Sites in Tier 3
Comments
-
Just cancelled our Cirencester booking for November, as a result of Notts moving into tier 3. There is now a Covid 19 option as a reason for cancelling which wasn't there in September. Our next booking is the 1st May 2021, I wonder what the chances are of that going ahead.🤔 Clumber is only 6 miles away, so I doubt we will bother with that, even if it stays open. I will just take the MH for a run round every month or so.
0 -
So if a site is in tier 3 (area with tens of thousands of infected people) then people from the highly affected area can still stay on a club site as long as they reside in that area.
Please tell me this utter insanity is not true.
Please, please use the internet and try to understand;
How the virus spreads.
Why they brought in tier 3.
what your social responsibility is to humanity.
Why not understanding the above is driving us back to 500 people a day needlessly dying.
If you are in a tier 3 area, just stay at home.
Rufs, it is not frowned upon, it is illegal and potentially life threatening.
1 -
The principal means of transmission is now thought to be via aerosols in enclosed unventilated spaces. There is also evidence to suggest that the spread is prevalent in family groups and gatherings. Other closed groups such as university halls of residence are increasing the localised high rates of infection. Outdoor sports and activities are not thought to be contributory factors and are excluded from tier 3 prohibitions.
1 -
CnC wrote "We're fans of Maureen!"
Why is it that the BBC, when broadcasting a pithy comment from a member of the public, always seem to pick someone called Maureen or is that the "Maureens" of the world are genetically conditioned to provide pithy statements?
0 -
Those from a tier 3 area i would suspect to keep sane , and have an LV and also live in a city/town in that area, will be far safer on a touring site with their own facilities and with open enviroment in that area and it is not "illegal?"
1 -
Well said Meth👏🏻👏🏻. Anyone who knows or has been in contact with real sufferers will read your words & resonate with them.
4 -
we might have been in a better situation if the respective national governments did follow the science as they all claim. The initial lockdowns made sense as the governments and industries needed time to get their equipment sorted (ventilators, PPE etc) and safe working practices in place. For a while now as figures have risen the Welsh, English and Scottish medical analysts have been saying that the principle cause of spreading infection has become people visiting friends inside their home.
The rise has been evident in the analysed stats before start of September and the reasons clear according to government analysts. People meeting indoors. So what did governments do? Lock down areas. Ask people not to travel out of those areas or demand that they did not - depending on the country. The knee jerk reaction taken may not have been necessary and I feel most of it is untargeted in the event. I can only speak for the area around our estate and what friends have said but when people were not allowed to meet up at all they would talk, at a distance either at the gate, stood back from somebody's door etc.
Then, sensibly IMO, they were allowed to meet in gardens with limited numbers. Retired on a steady income we were not greatly financially impacted, in fact it saved us money.
I have no idea why they did not ban household visits when the rise in infections became obvious 3 months ago. The public supported that previously. I agree that a more united front would have been nice. A lockdown might help but at what cost? Many unable to make an income and reliant on government support, loss of tax revenue, people isolated and with time on their hands. If a less draconian action was taken months ago we might not have been where we are. I could never see the point on bans on travel using private vehicle made any sense. If I drove a hundred miles any virus spread depended on what I did at the destination - not the length of journey.
0 -
I am trying to get those who heads seem to be in the sand about how many are being affected by what is happening ,where we live we are lucky ,as are surrounded by countryside, even here there are those who do not now get , even at social distancing spacing ,the opportunities to meet others as a few months ago, and are dreading the thought of this area being affected as those up north
And those with the opportunity to have a break away from iteven in their own area will do wonders for ther well being and sanity
1 -
If it helps some folk get through what is going to be a very long winter, I can't see any issue with keeping Clumber open for residents of Nottinghamshire. The risks are certainly less socially distancing on a CC site than in the local Tesco. Or going to a restaurant, which is still permitted.
4 -
I am trying to get those who heads seem to be in the sand
Were those last three words another edit?
Yes JVB the lockdowns do hurt some more than others and I know of some who are affected.
I usually start feeling a tad depressed around my birthday in next month. Not my aging but the weather. I am pretty stoic though. But definitely not looking forward to the coming months.
0 -
+1 .....You are very fortunate to have access to Clumber Park and others within the Notts County.....I live a 'nats' inside the the South Yorks border so am confined to barracks having just cancelled Cayton Bay for Monday... However we did step over the road to have lunch at a local pub ...( Very Corvid-safe, I might add, with table service only + pay contactless at table)..
0 -
Headline to the article in the Newspaper: "Why people of Hull are banned from visiting a Tier 3 city."
Within the article: "People from Hull and East Yorkshire will not be allowed to travel to Leeds from Monday"
and then .... "the government is advising against people travelling to a Tier 3 area."
and then .... "However, this is advice rather than a legally binding ban"
All in the same short article, no wonder there is confusion
1 -
I'd say no you shouldn't go to Wharfedale site as Leeds is Tier 3. I'm sure, if you turn up for your booking, you'll be turned away if you've not been contacted before then.
0 -
There is nothing that I am aware of to prevent him. I am in Wales however not in Leeds.
The Sites website is unclear to me as it gives a different guidance for very high risk and for tier three.
0 -
proves a point made earlier really, if 1 potential camper is confused , how many more are out there and will roll up at sites expecting to be admitted, when they are not, no doubt the wardens will get some sort of grief in forms varying from mild to outright rage, but whether they gain entry or not is something of a mute point, they will have travelled from a tier 3 area into a tier 1/2 area so the damage may already have been done.
0 -
If you are from a Very High alert level area, you should not travel out of your area so please do not visit us until your alert level is reduced.
Not sure i see where you are coming from, in the link you have provided it clearly states the above ???
0 -
Why would I do that, it’s aimed at folk who have sensitivity & empathy for others🤷🏻♂️
2 -
It does, but Leeds doesn’t go not Tier 3 until Monday. So it’s a moral dilemma for the Site (do they accept the booking) and for the visitor (should we really be going). 🤷♀️
0 -
3 Tier Alert Level
On 14 October, the Government introduced a 3 tier alert level system. We are in a Medium alert level area. This means that the rule of 6 indoors and outdoors is in place. If you are from a Medium alert level area, you may visit us in a maximum group size of 6 people (including children) from any number of households.
If you are from a High alert level area, you may only visit us in a maximum group size of 6 people (including children) from one household or support bubble
I know that Leeds is tier three but have no idea as to whether the Level is 'high Alert' or 'Very High Alert'.
The site does seem to differentiate between some tier three areas. That is the reason I gave the link
0
