pubs than I'm used to. The Track and Trace registration is patchy. Some do it really well but I was at a pub on the outskirts of Cheltenham and was told it wasn't a big deal when I asked how to register.
I agree with restricting gatherings back down to 6. The mood needs to be different for autumn and winter. I still think it's silly that non essential travel abroad is still permitted. Suggesting people go back to the office is absurd also.0 -
-
theological wrote: »The latest rise in cases is disappointing. The UK are still doing better than other European countries. There's a lot of room for improvement to make sure that the testing resources aren't disproportionately lumped in hotspots and inaccessible elsewhere.
I'm a bit sceptical about Johnson's mass testing idea if it is only going to be used to get people into theatres or work.
I'm just back from going to Gloucestershire on holiday and stopped into more restaurants or pubs than I'm used to. The Track and Trace registration is patchy. Some do it really well but I was at a pub on the outskirts of Cheltenham and was told it wasn't a big deal when I asked how to register.
I agree with restricting gatherings back down to 6. The mood needs to be different for autumn and winter. I still think it's silly that non essential travel abroad is still permitted. Suggesting people go back to the office is absurd also.
I am afraid to say that I think the UK is tracking behind other European countries because the hospitality sector was opened up later. As I said in a post about a month ago, the UK opened hospitality 1 month later than France and the infection rates seemed to be mirroring France but one month behind. Now, one month later this still seems to be holding. Yesterday's figures for the UK were 2919, the figures for France on the 12th August were 25240 -
I wouldn't disagree with that. There were clear failings and what these were need to be fully understood. I don't think it is as simple as saying it is down to austerity though, I think they just had a script of what they expected to happen and it didn't go that way.
So you agree that Johnson should have agreed to an inquiry as soon as possible to find out where they failed and to make sure it doesn't happen again, with the second wave now hitting and winter ahead? Question then is, why did he not do that?theological wrote: »The latest rise in cases is disappointing. The UK are still doing better than other European countries.
So international comparisons are okay again? Also, to borrow a phrase, the UK is 2 weeks behind the continent as they opened their schools before the UK did and we see the result in other European countries and it is sure to follow in the UK.0 -
I am afraid to say that I think the UK is tracking behind other European countries because the hospitality sector was opened up later. As I said in a post about a month ago, the UK opened hospitality 1 month later than France and the infection rates seemed to be mirroring France but one month behind. Now, one month later this still seems to be holding. Yesterday's figures for the UK were 2919, the figures for France on the 12th August were 2524
I'm not convinced of this argument for a few reasons. Firstly different countries eased certain things in different phases. Some of the UK's and France overlapped. Secondly, the epidemic across the continent seems to be because of 20 - 30 year olds not following the distancing guidance rather than the effects of easing itself. The same is starting to materialise in the UK but the next few weeks depends on what happened. About 2 weeks ago the virus was at the lowest level it had ever been in the UK since the start of the pandemic. The pickup in cases is pretty recent.So you agree that Johnson should have agreed to an inquiry as soon as possible to find out where they failed and to make sure it doesn't happen again, with the second wave now hitting and winter ahead? Question then is, why did he not do that?
So international comparisons are okay again? Also, to borrow a phrase, the UK is 2 weeks behind the continent as they opened their schools before the UK did and we see the result in other European countries and it is sure to follow in the UK.
Schools have nothing to do with the latest spread. It is largely confined to the 20 - 30 bracket violating the guidance.0 -
theological wrote: »Schools have nothing to do with the latest spread. It is largely confined to the 20 - 30 bracket violating the guidance.
This didn't help either,
https://twitter.com/MirrorMoney/status/1304364923825381377?s=20
Good policy in theory, in practice enticing people to spend time indoors with others outside of their bubble is not the greatest idea in a pandemic. Maybe confined it to takeaway service for restaurants or ones that have outdoor eating spaces.
Edit: I wasn't talking about schools spreading it, I was talking about those countries being ahead of the spread like they were with the first wave as well. No surprise you were quick to tell us about the UK being ahead of Ireland in timeline when the numbers were looking bad at the start but now ignoring it when it comes to other countries being ahead of the timeline and their numbers looking worse. But I don't want to get into a willy measuring contest on who is better than who, you were the one that brought it in to the conversation.0 -
This didn't help either,
https://twitter.com/MirrorMoney/status/1304364923825381377?s=20
Good policy in theory, in practice enticing people to spend time indoors with others outside of their bubble is not the greatest idea in a pandemic. Maybe confined it to takeaway service for restaurants or ones that have outdoor eating spaces.
