Penguin68

There is ONE thing that reduces pollution. Fewer cars (or fewer journeys, depending on how you phrase it). That is simplistic rubbish. The ULEZ assumes that fewer polluting vehicles (those with high emissions) will reduce pollution - if it didn't that would be a con. Which is not the same as fewer vehicles (or trips) Journeys using electric and hydrogen vehicles (and the same number as before) would very significantly reduce local street pollution. Why not head for the Attenborough 'what we need is far fewer people overall' remedy - where cousin Covid-19 might have helped, had not those pesky doctors and scientists got in its way. Fewer car journeys may be one way of reducing pollution, but it is only one out of many, it is not THE one and indeed by thinking that you avoid considering alternatives and indeed things that might work with that remedy, to increase its effectiveness. You might as well say that staying on your own, together with the rest of the population on their own, in locked rooms, indefinitely, is THE ONE way of beating Covid. It's a way, of course, but are you signing up for it?

I would love to know what are the success (and perhaps more importantly the failure) criteria for this traffic experiment. Of course, we never will know, and indeed I'd be prepared to bet that none have yet (perhaps will ever) be set. There will be no way, for instance, based on the timing, to differentiate reduction in pollution because of the Ulez, and because of this - each will no doubt claim 100% of any success in that area. But I doubt whether a figure has even been set for a forecast outcome. Probably of either. And indeed - what base-lines will be being used? And, based on Southwark's very fast and loose attitude to statistics and measurement - why would we ever believe a word they said?

Is it normal to close whole cemeteries for a single funeral? Yes, in Southwark following the Covid-19 lockdown. Initially Southwark closed all its cemeteries willy-nilly, but later opened them for socially distanced use, but determined to close them during any funeral so as to maintain safe numbers coming together. Other London boroughs chose similar, but not necessarily identical, schemes. This was, and is, probably unnecessarily cautious. In normal times cemeteries are open for funerals, as these are seen as 'public' events.

Oh, that would be the 'I'm postponing the election and I p*** on your parade' Mayor of London would it?

If you mean Camberwell New Cemetery I believe it is because it houses a working crematorium - which is continuously in operation - the other cemeteries are also closed during burials. Despite the new restrictions I believe it would be possible to open it again to those wishing to visit family graves etc. but since there is so much green space locally (including Brenchley Gardens and Camberwell Old Cemetery as well as Peckham Rye) I don't think those just wanting to access the cemetery for exercise etc. are left wanting for recreation areas. However, any opportunity to reduce our lives and freedoms shouldn't be (and isn't being) overlooked.

Our postie is back off holiday and delivering like fury - he was surprised to hear that there had been no cover for him whilst away. I'm guessing that if they're not providing cover then many of our recent woes may have been holiday related. Although clearly if they are operating 75% under-strength there may be walks permanently uncovered. Daily post deliveries are actually part of their regulated service requirements (as are around 93% of first class post delivered by the 'next working day'). If they are failing to staff at sufficient levels to provide that (outwith the short-term impact of local illness) then they are in breach of their regulated requirements. My guess is that taking one week with another the local service to us is in breach. This isn't really about an individual dispute with the Post Office. But about a general failure in a local area. Something an MP would be (and I suspect is) pursuing.

I would add a quote from Churchill 'Democracy is the worst form of government'. Actually the full Churchillian quote is ?democracy is the worst form of government ? except for all the others that have been tried.? - (my emphasis) so rather the opposite of the point you were making.

The virus is going to mutate if it hasn't already done so- then we are back to square one. It is not in the virus' best interest to kill its host - so many viruses mutate to become less lethal (as syphilis did, originally a killer over a few days it changed to something which offered its hosts a much longer life). So a mutating virus isn't necessarily a bad thing. Actually, the version which is asymptomatic to its host is ideal, in terms of spread and ubiquity. It is also worth noting that it is most unlikely that this virus will ever be wholly eradicated - its close cousins, those coronaviruses which carry the common cold, certainly haven't. Covid-20 may already be out there, and Covid-21 and Covid-22 lurking to make their New Year appearances. It may be up to the old and vulnerable to protect themselves from the young - stressing to those in multi-generational households the risks they present and even (where they can) social distancing from them. Despite 'bolshie teenager' images I believe the young will respond better to 'encouragement' from within their own families than heavy handed government moralising, sloganising or police enforcement.

