Loading Notifications...

Why is Manchester different (lockdown tiers)

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 yorkshire_lad2 16 Oct 2020

I am ashamed of what the media are telling us is happening in Manchester with requests for money/financial support for jobs before they'll agree to revised lockdown.
The longer this goes on, the more people will die (e.g. excess deaths: "England & Wales had most excess deaths in Europe’s covid-19 first wave" https://www.newscientist.com/).  Those people who die won't really care whether they have jobs after the pandemic.
And where do the Manchester politicians think the money is coming from?  It's just take, take, take now.  What happened to the civic spirit of the last lockdown (e.g. clapping for the NHS).  That seems to have vanished into a sense of "me, me, me".
Other areas (Liverpool, London, York) are going into tighter lockdown for the greater good.
Why does Manchester think it's different?

31
In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

> Why does Manchester think it's different?

Andy Burnham.

2
 spenser 16 Oct 2020
In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

Presumably because it was shoved into a local lockdown long before the other regions you cite and it has a fairly popular Labour Mayor who has the influence to make it politically inconvenient for the government to further shaft the residents of Manchester.

3
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Andy Burnham.

He thinks he's the new working man's messiah. He should be locked up for sedition. Him and all the other gob shites who are refusing to comply with the latest restrictions. The irony is Sadiq Khan is practically begging for London to be escalated to Tier 3.

35
In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

The government can change the local tier designation whenever they want. As they did in the Liverpool City Region.

Steve Rotherham and the City Region are asking for proper support.

Andy Burnham and the GM authorities are asking for proper support. The government can impose the tier 3 status whenever they want.

However, they want to transfer blame to others, particularly powerful Labour figures. Let’s not forget Greater Manchester led on stronger measures 10 weeks ago.

London and York are only looking at measures that GM have been in for months. When stronger measures come they will be seeking more support, if not their leaders won’t be doing their jobs.

“Levelling Up” My arse!

2
 ianstevens 16 Oct 2020
In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

"Take take take"... or ensuring business don't collapse, people have jobs to go back too, and people can afford to eat and heat/pay for their homes during an enforced period of non-working. Don't be angry at Manchester/Andy Burnham, be angry at central government for not providing the support people will need simply to stay alive.

Or they all sign up for UC and become a longer-term users of the benefits system. FYI, UC probably won't cover rent and bills for people...  

1
In reply to ianstevens:

> "Take take take"... or ensuring business don't collapse, people have jobs to go back too, and people can afford to eat and heat/pay for their homes during an enforced period of non-working. Don't be angry at Manchester/Andy Burnham, be angry at central government for not providing the support people will need simply to stay alive.

Tier 3 doesn't prevent people going to work.  

12
 ianstevens 16 Oct 2020
In reply to FactorXXX:

Unless you work in a pub or a gym.

Edit: IIRC the "night-time economy" is about £5bn a year in Manchester?

Post edited at 10:36
 r0b 16 Oct 2020
In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

Greater Manchester has been under the equivalent of Tier 2 restrictions for 10 weeks. During that time, Covid infections have increased tenfold, from 30-50/100000 to 300-500/100000. There is zero evidence that these local "lockdowns" work. I mean, the CMO stood next to the PM when he announced the Tiers system and said he didn't think it would work! Going into Tier 3 would cause further economic harm with little to no evidence that it would actually bring the infection rate down.

1
In reply to FactorXXX:

> Why does Manchester think it's different?

> Andy Burnham.

That's literally his job - to put the people of Manchester first.

1
In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

> What happened to the civic spirit of the last lockdown (e.g. clapping for the NHS).

When clapping for the NHS results in a single penny more going to NHS staff, feel free to come back here and remind me.

1
In reply to planetmarshall:

> That's literally his job - to put the people of Manchester first.

So he's happy for lots more people to catch or spread Covid and potentially die? Hes playing politics and putting lives at risk. The gullible will fall for your soundbite.

19
 galpinos 16 Oct 2020
In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

I don't think it is different. York is in Tier 2 like Manchester and lucky London is coming to join us. The government sets the Tier designation, it has set the Tier designation for Manchester at 2. You can't blame that on Manchester. Maybe the Government should stop playing politics and chance the designation for Manchester if they believe that is the right thing to do? The GMCA has no power to stop that.

