The UK response to Covid-19 [MOD WARNING 1ST POST]

Akrasia

Deleted User wrote: »

Taking personal responsibility seems to be a thing of the past. Rule no 1 in my old school rules (yes, I know, it was a long time ago) was “Failure to display common sense is a breach of the school rules”. They could do with bringing some of that thinking back.

The kinds of common sense that Boris Johnson's father displayed on national tv when he said he would go to the pub 'if he needed to' in the days before the lockdown when Johnson were giving mixed messages to everyone depending on who they were talking to or what time of the day it was?

Christy42

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Taking personal responsibility seems to be a thing of the past. Rule no 1 in my old school rules (yes, I know, it was a long time ago) was “Failure to display common sense is a breach of the school rules”. They could do with bringing some of that thinking back.

That only works in schools if the teachers follow common sense as well. Otherwise the kids realise they can ignore the rule and run riot. Getting the "teachers" in this particular case to show some common sense would be nothing short of a miracle.

Still thankfully Rashford took up campaigning in the time off football. At least the kids meals thing got sorted with some common sense in the end.

A Dub in Glasgo

The ONS figures for England and Wales are out up to 05 June

Confirmed & presumed COVID-19 deaths
England 45,432
Wales 2,317

Scotland released theirs last week up to 07 June and there were 4,000. I think NI is also 05 June and showed 774 deaths

This makes a total of 52,523 deaths confirmed & presumed

robinph

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

You're not doing a lot to dissuade me that you don't understand that not everyone is you. Great for you that you live within 100m of 7 shops. Even the nearest expensive corner shops with limited products are about 8 minutes away for me. Lidl is the most sensible place within walking distance to get a proper grocery shop in and also grab household essentials like binbags and clingfilm. Going to multiple small shops just means even more risk, even more time on crowded pavements, even more surfaces touched and people encountered.

Never claimed that I was everyone or that everyone was me, whatever it is that you mean by that.

What I don't believe is that you happen to have found one unique place in the London/ UK/ the world where there are no alternative shops within walking distance, the one shop that there is doesn't have any staff on the tills, the tills don't work and they somehow have space inside the shop for a 20+ minute long queue of people waiting to pay after they have already gone around and filled their trolleys.

It's some kind of parallel universe that you are inhabiting as nobody else seems to have encountered a similar shopping experience as you do.

Sheep_shear

Nice to have a degree of normality back. You can sense it in the air, went for a long walk at lunchtime. I just had my third lockdown haircut by the missus, possibly the last?

ancapailldorcha

Sheep_shear wrote: »

Nice to have a degree of normality back. You can sense it in the air, went for a long walk at lunchtime. I just had my third lockdown haircut by the missus, possibly the last?

The Caribbean lad who cuts mine waved at me on the street last week. Took me a moment to remember him.

Dave0301

theological wrote: »

I expect people to have some, but the primary responsibility in respect to Bicester Village is with the owners of Bicester Village not being able to control the flow of customers. They should have prepared for this before opening.

Bicester Village definitely bear some of the fault, but hordes of shoppers turning up at a luxury outlet store and proceeding to queue up and break social distancing rules would suggest that a lot of the fault is theirs as well.

This goes for people anywhere queuing up like that, be it the Nike store on Oxford Street or Pennys in Dublin.

It is difficult to see how things like this, the raves at the weekend, and some of the other large gatherings that have broken social distancing rules won't have an impact on transmission rates in the weeks ahead. Although, most likely at a local rather than national level.

Maybe I am just a pessimistic arse though :pac:

BonnieSituation

Akrasia wrote: »

The term 'British common sense' was probably a jab at Johnson referring to the 'Good Solid British Common Sense' as if British common sense was either more common, or more sensible than the kinds of common sense that exist outside of britain

The British have adopted a sense of exceptionalism throughout this whole ordeal

As we've seen during Brexit and pretty much throughout history, there's no real need for the qualifiers:

The British have a sense of exceptionalism

---

I do like the accusation that ancapailldorcha is "Brit-bashing", given their history on here.