Effectively no mail deliveries for us at all in the last 10 days (but packages are still being delivered). I'm guessing 'our' postie is on holiday, and his walk isn't being covered by anyone - which used not to be the case. If they are really working on 25% staffing levels that's a disgrace. Their monopoly comes at a service quality price (i.e. %age of first class deliveries made next day, 6 days of deliveries etc.) They are clearly failing.

It is worth saying (again) that levels of pollution generally in London have dropped dramatically over recent years, and would have dropped further with the extension of the ULEZ. This is based on better engineered petrol and diesel engines. Add to that the impact of hybrid and wholly electric vehicles and vehicle-created pollution (in normal times) is already reduced and will reduce much further. In the short term, however, forcing standing traffic into narrow suburban 'highways' - many not much wider than the roads closed - will add to local pollution. Southwark wishes to force 50% of cars out of their borough (they're on record for that) - which is fine for the flat, well served by public transport northern end (the original Southwark) - which is also closer to the centre of London for those wanting to walk or cycle - but fairly dreadful for the hilly, poorly served by public transport Old Camberwell end - also much further from places in Town you might want to get to. But does Tooley St. or their apparat care about those differences? - not when they can continue to soak us suckers for parking fees and so on. And now we don't even get a say (hijacking Tory legislation)... - well we do get a say - but only one day every 3 years (or longer when they can extend the vote because of a pandemic).

It should be noted that the 'extension' is at the restaurant's own expense - they are not receiving, in September, any government money.

Although some of the traditional bowling demographic has clearly been hit by Covid 19, it is still a good way to get outside, meet people, socialise (safely) and demonstrate skills. Bowling greens are essentially civilised and welcoming places for older people (although I also used to bowl at University many years ago - crown green bowling). Apart from rolling and mowing (and I suppose some re-seeding, on occasion) greens need little upkeep (bowlers tend to treat them with respect). It would be a great shame to see the green re-purposed. There are other spaces where different recreational pursuits could be established. The low level of current usage are a function, I would suggest, of the green being put out of use at the height of the epidemic (possibly wrongly) and it taking time for bowlers to return.

which are the best ones for protecting ourselves against getting Covid which are available to the general public? The ones being worn by people in your vicinity. You are less likely to inhale Covid-19 particles than you are to transfer them to you on your hands - hence the emphasis on hand washing. Doctors and nurses in full PPE were still catching the virus - suggesting that even the best PPE may not be sufficient. Social distancing, hand-washing and others wearing masks (as well as you, for them) are the 'best' methods. Staying 2 metres from people indoors, and ensuring if you can that there is good ventilation (but autumn and winter are close upon us) is your best defence. Doctors and nurses even with PPE couldn't social distance with their patients - and wards are generally poorly ventilated (air conditioning is no good for this).

I hate to be remotely fair to the Tooley St apparst, but at least one, and previously the most communicative of our local councillors is a teacher - September is always a busy time for this profession and immeasurably more so I would guess in the Covid return to school.

I walk where I can (but I'm over 70 and that isn't that far - more than 2 miles there and back again is definitely too far) - I live on a hill so cycling (which has to start and end on that hill) is not for me an attractive option - and I'm no longer that good a cyclist - I take public transport when it's a quicker/ easier option than driving (which, for many east/ West local journeys it certainly isn't) - and I still rely on my car (or an Uber) to do (much) of what I want to do. Our area (ED) is very poorly served by public transport - over the whole of August the Orange line though us was suspended every weekend, and tube stations are now shut early as well - so relying on public transport to get into London isn't always a runner - unless you have many hours to spare (and at my age, I don't). I'm not unique in East Dulwich, I'm guessing. I'm sure the millennial mavens will now be suggesting that old people like me shouldn't be living in London. If we can't run and cycle everywhere, get lost. All I can say is - 'you'll be me one day - pray you don't meet you round the next corner'

Ultimately, if you want to reduce pollution, you have to reduce the number of car journeys. That simply isn't true. You need to reduce the polluting effects of motor vehicles - already starting to be addressed through Ulez and the increasing number of electric and hybrid cars - hydrogen powered cars (when and if they come) have water as their 'pollutant' exhaust. Putting aside the diesel cheats - cars are now vastly cleaner than they were - and the trajectory is for further improvement. I wonder how the anti-car lobby would respond if all vehicles in Southwark were electric or hydrogen powered? What would their stick be to beat the motorist then? Air quality in London is dramatically better already than it used to be in the past - and the quite recent past (not in those streets with standing traffic from the road closures, of course, now). I am in favour of people exercising their free will to cycle and walk, and to do so in safety, but not, I think, at the expense of those people wishing to exercise their free will in another way.

There seem to be two interpretations of 'healthy streets' being made. One is about street use making you more healthy - so the emphasis on walking and cycling (fine for shorter journeys and for the young(er) and fit, not so good for the old(er), disabled etc etc. and for long journeys or journeys where you need to take stuff like buggies or heavy shopping). The other interpretation is about removing polluting traffic from residential roads (which should not mean moving polluting traffic to other residential roads). One way of doing this is to reduce (as the ULEZ is meant to do) the pollution capability of traffic - and of course this is what the use of electric vehicles is meant to do. But the actions of Southwark, and others, confuses and conflates these two interpretations into - 'punish people in cars' - actually 'punish people in cars and milk them if they try to park.' With, I've noted, a number of class warriors waving their red flags over the issue. And in the mean time some clever folks have created effectively gated communities for themselves - actually enabled by our elected class warriors - what are the odds?

30 people in an area with a population density like ours is nothing. We literally have nothing to fear except fear itself, sadly fear is winning. 'East Dulwich' (the concept, not the ward) probably has about 40,000 people living in it (the ward had 12,500 in it and the area is probably 3-4 wards big). 30 deaths is a fatality rate of 0.01% - which is pretty much the UK run-rate for this. So, based on past history - our fear should be the equivalent (no more nor less) than anywhere else in the UK - indeed in the World, as 0.01% is also broadly the run-rate for any country where Covid-19 has been active. For some of the vulnerable (perm any from 'older', 'over-weight', 'with underlying health issues') this can be a devastating disease, even where it is not fatal. For others, younger, fitter etc. it is mild and indeed amongst the very young often unnoticeable. So, if I was a fit teenager (I'm not) I would be being very, very relaxed about the whole thing, on my own account. If I was a fit teenager living with parents and grandparents I might be worried about them, and 'giving' them something - but, If I can remember my own teenage years, probably not that much. It is probably up to the vulnerable to protect themselves - and some of those may very reasonably be very worried. What we live in is a (sort of) nanny state that wants to worry on our behalves - and probably more so because they will be blamed for the stupidity and carelessness of others. Caution - 'wear masks' - 'wear masks in more circumstances' - 'don't mix with people' - 'keep schools closed until there's a vaccine' - is all about 'I'll be blamed if someone dies on my watch'. The precautionary principle becomes about covering your own back. But in our blame culture is that surprising? Although the majority of the country probably doesn't have anything (much) to fear, there is a minority which really does. So acting as if there's nothing to worry about at all, isn't quite that simple, even where it may be generally true.

This week (Underhill, south of the Cemetery) I received a weekly and fortnightly periodical on the correct days. And something delivered today as expected. Previous weeks have been very patchy. The service is not consistently bad - but numbers of people away (Covid-19 and leave) have taken their toll. The guys (in my area, we have no women posties) I see out are generally laden down with stuff. I have gone days without any delivery (back in 'normality pre-Covid and pre the move to Peckham I got post every day) but there are still good days (and weeks).

Lets also look at the deaths. From what I can make out, since May, 3 people have died in the Dulwich area of COVID. Thats not exactly a reason to panic. Actually, the site you linked to shows deaths from March to June 2020. In September the map will be updated to July. In those 4 months, in 'Dulwich Hill', 4 people died of or with Covid-19 - with no deaths after April. In 'East Dulwich' there were 5 deaths. in 'Peckham Rye Common' there were 9 deaths. In 'Herne Hill and Dulwich Park' there were 3. In 'North Dulwich' 5, in 'Sydenham Hill' 3 and in 'Forest Hill West' 1. So in the broad area we probably think of as 'East Dulwich' and its environs there were 30 deaths linked to Covid 19 in the first 4 months of the pandemic (since the beginning of March). The bulk of the deaths were early on - in all of the locales listed there have been none in June, in most not in May either.

Totally agree, vilifying Labour Southwark Council to detract from Tory central Government who introduced the policy. Sorry, the policy may be a Tory one (it's also a Labour one, as it happens, and rather more so) but the choice of roads is the Labour Council's - and they are choosing schemes which they favoured but, in many cases, the local residents didn't - so they are using Tory legislation to push through their own chosen road closure policies escaping public scrutiny or complaint by diktat. If you look at all their proposals to manage away cars well before the Tories came up with anything (which they are now implementing, and in spades) you see a clear continuity of thinking and planning. All the Tories have done is give them the big guns to railroad through their ideas.

The enforced working from home has greatly surprised many employers by being, broadly, as effective productivity-wise as working from an office. Many had felt (from private studies undertaken for a telecoms firm) that people would not work effectively unless supervised and 'over-seen' by management. This has proved, more generally than had been anticipated, to be wrong. However there are clear benefits to office working for some and at some times - it is much easier for new staff to be integrated into a physical office than a virtual one - and team working, seen as a great business process advance in the two decades which straddled the century, is clearly more difficult remotely - when team building for instance is contemplated. Again for some, although their work could be performed from home, their own home circumstances may militate against this. And some are temperamentally ill-suited to lone working. I'm guessing that even when we are 'over' Covid-19 office occupancy may continue round today's equivalent of 50% with numbers working permanently from a home office, and others going in perhaps 1-3 days a week. There are good business reasons for that - why pay for office accommodation you don't really need? Over time this will have a significant impact on building use in city centres, and in support service provision (including catering) locations - with fewer in the centre of towns and perhaps more vibrant suburbs. There will undoubtedly be pain to come before we enter a new normal.

In Southwark many young adults live in the same household as other adults, typically parents and sometimes grandparents. That is true, and it is those people who need to be most careful when socialising with other young people. But equally there are numbers of young people who live with other young people (in shared accommodation) and they offer less risk to the vulnerable in the community - if they have gone to parties they need not to be visiting their parents and grandparents until they feel they can do so safely. We cannot expect young people to continue to live like Trappist monks indefinitely - if we refuse them outlets for their natural exuberance we will build up real problems - with their mental well-being amongst other things.

so i'm not sure that anyone with informed knowledge is suggesting herd immunity is a good strategy - you got a credible source? Of course herd immunity is a good strategy - it is precisely what a vaccination programme tries to create - on the basis that some people cannot be vaccinated because of other conditions - what you are challenging is the creation of herd immunity through infection - which in general may be a poor idea (although Sweden's figures, who followed this course) are not much worse (indeed on some measures better) than ours. I am suggesting that, before a vaccine is available, if those who are little troubled by the virus do become immune to it (or if their next infection is very much less troublesome than their first, possibly including the level to which they can infect others) then they will create, for the winter months when we might expect Covid-19 to be worse, some sort of wall which may reduce the impact of the next wave. I'd far rather they understood their risk - and the risk they might pose to others - get infected now, get over it (avoiding exposure to the vulnerable) and create that wall which may make the second wave spread less damaging. We almost certainly are going to have to live with Covid-19 in the population for the foreseeable future - we cannot continue as we are - damping down all fun and all economic activity. We cannot expect the young to continue to protect the old, with nothing in it for them. Far better we let them have some enjoyment whilst continuing to be careful of the vulnerable.

..