If your issue is with Andy Burnham, well, his point is that the CMO said the Tier system won't work, the Deputy CMO said moving Manchester to Tier 3 will have no impact on the rates of transmission, hospital admissions or deaths,  and so the Mayor, probably emboldened by the backing of ALL the GM council Leaders, other council leaders in the North and local MPs (Labour and Tory), has questioned why Manchester might be moving to Tier 3. The Chancellor has said he doesn't want a national lockdown/circuit breaker as it would be disastrous for the economy, Andy Burnham is asking why is it ok to impose such an economically disastrous policy solely on the North?

I'm not saying he is right, but the he has every right to question the Government and to ask them to justify their decisions. The Tories made Greater Manchester have a mayor, maybe they are regretting that decision?

 r0b 16 Oct 2020
In reply to planetmarshall:

Apparently the Treasury is "urgently weighing up the possibility of offering more support to regions facing new restrictions... but this is expected to focus on businesses in the less restrictive Tier 2 areas. As of Saturday this will include London...".

Lucy Powell MP: "So now the Treasury is to focus on support for businesses in Tier 2 as London goes into it ... errrr we’ve been in Tier 2 for nearly 3 months with nothing. They wonder why we up here are fed up and are demanding more support."

 tom r 16 Oct 2020
In reply to r0b:

I don't get the logic of this. Scientific advisers don't think it will work because they aren't strict enough they aren't arguing for less restrictions. Manchester had a cases per 100k of 449.3 up to 10th October. 

 https://www.wigan.gov.uk/Docs/PDF/Resident/Crime-Emergencies/COVID19-Weekly-Tracker.pdf

 tom r 16 Oct 2020
In reply to galpinos:

The Chancellor has said he doesn't want a national lockdown/circuit breaker as it would be disastrous for the economy, Andy Burnham is asking why is it ok to impose such an economically disastrous policy solely on the North?

Could be because London metropolitan area generates 1/3 of the UK GDP?

5
 BFG 16 Oct 2020
In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

> What happened to the civic spirit of the last lockdown (e.g. clapping for the NHS).  That seems to have vanished into a sense of "me, me, me".

Hah!

I'm not sure why you're up in arms over really. "Local politician tries to publicly protect interests of region" doesn't feel like much of a story. Neither does "Left-wing politician thinks central government should do more".

 Si dH 16 Oct 2020
In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

I can understand the current situation being nerve wracking for more vulnerable people in Manchester, but I respect Burnham for what he is doing.

The VH area restrictions are, in the opinion of the CMO, probably insufficient to turn the virus over. Therefore the only way to view these restrictions is as either a very long term state (minimum 6 months) to simply reduce deaths a bit more until the spring and maybe until a vaccine is available, or else as a baseline set which MUST be significantly extended by the local authorities in order to bring the virus under control. Unfortunately while the local authorities do have the authority to tell businesses to close (I think), they do not have any power to provide additional funding or support of other kinds to those affected, so they are basically stuffed.

This is all Johnson's way of trying to shed accountability for the second wave that he has allowed to start - give local areas an insufficient set of restrictions and funding, claim their agreement, then blame them for not doing more when the deaths start totting up. Burnham is right to fight it. He knows that the only actual solution is a fuller lockdown and the only way to get that without decimating his city is to hold out until something more national has to be introduced, at which point the Government will be more likely to succumb to the obvious need for more financial support. Johnson doesn't want to mandate Tier 3 (as is his responsibility) because he knows it is likely to be unsuccessful. Furthermore,  adherence to a fuller local lockdown might be weak due to a general sense of unfairness in the local population. 

Basically my view is that the effectiveness of local restrictions is limited once they need to be too severe. People can only get through a proper lockdown psychologically, and hence be likely to continue to properly comply, if they can see that the need is great AND that everyone else is with them or at least strongly supporting them.

Gone a bit off topic.

Edit to say- the sense of unfairness is exacerbated by reports that Sunak is looking at providing more support for businesses in Tier 2 now they include London. Merseyside and the NE have been under greater restrictions than Tier 2 for a month or so, with no such support. Manchester has been under slightly less than Tier 2 for longer, again with no such support. It all comes across as if we don't matter enough.

Post edited at 11:07
 mondite 16 Oct 2020
In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

> Those people who die won't really care whether they have jobs after the pandemic.

Yes but lots of people will care and the downside of those people not having jobs is their health outcomes will worsen. So rather than throw them under the bus how about come up with a strategy to save lives and save jobs.

> What happened to the civic spirit of the last lockdown (e.g. clapping for the NHS).  That seems to have vanished into a sense of "me, me, me".

You mean the one where people and companies were getting the support that Manchester are saying they should have now?