---

I was about to say I was "aghast" at the Tories bring against school meals during the summer, but then again, it's this crew of most inept Tories, so my shock would have been OTT.

theological

Dave0301 wrote: »

Bicester Village definitely bear some of the fault, but hordes of shoppers turning up at a luxury outlet store and proceeding to queue up and break social distancing rules would suggest that a lot of the fault is theirs as well.

This goes for people anywhere queuing up like that, be it the Nike store on Oxford Street or Pennys in Dublin.

It is difficult to see how things like this, the raves at the weekend, and some of the other large gatherings that have broken social distancing rules won't have an impact on transmission rates in the weeks ahead. Although, most likely at a local rather than national level.

Maybe I am just a pessimistic arse though :pac:

If Bicester Village allow that many people inside to the point where social distancing is no longer possible even in outdoor spaces it is obvious that they bear a lot of the responsibility.

Now, is the responsibility shared? Yes, but the lions share is down to the outlets and the stores obviously not having done the correct preparations.

I disagree with your last paragraph. Extrapolating from a small number of incidents and concluding that the British people aren't following the guidance at large is unhelpful and probably inaccurate.

I tend to agree with ancapailldorcha about online ordering. If anything I'm probably less likely to want to physically shop for non-food items again after this pandemic!

A Dub in Glasgo

https://twitter.com/RP131/status/1272898297267699714

Dave0301

theological wrote: »

If Bicester Village allow that many people inside to the point where social distancing is no longer possible even in outdoor spaces it is obvious that they bear a lot of the responsibility.

Now, is the responsibility shared? Yes, but the lions share is down to the outlets and the stores obviously not having done the correct preparations.

I disagree with your last paragraph. Extrapolating from a small number of incidents and concluding that the British people aren't following the guidance at large is unhelpful and probably inaccurate.

I tend to agree with ancapailldorcha about online ordering. If anything I'm probably less likely to want to physically shop for non-food items again after this pandemic!

I disagree. That is absolving the general public of too much responsibility. If it is food/medicine shopping, or use of public transport for work etc. an argument could be made.

Continuing to queue up at a luxury shopping outlet and breaking social distancing rules is a personal choice made by every person that was there. Was that choice forced on them by poor management by Bicester Village?

Yes, but they still had a choice.

robinph

theological wrote: »

I tend to agree with ancapailldorcha about online ordering. If anything I'm probably less likely to want to physically shop for non-food items again after this pandemic!

Not sure how shopping at the likes of big out of town centres will survive with any level of distancing required. If you have to queue up at each individual shop then you are just not going to bother going to a shopping centre unless you know exactly what you want in advance, in which case why not buy it online. The big shopping centres rely on loads of people milling around aimlessly and browsing before picking up loads of tat that they didn't actually want.

Your not going to queue up for 10 minutes at each shop just to have a look at stuff.

theological

Dave0301 wrote: »

I disagree. That is absolving the general public of too much responsibility. If it is food/medicine shopping, or use of public transport for work etc. an argument could be made.

Continuing to queue up at a luxury shopping outlet and breaking social distancing rules is a personal choice made by every person that was there. Was that choice forced on them by poor management by Bicester Village?

Yes, but they still had a choice.

Non-essential retail is now permitted, so the argument of whether or not it is essential is not relevant. What is relevant is that stores have prepared, and have ensured that customers can come safely and shop safely.

Yes individuals do bear responsibility, but the businesses need to ensure that only the correct number of people are allowed in. Probably this could be achieved with barriers on the external entrance from the car park and a limited number of people allowed in the entire outlet centre at once, and an externally monitored queue around the car park like what has been happening at supermarkets for weeks.

People may need to be refused entry and told to go home if the queues are too long.

robinph wrote: »

Not sure how shopping at the likes of big out of town centres will survive with any level of distancing required. If you have to queue up at each individual shop then you are just not going to bother going to a shopping centre unless you know exactly what you want in advance, in which case why not buy it online. The big shopping centres rely on loads of people milling around aimlessly and browsing before picking up loads of tat that they didn't actually want.

Your not going to queue up for 10 minutes at each shop just to have a look at stuff.

I even had a no-contact tyre change on my driveway all booked online recently as well. It's seriously convinced me that going online is better for pretty much anything bar the food shop.

Dave0301

I think today's briefing could mark the beginning of the end for the "daily briefing."

Boris is just getting shít over free school meals and his decision on merging DFID and the Foreign Office. Which to be fair, I don't really agree with given the briefing should be an update on Covid-19.

lainey_d_123

Sheep_shear wrote: »

Nice to have a degree of normality back. You can sense it in the air, went for a long walk at lunchtime. I just had my third lockdown haircut by the missus, possibly the last?

It's an illusion though really, isn't it?

As much as I would dearly love to get back to 'normal', it doesn't feel like it's time to do so while the R number is so high. I had a brief few days of feeling optimistic and calmer when the R number in London was reportedly less than 0.4 and there were a few days with no deaths reported, but it seems to have gotten worse again, and the total lack of social distancing and care taken isn't filling me with confidence and hope.

I'm aware that some of this may be mental blocks - the risk was likely much, much higher in early March when I was still going to work on the train every day and working in a huge office, but back then, we still didn't understand how serious Covid could be. The general perception was that it was like a bad cold for most people, and that most people were going to get it at some point and none of us knew anyone personally who had got it. I now know quite a few people who have had very severe complications, including some who got sick back in March and still aren't better. I'm way more scared of it now than I was then.

Joe_ Public

Dave0301 wrote: »

I think today's briefing could mark the beginning of the end for the "daily briefing."

Boris is just getting shít over free school meals and his decision on merging DFID and the Foreign Office. Which to be fair, I don't really agree with given the briefing should be an update on Covid-19.

He did say that they were testing more people than ever now while getting fewer and fewer positives. By their figures they actually tested less than 35,000 people yesterday so i don't believe that is true. But most people are probably bored with talking about testing numbers by now.

Dave0301

Joe_ Public wrote: »

He did say that they were testing more people than ever now while getting fewer and fewer positives. By their figures they actually tested less than 35,000 people yesterday so i don't believe that is true. But most people are probably bored with talking about testing numbers by now.

I stopped taking their numbers seriously when they stopped reporting the number of people they testing in a 24 hour period.

Joe_ Public

Joe_ Public wrote: »

He did say that they were testing more people than ever now while getting fewer and fewer positives. By their figures they actually tested less than 35,000 people yesterday so i don't believe that is true. But most people are probably bored with talking about testing numbers by now.

People, not just Boris, got bored with the numbers a number of weeks ago. It’s actually hard to find them in the papers any more

Strazdas

Joe_ Public wrote: »

He did say that they were testing more people than ever now while getting fewer and fewer positives. By their figures they actually tested less than 35,000 people yesterday so i don't believe that is true. But most people are probably bored with talking about testing numbers by now.

They're definitely fiddling the numbers. There were reports in one of the papers the other day of care homes requesting, say, 170 test kits and being sent out 500. Not isolated incidents but happening regularly.

CelticRambler

Joe_ Public wrote: »

He did say that they were testing more people than ever now while getting fewer and fewer positives.

Stands to reason - at the beginning, they were restricting the tests to people who were almost definitely positive! Just one of the reasons why the obsession with test numbers and test results has always been misdirected energy, on the part of the government and certain contributors to social media ...

Meanwhile, the UK government puts Brexit ideology ahead of constructive cooperation with it's nearest neighbours:

The European commission has launched an app and website that provide travellers with real-time information about coronavirus rules and the status of infections in each European country. A commission spokesman told the Guardian the UK was not included as the government had not asked to be involved.

