Read on Twitter
Ending bubbles is a drop in the ocean when call centres, a room full of people talking, are open. https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1348202459064360961
An effective "stricter lockdown" is one which aggressively enforces workplace safety, heavily penalises employers who require people to come into work unnecessarily, and fails to take major steps to curb transmission risks.
Households are still allowed to have cleaners round, ffs, a person whose literal job is to touch things you've coughed on, this is the sort of thing which should be the focus of any demands for "stricter lockdown".
The two key places where transmission is still happening are workplaces and schools. It isn't that single parents and people who live alone are permitted to see one other household. It isn't that you're taking a two hour walk in the park. Schools and workplaces are the vectors.
And there are a hell of a lot of solutions for making schools and workplaces safer, and it's interlinked, and basically it means throwing money at workers to support them to stay home and stay safe, and sanctioning any employers who put lives at risk.
And the great news is, going hard enough on fining employers ought to raise a lot to fund support for workers, so there's that. Essentially, yeah, let's do a strict lockdown, and focus on the real superspreaders: bosses.
Two transmission examples:
-Someone has covid, transmits to the lone person in their bubble = that's the end of the chain
-Call centre worker has covid > infects 5 ppl at work > 2 have kids in schools > 3 kids infected go to school > infect their classes & teacher > etc
-Someone has covid, transmits to the lone person in their bubble = that's the end of the chain
-Call centre worker has covid > infects 5 ppl at work > 2 have kids in schools > 3 kids infected go to school > infect their classes & teacher > etc
Ending bubbles might prevent one or two cases from a confirmed infection. But taking action on workplace and school transmission, closing and from-home with the norm and enormous, legally-enforced-with-teeth safety standards for in-person would prevent THOUSANDS.
So fucking fine businesses a percentage of their income for every window they failed to open in the warehouse. Wrap them up in red tape for every single employee they require to come in. Protect every worker who self isolates, support them financially and penalise discrimination.
Also fwiw I think more households should be bubbling, not fewer, as an alternative to sending kids into school.
Confirmed case at a reduced capacity school = 10+ households exposed
Confirmed case in a childcare bubble = 2 households exposed
Bubbles should be *encouraged*
Confirmed case at a reduced capacity school = 10+ households exposed
Confirmed case in a childcare bubble = 2 households exposed
Bubbles should be *encouraged*
idk if any schools or mutual aid groups are yet encouraging and facilitating childcare bubbles as an alternative to sending kids into school, but if not, that's a good place to start reducing mixing of households.
btw, government must have access to data on how many people who need testing (and test positive) are doing non essential work outside the home, because when you book a test you're asked if you're an essential worker, and if you go to work outside your home.
That they're not sharing this data suggests one of two things: lockdown doesn't need tightening, or that non essential workplace transmission is a massive vector and stronger measures on employers needs to be taken and that'll raise all sorts of awkward questions.