It's up to people to follow the guidance. Going to restaurants and pubs isn't intrinsically dangerous having gone to a few in the last week. It is choosing to gather in larger groups that is problematic.
Restricting social contact is key in stopping the virus spreading.
I'm not sure why travelling abroad wasn't more tightly restricted during the summer or why there was a need to increase the permitted group size to 30.0 -
Advertisement
-
theological wrote: »It's up to people to follow the guidance. Going to restaurants and pubs isn't intrinsically dangerous ...
The CDC disagrees with you. According to their most recently published study, going to restaurants and pubs (or being one of the people who do) is the most significant factor in disease transmission, apart from sharing your space with a known Covid-positive person.0 -
CelticRambler wrote: »The CDC disagrees with you. According to their most recently published study, going to restaurants and pubs (or being one of the people who do) is the most significant factor in disease transmission, apart from sharing your space with a known Covid-positive person.
I suspect a lot of that still has to do with people's behaviour. For example, being in a pub with one other person versus being in a pub with several other people would make a difference.0 -
theological wrote: »I suspect a lot of that still has to do with people's behaviour. For example, being in a pub with one other person versus being in a pub with several other people would make a difference.
And you might be right ... but that's why your opposition to "unnecessary" foreign travel makes no sense. It's not the travel or the necessity that poses the risk, it's the person travelling and what they do when they get to wherever they're going. There's a world of difference between a bunch of 40-year-olds travelling to tourism hot-spots for a typical pre-Covid boozy week by the sea (whether that's in Blackpool or Biarritz) and a gang of 20-year-olds hiking across the Lake District or the Swiss Alps.
The biggest flaw in the UK government's strategy (matched, as always by Trump in America) is promising - and cajoling people into - a return to the very same behaviour that allowed this virus to spread so widely and so rapidly. At least we have, at last, Dr. Fauci saying today that America should not expect a return to "normal" until well into next year. People in the UK (England) need to be told - and accept - that the virus will never be brought under control until they forget about going back to the frenetic consumerist socio-economic model that allowed it to take hold in the first place.0 -
CelticRambler wrote: »And you might be right ... but that's why your opposition to "unnecessary" foreign travel makes no sense. It's not the travel or the necessity that poses the risk, it's the person travelling and what they do when they get to wherever they're going. There's a world of difference between a bunch of 40-year-olds travelling to tourism hot-spots for a typical pre-Covid boozy week by the sea (whether that's in Blackpool or Biarritz) and a gang of 20-year-olds hiking across the Lake District or the Swiss Alps.
The biggest flaw in the UK government's strategy (matched, as always by Trump in America) is promising - and cajoling people into - a return to the very same behaviour that allowed this virus to spread so widely and so rapidly. At least we have, at last, Dr. Fauci saying today that America should not expect a return to "normal" until well into next year. People in the UK (England) need to be told - and accept - that the virus will never be brought under control until they forget about going back to the frenetic consumerist socio-economic model that allowed it to take hold in the first place.
Unnecessary travel abroad particularly to places where the virus is spreading at a higher rate is obviously a risk. I'm thinking particularly of stories like this one where a group of teenagers arrive back from Greece corona-positive and then go out in Plymouth afterwards potentially spreading the virus further. That's a risk that could have been avoided.
Domestic travel is easier because it is easier to track the spread of the virus nationally based on the data we've got rather than internationally.
The virus is more prevalent in different countries than it is in the UK at the moment. Domestic travel also requires care. Avoiding hotspots is possible with a bit of research.0 -
theological wrote: »Unnecessary travel ... places where the virus is spreading at a higher rate
... a risk that could have been avoided.
Domestic travel is easier ...
The virus is more prevalent in different countries than it is in the UK ...
Avoiding hotspots is possible with a bit of research.
You're throwing all kinds of incoherent statements together, there. Very much like the UK government - which is why this virus isn't going away any time soon. Let's take the phrase unnecessary travel: who decides what's necessary or not? Boris Johnson seems to think that getting people back onto packed Tube trains and into London city centre is "necessary"; Dominic Cummings seemed to think it was "necessary" to go on a long drive to test his eyesight; thousands of people seem to think it's "necessary" to have some guy on a bike deliver them a meal that they couldn't be bothered to cook themselves. And yet a twenty-year-old who takes a break, in a different, low-risk country, for the sake of her mental health, is lambasted for her unnecessary trave?
Yes, domestic travel is easier - which is exactly why it should be more tightly controlled. Easy travel means easy spread of the virus. If that spread across international borders is proving difficult to track, maybe it's because some governments have very deliberately decided to reject every kind of international cooperation in the name of sovereignty?