“No information was provided by the UK. The information was based on questionnaires and I don’t believe we have received information from the UK,” he said.

“We are open to the participation by [non-EU countries], provided they make the request and, secondly, they commit to providing updated and regular information to the website … The UK has not made such a request to participate.”

A UK government spokesperson said: “The UK is no longer part of the EU, and therefore we would not expect to be included in a map representing member states.

Ah yeah - sure who needs up-to-date information anyway. It's not like anyone would ever make a decision on when or where to travel based on local rules or anything ridiculous like that, would they?

Joe_ Public

Strazdas wrote: »

They're definitely fiddling the numbers. There were reports in one of the papers the other day of care homes requesting, say, 170 test kits and being sent out 500. Not isolated incidents but happening regularly.

Why bother? Does anybody care whether the number of tests is 100,000 or 150,000? I think it might be that guy Isaac Levido behind this sort of stuff, seems too petty for a guy like cummings but might be the sort of thing Levido would be up to, the same guy who was responsible for the cchq factcheck wheeze during the election campaign.

theological

CelticRambler wrote: »

Meanwhile, the UK government puts Brexit ideology ahead of constructive cooperation with it's nearest neighbours:

Ah yeah - sure who needs up-to-date information anyway. It's not like anyone would ever make a decision on when or where to travel based on local rules or anything ridiculous like that, would they?

Not true. If you notice all the countries that are on the page are members of the European Union. You'll also notice that Norway, Iceland and Switzerland are not on the page because they are also not in the European Union.

It's nothing to do with the UK refusing to give information. That can be found on the Government website. The article is just another opportunity for people to moan about Brexit.

maebee

Boris is U-turned by a 22 year old footballer.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/16/boris-johnson-faces-tory-rebellion-over-marcus-rashfords-school-meals-call

CelticRambler

theological wrote: »

Not true. ...

It's nothing to do with the UK refusing to give information. That can be found on the Government website. The article is just another opportunity for people to moan about Brexit.

So you're saying the UK government spokesman [quoted as] saying they're refusing to take part in an EU initiative because it's an EU initiative has nothing to do with British exceptionalism? And probably nothing to do with the same Britain opting out of the EU procurement initiatives earlier in the crisis?

What, in your view, is wrong with the UK contributing to a public health information website to make life easier for people who may wish to move from one place to another? What is the advantage for anyone in having to visit several different sites instead of having all the relevant information in one place?

dogbert27

theological wrote: »

Non-essential retail is now permitted, so the argument of whether or not it is essential is not relevant. What is relevant is that stores have prepared, and have ensured that customers can come safely and shop safely.

Yes individuals do bear responsibility, but the businesses need to ensure that only the correct number of people are allowed in. Probably this could be achieved with barriers on the external entrance from the car park and a limited number of people allowed in the entire outlet centre at once, and an externally monitored queue around the car park like what has been happening at supermarkets for weeks.

People may need to be refused entry and told to go home if the queues are too long.



I even had a no-contact tyre change on my driveway all booked online recently as well. It's seriously convinced me that going online is better for pretty much anything bar the food shop.

Did my food shopping online too during coronavirus. Have gone back to going to the shops now but it seriously was worth it and even now I can see we budgeted better sitting down and only buying what we needed instead of wasting money on impulse buying walking around the aisles.

theological

CelticRambler wrote: »

So you're saying the UK government spokesman [quoted as] saying they're refusing to take part in an EU initiative because it's an EU initiative has nothing to do with British exceptionalism? And probably nothing to do with the same Britain opting out of the EU procurement initiatives earlier in the crisis?

What, in your view, is wrong with the UK contributing to a public health information website to make life easier for people who may wish to move from one place to another? What is the advantage for anyone in having to visit several different sites instead of having all the relevant information in one place?

No, I'm saying that the page only contains information about EU member states. You'll notice that there is nothing about Norway or Switzerland on this page either.

It is a complete non-story. The reason that there is no information from non-EU countries (the UK left the EU on January 31st) on this page about EU countries is that they are not in the EU. In other words, the article is only a belated attempt to moan about Brexit.

Peregrinus

theological wrote: »

No, I'm saying that the page only contains information about EU member states. You'll notice that there is nothing about Norway or Switzerland on this page either.

It is a complete non-story. The reason that there is no information from non-EU countries (the UK left the EU on January 31st) on this page about EU countries is that they are not in the EU. In other words, the article is only a belated attempt to moan about Brexit.

Not so much to moan about Brexit as to moan about the unecessary damage Brexiters inflict on their country through their continuing insecurity about Brexit.

The UK has the option of being included on this page if it wishes to be.

On the plus side, if the UK appears on this page people who are investigating travel/holiday options within Europe and who use this page as a resource will be encouraged and facilitated to consider the UK as a possible destination. This can only benefit the UK's tourism oriented businesses who, lets face it, right now need every benefit they can get.

On the minus side, if the UK appears on this page some exceptionally slow-witted person who is profoundly ignorant of current affairs might think the UK is still a member state of the EU, and some deeply insecure Brexiter might be horrified at the mere possiblity that such a thing could ever happen.

Gosh, what a dilemma. How to choose? The considerations are so finely balanced.

theological

Peregrinus wrote: »

Not so much to moan about Brexit as to moan about the unecessary damage Brexiters inflict on their country through their continuing insecurity about Brexit.

The UK has the option of being included on this page if it wishes to be.

On the plus side, if the UK appears on this page people who are investigating travel/holiday options within Europe and who use this page as a resource will be encouraged and facilitated to consider the UK as a possible destination. This can only benefit the UK's tourism oriented businesses who, lets face it, right now need every benefit they can get.

On the minus side, if the UK appears on this page some exceptionally slow-witted person who is profoundly ignorant of current affairs might think the UK is still a member state of the EU, and some deeply insecure Brexiter might be horrified at the mere possiblity that such a thing could ever happen.

Gosh, what a dilemma. How to choose? The considerations are so finely balanced.

It is just shoddy journalism. If other non-EU member states aren't on there, there's no reason the UK should be on there. If people want to complain about Brexit that is fine, but it is too late. I'm sure people are quite able to go onto the UK government site in the same way as they can go onto the Norwegian or Swiss ones.

Peregrinus

theological wrote: »

It is just shoddy journalism. If other non-EU member states aren't on there, there's no reason the UK should be on there. If people want to complain about Brexit that is fine, but it is too late. I'm sure people are quite able to go onto the UK government site in the same way as they can go onto the Norwegian or Swiss ones.

Brexit was supposed to be about "taking back control"; not about copying what Norway or Switzerland do without considering what it might be in the best interests of the UK to do.

Honestly, we shouldn't be surprised. If the UK has a government which thought it was in the UK's best interests to underline Brexit by not participating in co-operative procurement schemes during a pandemic, it's hardly surprising that this decision does not seem to have been made with any consideration of the interests of UK businesses.

I just think the UK would be a happier country if Brexiters were less angry and insecure about their victory.

theological

Peregrinus wrote: »

Brexit was supposed to be about "taking back control"; not about copying what Norway or Switzerland do without considering what it might be in the best interests of the UK to do.

Honestly, we shouldn't be surprised. If the UK has a government which thought it was in the UK's best interests to underline Brexit by not participating in co-operative procurement schemes during a pandemic, it's hardly surprising that this decision does not seem to have been made with any consideration of the interests of UK businesses.

I just think the UK would be a happier country if Brexiters were less angry and insecure about their victory.

I think you're missing the point. Norway and Switzerland aren't on there because they are not in the EU. The same is true for the UK.

It is obvious that the UK should handle its own communications about travel plans and policy after Brexit. Hence why it is a complete non-story.