> Other areas (Liverpool, London, York) are going into tighter lockdown for the greater good

You do realise London is going to the stage which Manchester has been for weeks. The main difference being the government are now saying they will provide support for that level of lockdown which wasnt provided to Manchester?

 mondite 16 Oct 2020
In reply to BFG:

> Neither does "Left-wing politician thinks central government should do more".

Actually the message is more Left wing politican thinks central government should provide support but devolve most of the power.

Its the right wing government which has (continuing a right wing trend for years) been busy centralising power. Remember Cummings introduction to his lifelong career in politics was campaigning against devolution in the NE.

 BFG 16 Oct 2020
In reply to tom r:

The point being that there's questions over whether Tier 3 will do anything, whereas a national 'circuit breaker' would.

It doesn't matter how big the size of the economy you're damaging is; if you're doing damage for no benefit.

 BFG 16 Oct 2020
In reply to mondite:

> Actually the message is more Left wing politican thinks central government should provide support but devolve most of the power.

Fair. I was simplifying slightly.

I don't think it changes my point that, whether you agree with it or not, Andy Burnham's position is neither particularly surprising nor particularly unreasonable.

 tom r 16 Oct 2020
In reply to BFG:

The trouble is you don't have any data for what would have happened if no additional restrictions were imposed. I suppose you could compare a similar city that didn't have restrictions but as there is a national policy that is hard.

Post edited at 11:12
 mondite 16 Oct 2020
In reply to BFG:

> Fair. I was simplifying slightly.

I just find it entertaining how the normal highly incorrect tropes get trotted out. A lot of the problems we face are down to the tories centralising tendancies eg track and trace being given to Serco and not done via boosting the already existing local tracking systems.

>  Andy Burnham's position is neither particularly surprising nor particularly unreasonable.

Agreed and its key to note it isnt just him. The tory MP William Wragg said yesterday "the impossible has been achieved" with all the local MPs, council leaders and the mayor agreeing on their opposition to it.

 BFG 16 Oct 2020
In reply to tom r:

Modelling counterfactuals is always like that though, especially for national policy.

Just because it's hard doesn't mean we can't make estimations (we've been building models of spread in populations for about 3 decades now - network theory). There are whole academic departments build around understanding the maths, the sociology and the physical science of viral spread.

We do have data for "no restrictions": March pre-lockdown. Florida about 3 months ago. You can then standardise for changes in behaviour or differences in the demographics. We have less information for "What will be the difference in Manchester in October / November if we impose Tier 3 vs. National Circuit breaker?". But it's not like we can't start to break that question down and try and work it out.

At the start of this crisis I was working as a Population Health Analyst for the NHS. I'm no longer doing that, but I would trust what the CMO says as I've seen part of the work that goes into his estimations.

 BFG 16 Oct 2020
In reply to mondite:

> I just find it entertaining how the normal highly incorrect tropes get trotted out. A lot of the problems we face are down to the tories centralising tendancies eg track and trace being given to Serco and not done via boosting the already existing local tracking systems.

I've said this before (though not here), this is an extremely un-conservative "Conservative" government. Both through their natural tendencies and how they've responded to circumstance. The overall picture is a bit weird.

That being said; Tory centralisation is nothing new, they just don't usually believe in big government. It's pretty much a tendency of all Westminster political blocs to collect power to themselves. Even Tony Balir, who started devolution to Wales and Scotland, generally tried to consolidate power in No.10

In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

Here is a joint statement from the Metro Mayors of Greater Manchester, Merseyside and North Tyne.


 Rod_Vortex 16 Oct 2020
In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

I don't necessarily think it's a case of them refusing to go into lockdown as much as it is a negotiation to get the financial support from the government that they need to get through it. 

When the country was locked down, furloughed workers got 80% of their wage. Now the government is wanting to restrict the north with only 60% support. 

I'm sure if they can come to an agreement then the areas will comply. 

Or better still, lock down the whole country again. I don't think local lockdowns will ever be as affective as a full lockdown as people will be less likely to follow the rules.

 Rod_Vortex 16 Oct 2020
In reply to The New NickB:

I don't know how you can expect people on minimum wage, who are probably already living month to month, to survive on only 60% of that. 

In reply to Rod_Vortex:

> I don't know how you can expect people on minimum wage, who are probably already living month to month, to survive on only 60% of that. 

I don’t.

 mondite 16 Oct 2020
In reply to Rod_Vortex:

> I don't know how you can expect people on minimum wage, who are probably already living month to month, to survive on only 60% of that.


Cant they just convert a building on their parents country estate and not mention it to anyone to avoid council tax?