And yes, different countries have different rates of spread, but the virus doesn't care about arbitrarily defined lines on a map. You're adopting Marine LePen's attitude (as expressed on French radio this week) that France should shut its borders to keep the virus out, even though her own fiefdom is one of France's (and Europe's) hotspots.
Overall, you and I might take the time to evaluate the risks for any travel we want to undertake, but the vast majority of people just don't think like that. They assume that if a transport service is a available, or a destination country is "green-listed", then everything's fine. When a government takes shortcuts for the sake of political points, it's failing the people is supposed to be protecting.0 -
CelticRambler wrote: »You're throwing all kinds of incoherent statements together, there. Very much like the UK government - which is why this virus isn't going away any time soon. Let's take the phrase unnecessary travel: who decides what's necessary or not? Boris Johnson seems to think that getting people back onto packed Tube trains and into London city centre is "necessary"; Dominic Cummings seemed to think it was "necessary" to go on a long drive to test his eyesight; thousands of people seem to think it's "necessary" to have some guy on a bike deliver them a meal that they couldn't be bothered to cook themselves. And yet a twenty-year-old who takes a break, in a different, low-risk country, for the sake of her mental health, is lambasted for her unnecessary trave?
Yes, domestic travel is easier - which is exactly why it should be more tightly controlled. Easy travel means easy spread of the virus. If that spread across international borders is proving difficult to track, maybe it's because some governments have very deliberately decided to reject every kind of international cooperation in the name of sovereignty?
And yes, different countries have different rates of spread, but the virus doesn't care about arbitrarily defined lines on a map. You're adopting Marine LePen's attitude (as expressed on French radio this week) that France should shut its borders to keep the virus out, even though her own fiefdom is one of France's (and Europe's) hotspots.
Overall, you and I might take the time to evaluate the risks for any travel we want to undertake, but the vast majority of people just don't think like that. They assume that if a transport service is a available, or a destination country is "green-listed", then everything's fine. When a government takes shortcuts for the sake of political points, it's failing the people is supposed to be protecting.
I'm critical of the British government's handling of foreign travel so I don't get your point here. I also think they are wrong on going back to work right now. I therefore think that your first paragraph is irrelevant to my argument.
International travel should be off apart from if one needs to urgently travel to take care of family members for example. I'd use the same argument in respect to travelling to locked down areas in the UK. The mud slinging about Le Pen can be ignored as an ad-hominem.
Your argument about people presuming they can travel on available routes is exactly why restrictions are required. Borders should be closed with the exception of limited demonstrable reasons for travelling at present to keep the virus from being imported from elsewhere. It seems like we've not learned anything since February or March.0 -
Looks like someone in DHSC has decided to leak some data to show the reality of the testing regime:
https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1305047753983225858
On the subject of schools, having friends working in schools, there is not a particular problem in High Schools etc for the most part. Sixth forms and further education providers however is a different story.
Many of those going to further education colleges and sixth forms are using public transport, often public buses rather than dedicated school buses (unlike primary and High Schools) and are simply just all gathering close together at bus stops, on the bus and mixing like normal and not keeping their distance. They're also gathering down the bus where they cannot be easily seen and wearing masks around their chins as they don't want to wear them properly.
College lecturer I know has even saw students discussing a competition to see who can cough over the most people as they say they can't get the virus so it doesn't bother them.0 -
Looks like someone in DHSC has decided to leak some data to show the reality of the testing regime:
https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1305047753983225858
On the subject of schools, having friends working in schools, there is not a particular problem in High Schools etc for the most part. Sixth forms and further education providers however is a different story.
Many of those going to further education colleges and sixth forms are using public transport, often public buses rather than dedicated school buses (unlike primary and High Schools) and are simply just all gathering close together at bus stops, on the bus and mixing like normal and not keeping their distance. They're also gathering down the bus where they cannot be easily seen and wearing masks around their chins as they don't want to wear them properly.
College lecturer I know has even saw students discussing a competition to see who can cough over the most people as they say they can't get the virus so it doesn't bother them.
I can't draw much from anecdotal comments to assume that controls aren't adequate in schools nationally in sixth forms but to your point on bus stops there's very little one can do to ensure they keep distance other than to ask them to. Given that bus stops are outdoors these should be lower risk than indoor spaces to begin with and probably fall under 1m rather than 2m spacing anyway.
Getting schools and colleges back was definitely the right decision. The risk of transmission for children is much lower than in adults and another wasted year of education would be detrimental. There is some risk but it is low. And the risk is probably more to do with indoor spaces rather than bus stops outdoors.
