The UK response - Part II - read OP

Enzokk

New laws on restriction have been published 21 minutes before they come into force. I am sure that leaves enough time for everyone to familiarise themselves with the laws to ensure they do not break them.

https://twitter.com/HansardSociety/status/1305274663933751299?s=20

theological

Enzokk wrote: »

New laws on restriction have been published 21 minutes before they come into force. I am sure that leaves enough time for everyone to familiarise themselves with the laws to ensure they do not break them.

https://twitter.com/HansardSociety/status/1305274663933751299?s=20

What's so complicated about the change? They've been saying for days no gatherings of more than 6. It is splashed on news sites and papers.

Peregrinus

theological wrote: »

What's so complicated about the change? They've been saying for days no gatherings of more than 6. It is splashed on news sites and papers.

No. The headline intent of the legisliation was announced some time ago. But what legislation actually says and does is invariably more detailed than, and in some cases different from, what the politicians have said they intend it to say and do. And since citizens are obliged to comply with the the law, and not just the headlines, making the law accessible so that people can arrange their affairs to comply with it is important.

This legislation is nine pages of fairly dense print, and it's complicated. It does introduce the 6-person ban, as prefigurefdin the ministerial announcements, but it also introduces a bunch of exceptions, not prefigured in the announcements, and some of them are quite confusing. We've got a couple of new concepts - "support group", anyone? "signficant event gathering"? - and, for the first time, a ban on "mingling" in certain circumstances. What's mingling? God knows - the regulations use the term but don't define it. And we've got some terms that look like they mean one thing but actually don't; if you check out the definition of "sports gathering" you'll find that things that you might think are pretty obviously sports gatherings are, in fact, not "sports gatherings".

So, yeah, there's a reason why it's considered good practice to publish legislation some time before it comes into effect. In a stable democracy charcterised by the rule of law we start from the presumption that, most of the time, most of the people want to observe the law, and we try not to put barriers in the way of such civic virtue.

Enzokk

Seems like there are problems with testing still,

https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1305498910249676801?s=20

MadYaker

Enzokk wrote: »

Seems like there are problems with testing still,

https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1305498910249676801?s=20

Is that a deliberate strategy or is it just incompetence?

BonnieSituation

Enzokk wrote: »

Seems like there are problems with testing still,

https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1305498910249676801?s=20

I'm sure there's an excellent reason for this and we will be told about it soon enough.

Joe_ Public

MadYaker wrote: »

Is that a deliberate strategy or is it just incompetence?

Well, they are prioritising social and health care workers for testing and that appears to be swallowing a huge chunk of the available capacity. That's not a bad thing I'd say. Problem is they are urging people back to the office and people, even without symptoms, want a test before they do - possibly required to have one in many cases - and thus the system is being swamped. So a combination of good intentions and bad policy making/incompetence i would suggest.

S.M.B.

Can't imagine there are too many offices requiring non symptomatic workers to get tested before they return, mine certainly isn't.

I think it's a stretch to say that policy is to blame for the complete lack of testing capacity right now.

The one thing I wanted going onto autumn was a robust track and trace system in place and it seems well off where I'd like it to be.

A Dub in Glasgo

https://twitter.com/trapdoorcat/status/1305555135700111362

Joe_ Public

Depends what we mean by capacity i suppose. Is it how many tests they say they do in a day, what figure they trot out as their true capacity or the actual figure their stretched to the limit labs can cope with. Pretty big discrepancies between all three.

Enzokk

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Well, they are prioritising social and health care workers for testing and that appears to be swallowing a huge chunk of the available capacity. That's not a bad thing I'd say. Problem is they are urging people back to the office and people, even without symptoms, want a test before they do - possibly required to have one in many cases - and thus the system is being swamped. So a combination of good intentions and bad policy making/incompetence i would suggest.

Seems like healthcare workers are also not able to get tests though, so it is not just a problem for the general public but everyone.



https://twitter.com/BenKentish/status/1305750250162970626?s=20

Calls to the hotline and 111 for children who has symptoms has gone up from 1 711 to 16 725 from the week before the schools opened to the week schools were open.

Enzokk

Careful for "illegal mingling" in the UK guys,

https://twitter.com/JasonGroves1/status/1305767424013348866?s=20

Utopia Parkway

https://twitter.com/UKCovid19Stats/status/1305841629203488768

Enzokk

Enzokk wrote: »

Careful for "illegal mingling" in the UK guys,

I’ve been trying to illegally mingle for years. I’m agnostic about the country

Enzokk

Testing location will be closed to make way for Brexit lorry park,

https://twitter.com/BBCPolitics/status/1305829508960989186?s=20

A coronavirus testing centre in Kent has been closed to make way for a lorry park for post-Brexit customs checks.
The government is planning to use the land at Ebbsfleet International station if the UK leaves the EU without a deal on 31 December, according to the Local Democracy Reporting Service.

Seems they have opened a new testing facility in Rochester though, then again if you are struggling to cope with tests right now, closing current locations in the middle of a pandemic seems shortsighted.

However a leaked Kent County Council letter says: "We have also been notified that the Ebbsfleet testing centre has closed, as the site is required by HMRC for EU exit."

Dartford Labour councillor Sacha Gosine said: "The infrastructure at Ebbsfleet cannot cope with lorries."

He said it would be a "logistical nightmare" for officials.

In September 2019 planning permission was granted to allow use of the Ebbsfleet site temporarily for customs clearance until the end of this year.

Work had started at one of the car parks at the station but this was put on hold because of the coronavirus pandemic.

Ebbsfleet station was then used as a Covid testing site with a capacity for about 2,000 tests a day, but earlier this month testing staff were told "out of the blue" that the site would be closing.

A new coronavirus testing centre has opened in Rochester.

I don't know if there is much to this story, but at best the optics look terrible for the government. They are struggling to cope with tests right now so to close a site at this moment doesn't seem prudent. Sometimes its all about optics.

S.M.B.

I am fed up with worrying about optics and spin. Can't a government just do what's best

The current issues with testing appear to be at lab level as opposed to testing centres so I'm not too bothered about the above in the grand scheme of things.

Just want them to sort the mess out in a transparent way and stop with the spin.

Peregrinus

Enzokk wrote: »

Testing location will be closed to make way for Brexit lorry park

Brexit Britain in one headline.

Enzokk

Government in July: Go out to help out, pubs are reopening and people need to go out and spend to help the government.

Government this morning: People going to pubs are partly responsible for the spread we are seeing now.

https://twitter.com/AvaSantina/status/1306499330862350337?s=20

I would be a bit worried if the brains in charge didn't realise that people going to pubs would have problems in social distancing when they have had a few drinks. This isn't rocket science people.

so people not socially distancing is spreading the disease?

why did nobody tell us this :rolleyes:

theological

Enzokk wrote: »

Government in July: Go out to help out, pubs are reopening and people need to go out and spend to help the government.

Government this morning: People going to pubs are partly responsible for the spread we are seeing now.

https://twitter.com/AvaSantina/status/1306499330862350337?s=20

I would be a bit worried if the brains in charge didn't realise that people going to pubs would have problems in social distancing when they have had a few drinks. This isn't rocket science people.

I think his comment was about behaviour. Pubs can be well arranged. It depends on how it is managed. For example a table of two with both drinkers on one end of the table is hardly a major risk. Even if the friend has COVID and you catch it at least it makes contact tracing easier to reduce contacts each time we meet. It is large groups that are problematic for this. Non-essential travel is also problematic. None of these issues seem to be UK specific.

Last week I was pretty impressed with a different pub I went to for a booked meal with my wife near Cheltenham. They had perspex screens and a dedicated server to our table to reduce changing staff. The booking was used for track and trace. The implementation of the guidance is pretty patchy however and varies from pub to pub.

Our church has started gradually back as of two weeks ago and we had youth group start back mid-week. They are following CofE and government guidance on keeping space alternating pews and cleaning between services. Sadly it isn't the same as usual where we can have a chat after the service or move around to see how people are.

Enzokk

Aegir wrote: »

so people not socially distancing is spreading the disease?

why did nobody tell us this :rolleyes:

I know, right? It's almost like if you give people incentive and tell them to go out and soclialise that they will go out and do that. Luckily they have testing under control to ensure local outbreaks can be targeted and measures put in place without the need for possibly going back to a total lockdown.

theological wrote: »

I think his comment was about behaviour. Pubs can be well arranged. It depends on how it is managed. For example a table of two with both drinkers on one end of the table is hardly a major risk. Even if the friend has COVID and you catch it at least it makes contact tracing easier to reduce contacts each time we meet. It is large groups that are problematic for this. Non-essential travel is also problematic. None of these issues seem to be UK specific.

Last week I was pretty impressed with a different pub I went to for a booked meal with my wife near Cheltenham. They had perspex screens and a dedicated server to our table to reduce changing staff. The booking was used for track and trace. The implementation of the guidance is pretty patchy however and varies from pub to pub.

Our church has started gradually back as of two weeks ago and we had youth group start back mid-week. They are following CofE and government guidance on keeping space alternating pews and cleaning between services. Sadly it isn't the same as usual where we can have a chat after the service or move around to see how people are.

I didn't say it was UK specific. I just showed that the UK government is again shifting the blame from themselves to the public for their own policies. This isn't difficult to see, they told people to go out and spend money in pubs or the pubs will close, then when people did that they are now blaming those people for the rise in new cases.

theological

Enzokk wrote: »

I didn't say it was UK specific. I just showed that the UK government is again shifting the blame from themselves to the public for their own policies. This isn't difficult to see, they told people to go out and spend money in pubs or the pubs will close, then when people did that they are now blaming those people for the rise in new cases.

If the reason is how people behave then that's not directly related to the government saying go support the pub by having a drink with a friend or go support your local restaurant by going out for lunch.

Going for lunch or a drink doesn't mean you're definitely going to behave irresponsibly or break social distancing rules. There's a problem with your logic.

The government's policy on supporting local businesses isn't an excuse for how people behave.

S.M.B.

Behaviour of the masses appeared to be a key factor in the early days of the virus when pivotal decisions were made on this basis.

Enzokk

Enzokk wrote: »

I know, right? It's almost like if you give people incentive and tell them to go out and soclialise that they will go out and do that. Luckily they have testing under control to ensure local outbreaks can be targeted and measures put in place without the need for possibly going back to a total lockdown.

Nothing wrong with socializing, as long as it is done in the correct manner.

There is such a thing as personal responsibility and if the government highlight this, it isn’t blaming people, it is telling them to be more responsible.

In Ireland, especially Dublin, we should understand this as well as anyone.

Enzokk

Serco seems to have won another contract from the government,

Serco lands another £45m for ‘failing’ COVID Test and Trace scheme

The outsourcing giant Serco has won an additional £45m to provide COVID test centres, openDemocracy can reveal today. The multi-million pound deal has not been made public, but provides a major additional role for the controversial firm in the UK’s troubled Test and Trace scheme, which has come under fire as infection rates rise across the UK.

It has also emerged that another big Serco contract for COVID contact tracing, worth up to £432m, has a clause which allows Serco to effectively rewrite key terms on service provision – terms which have been redacted. The move has been criticised by procurement experts as “unethical” and “bad practice”, with the government’s overall approach to the contract labelled “astonishing”.

David Davis MP, the former Brexit Secretary, told openDemocracy, “Whilst it’s entirely understandable that the Department of Health have accelerated or maybe even short circuited some of the procurement processes in the circumstances, there is no excuse for secrecy either over the number and size of the contracts and most particularly over the level of service the contracts deliver.”

“These are matters of extraordinary public interest and there is no conceivable reason for not releasing it.”

gmisk

Numbers are not looking good at all in the UK.
Listening to radio 5 live.
Seemingly there will be an appeal on tv tomorrow by Chris Whitty and Patrick vallance

Peregrinus

theological wrote: »

If the reason is how people behave then that's not directly related to the government saying go support the pub by having a drink with a friend or go support your local restaurant by going out for lunch.

Going for lunch or a drink doesn't mean you're definitely going to behave irresponsibly or break social distancing rules. There's a problem with your logic.

The government's policy on supporting local businesses isn't an excuse for how people behave.

True. But a policy that ignores how people behave is unlikely to work well.

We have to hold two truths in mind at the same time. First, Behaving in a way that minimises the spread of infections is largely a matter of personal responsibility. Government rules and guidelines can promote awareness about how to behave responsibly, but in the end individuals have to make the choice to behave responsibly. Second, not all individuals will behave responsibly.

So, a reopening of pubs (or any other relaxation of precautions) that will go well provided everybody behaves responsibly will not, in the real world, go well, because we know for a certainty that not everybody will behave responsibly. So the assessment of what measures to take or not to take has to be based on how people will actually behave, not on how they should behave.

This doesn't mean that there can never be any relaxation at all because there will always be at least on person who will take advantage of it to behave stupidly. It means your assessment of the relaxation has to factor in the people who will behave stupidly and you have to be happy that, despite that stupidity, this is still a prudent and reasonable relaxation to make.

S.M.B.

gmisk wrote: »

Numbers are not looking good at all in the UK.
Listening to radio 5 live.
Seemingly there will be an appeal on tv tomorrow by Chris Whitty and Patrick vallance

Not sure why they put an end to regular broadcasts and reverted to this ad hoc approach. Not the best message to be sending out over the past few weeks/months.

theological

Peregrinus wrote: »

True. But a policy that ignores how people behave is unlikely to work well.

We have to hold two truths in mind at the same time. First, Behaving in a way that minimises the spread of infections is largely a matter of personal responsibility. Government rules and guidelines can promote awareness about how to behave responsibly, but in the end individuals have to make the choice to behave responsibly. Second, not all individuals will behave responsibly.

So, a reopening of pubs (or any other relaxation of precautions) that will go well provided everybody behaves responsibly will not, in the real world, go well, because we know for a certainty that not everybody will behave responsibly. So the assessment of what measures to take or not to take has to be based on how people will actually behave, not on how they should behave.

This doesn't mean that there can never be any relaxation at all because there will always be at least on person who will take advantage of it to behave stupidly. It means your assessment of the relaxation has to factor in the people who will behave stupidly and you have to be happy that, despite that stupidity, this is still a prudent and reasonable relaxation to make.

I question this logic for one reason. Namely that the UK infection level was the lowest it had ever been in the middle of August during the eased restrictions.

The question then becomes what happened between then and now? People were still going to the pub but people were behaving responsibly it seems at least based on the data.

A lot of the recent level of infection has come from 20 - 30s demographic meeting in large gatherings and overseas travel.

I guess it is possible that pubs can be a source of infection after people come back from a large gathering or overseas travel with asymptomatic coronavirus. Or I guess if pubs are disregarding the guidance.

Peregrinus

Well, the 20-30s demographic who meein large gatherings and like overseas travel are also also heavy users of pubs. So I don't think this is an either-or thing.

There's been an uptick of infections across Europe. Although the UK is lagging other countries, I think it is part of a European wave and, therefore, it would be wrong to ascribe the uptick to this or that phenomemon which is peculiar to the UK (including, obviously, laws or policies that are unique to the UK).

So it may be more likely to be an artifact of the holiday season than of what's happening in pubs. But it's likely, as you suggest, that infections resulting from travel will be passed on in pubs.

What this might suggest is that the UK governments should have restricted overseas travel more than they did, in order to be able to keep pubs open safely. Or, conversely, introduced greater restrictions in pubs to counter the spread of infection brought back by holidaymakers.

Of course, all this is with the benefit of hindsight. Plus, it's based on the assumptions that holidaymakers are bringing the infection home, and then passing it on through social contact. These are not unreasonable speculations but, as far as you and I are concerned, they are nevertheless speculative.