Post edited at 12:06
 galpinos 16 Oct 2020
In reply to tom r:

> The trouble is you don't have any data for what would have happened if no additional restrictions were imposed. I suppose you could compare a similar city that didn't have restrictions but as there is a national policy that is hard.

We don't have any data, but we do have the CMO saying it, who is probably more informed that me or you?

Again, I'm not saying we should or shouldn't but the Regional Mayor asking why and asking for appropriate financial support seems to be just someone doing their job?

 galpinos 16 Oct 2020
In reply to Si dH:

> Manchester has been under slightly less than Tier 2 for longer, again with no such support. It all comes across as if we don't matter enough.

Tier 2 is less onerous than the guidelines for the previous restrictions. We can now meet people outside in private gardens, or outside a pub. 

 galpinos 16 Oct 2020
In reply to Rod_Vortex:

The proposal form "The Northern Alliance" is that the minimum level of support should be minimum wage, not 60% of it nor 80%.

 galpinos 16 Oct 2020
In reply to r0b:

> Apparently the Treasury is "urgently weighing up the possibility of offering more support to regions facing new restrictions... but this is expected to focus on businesses in the less restrictive Tier 2 areas. As of Saturday this will include London...".

> Lucy Powell MP: "So now the Treasury is to focus on support for businesses in Tier 2 as London goes into it ... errrr we’ve been in Tier 2 for nearly 3 months with nothing. They wonder why we up here are fed up and are demanding more support."

If the government can't look at this and see how badly it will play to everywhere outside London they are either incompetent or don't care. 

In reply to galpinos:

> If the government can't look at this and see how badly it will play to everywhere outside London they are either incompetent or don't care. 

Both

 jkarran 16 Oct 2020
In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

> And where do the Manchester politicians think the money is coming from?  It's just take, take, take now.  What happened to the civic spirit of the last lockdown (e.g. clapping for the NHS).  That seems to have vanished into a sense of "me, me, me".

The money comes from the same place it did for furlough. The same place the billions so far siphoned out of the emergency response to chums and donors did: borrowing and ultimately future inflation, tax and spending constraints.

The economic support was there last time because it hit people nationwide, red and blue alike. It isn't this time, it's being done on the cheap. Watch the financial support ramp up as the lockdowns broaden and roll south with the weather into the 'red wall' and on to the shires. Good on Burnham for standing up for his city and people.

> Other areas (Liverpool, London, York) are going into tighter lockdown for the greater good. Why does Manchester think it's different?

I suspect 'it' thinks it has the leverage to get this done right, the others less so and they'll benefit from Manchester's stand anyway. The tiering of towns so far looks as political as it is practical, a grand experiment in seeing how little Westminster can get away with. Looks like they misjudged  a bit. Anyway, it'll be all change again in a couple of weeks as we move from half arsed plan x to half arsed plan y and we mustn't let all this get in the way of playing chicken with the Brussels express train.

jk

 Offwidth 16 Oct 2020
In reply to yorkshire_lad2:

SAGE were clear we needed a stronger than Tier 3 'circuit breaker' lockdown in their advice in mid-September. The CMO said Tier 3 won't provide that much of a change from Tier 2 on deaths. Hence any significant loss of life is down to Boris and co, not Andy and co. The weakness of Tier 3 was a political decision partly based on keeping costs down.

It doesn't take much economic expertise to realise that economic damage will be less worse with the virus better under control. By failing to invest in supporting viable business at a time of national emergency we trash future wealth. Paying 2/3rds minimum wage to the lowest paid is simply inhumane.  Finding the money to keep viable business open and support the working poor needs to be viewed as similar to a war budget.  The government is too tied to those peddling the ideological, counter-factual, terrible advice that 'letting rip' is the way to go... we are already at the edge of hospitals in the worst hit areas not being able to cope from the current model predictions. The subsequent economic damage resulting from an overload induced breakdown in the NHS, and the social chaos certain to ensue, would be huge in comparison to the cost of full support now. C19 IFRs shot up from below 1% to nearer 3% where hospitals were ovrwhelmed and that's ignoring knock on effects of all those who will die or be needlessly disabled for lack of normal functioning hospitals.

This is only happening because a large number of our population don't give a shit and are too stupid to realise they are metaphorically blowing off both feet with a howitzer. The virus can only spread at this rate where basic safety practices like social distancing, washing hands and wearing masks, in conjunction with unnecessary travel is being ignored. A full lockdown is desperately needed now.

Post edited at 13:26
1

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.