Edit: also in London TFL are dedicating certain buses on regular routes entirely to school children in the mornings at school hours. I'd be surprised if other areas aren't doing something similar.0 -
They're not keeping any distance apart, let alone 1m. It is literally a free for all, big huddles of crowds just like it was before COVID. These are not just my observations, you will find that it is things that are being seen by many people all over the country who work in transport and also in the education sector.theological wrote: »I can't draw much from anecdotal comments to assume that controls aren't adequate in schools nationally in sixth forms but to your point on bus stops there's very little one can do to ensure they keep distance other than to ask them to. Given that bus stops are outdoors these should be lower risk than indoor spaces to begin with and probably fall under 1m rather than 2m spacing anyway.
Some of the stops involved include bus stations where there are covered areas and long walkways which are covered. Most of them are outside, but the ones I was thinking about are enclosed outdoor structures.Edit: also in London TFL are dedicating certain buses on regular routes entirely to school children in the mornings at school hours. I'd be surprised if other areas aren't doing something similar.
I'm not talking about school services, I am talking about college services which are a completely different kettle of fish where many students will be using public bus services as dedicated college and further education services are far less common and normally are on commercial routes.
Also talking about London is not representative of the general public transport landscape in the UK. London operates completely different to the UK and is heavily subsidised by public funds and it also happens to have a great public transport system so such services are possible. In other parts of the UK where support for public transport has been all but abandoned, it's not the same. Also bus journeys in London tend to be pretty short for many as they are used as connections to other modes of transport such as the tube rather than the primary mode of transport, unlike the rest of the country.
I am not surprised that you may not understand this, because the majority of people in the Department of Transport are also completely deluded about the difficulties of providing bus services outside the big cities during COVID-19. I know two operators who have exhausted discussions with them, because the DfT keep referring to how things are in cities and how straightforward they are with their fingers, however many times the operator says the are different.
Take a market town a relative of mine lives in. There's an operator that provides private hire school services in the county on contract whilst also diverting service buses on a route to the local sixth form college which staggers it's start times by request of the local educational authority The routes always carry a mix of free travel passes, students and commuters as without such they are not viable and they only run every now. The only way of providing what you state is to double the number of buses and drivers, on top of all the extra work they're having to do for schools services.
Who is going to pay for the extra drivers? Who is going to pay for the extra vehicles? I'll give you a hint. The government have already refused and keep rambling on about some example in London that is completely irrelevant.0 -
Advertisement
-
They're not keeping any distance apart, let alone 1m. It is literally a free for all, big huddles of crowds just like it was before COVID. These are not just my observations, you will find that it is things that are being seen by many people all over the country who work in transport and also in the education sector.
Is this based on Twitter? I fear we could be into a new phase on this thread where instead of discussing camera angles on beaches we are discussing camera angles on bus stops.
A more fruitful question may be to ask, what do you propose to do about it? The best you can do outside of the school gates is to encourage parents to remind their children of what is safe, and to encourage transport companies to ensure that distancing can be observed on public transport.Some of the stops involved include bus stations where there are covered areas and long walkways which are covered. Most of them are outside, but the ones I was thinking about are enclosed outdoor structures.
If they are exposed to the air then the risk of spread is significantly lower than if one is indoors. Which implies to me that the main area of concern should be in schools and in classrooms and to ensure that distancing is being observed to there.I'm not talking about school services, I am talking about college services which are a completely different kettle of fish where many students will be using public bus services as dedicated college and further education services are far less common and normally are on commercial routes.
I don't think there's a major distinction between how schools and how sixth form colleges are regarded in respect to public transport. Perhaps I am wrong, and it is too outer-London focussed again. I don't think a sixth form pupil would be declined the use of these buses because they happen to be over 16.Also talking about London is not representative of the general public transport landscape in the UK. London operates completely different to the UK and is heavily subsidised by public funds and it also happens to have a great public transport system so such services are possible. In other parts of the UK where support for public transport has been all but abandoned, it's not the same. Also bus journeys in London tend to be pretty short for many as they are used as connections to other modes of transport such as the tube rather than the primary mode of transport, unlike the rest of the country.
I live in outer-London and can only comment on what I can see here. Similarly you can only provide your perspective on what you can see plus what you can see on Twitter.
I guess in rural areas parents probably will be asked to take the lead on dropping their children to school, but in other sizeable urban areas I don't see why doing something similar to what is happening in London should be problematic. TFL aren't abounding in cash at the moment either so it isn't true that London is rolling in extra cash.
Edit: I doubt these problems are UK-specific. I'm sure that other countries in Europe are also struggling with accommodating this new normal for pupils.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement