The UK response - Part II - read OP

My daughter stayed in school for evening study today. She was going to go out with her friends, but they realised they weren’t allowed to mix as they come from different households, so they stayed at school instead. And mixed.

All the rules have stupid loopholes, but they are there for a reason.

theological

I'm thankful that there isn't a complete national lockdown at the moment in England even in the worst affected areas. It looks like the spread is starting to stabilise. It seems to be declining in under 30s now. In a few weeks I think the measures we've got will have an impact.

I'm thankful that it hasn't completely shut businesses this time and that socialising can still happen outdoors. It just requires a bit more creativity.

Enzokk

Aegir wrote: »

My daughter stayed in school for evening study today. She was going to go out with her friends, but they realised they weren’t allowed to mix as they come from different households, so they stayed at school instead. And mixed.

All the rules have stupid loopholes, but they are there for a reason.

Is that a loophole though? What is the loophole in your daughter's situation, and are we talking UK guidelines or Ireland?

What is the reason you can watch football in a bar at the stadium indoors (more likely for the virus to spread) but not watch it outside?

S.M.B.

To be honest I would have thought the logistics of watching the game outside at Carrow Road under normal circumstances involving an additional ~28,000 people, some from Norwich and others from further afield, is enough to distinguish between the two situations.

S.M.B.

S.M.B. wrote: »

To be honest I would have thought the logistics of watching the game outside at Carrow Road under normal circumstances involving an additional ~28,000 people, some from Norwich and others from further afield, is enough to distinguish between the two situations.

Until the ban on eating indoors here, you could have done the same at the Aviva.

It’s like the wedding thing. 25 people can meet indoors, as long as two of them decide to get married.

They can’t make rules for every single scenario so there will always be areas that look daft.

Enzokk

S.M.B. wrote: »

To be honest I would have thought the logistics of watching the game outside at Carrow Road under normal circumstances involving an additional ~28,000 people, some from Norwich and others from further afield, is enough to distinguish between the two situations.

You are not looking at 28 000 people though going to football as like for theaters the capacity will be reduced. Granted there would be a concern on getting people to the ground and using public transport, but that same concern is valid for theaters in London. Most people going to them will use public transport as well.

So the question then is where is the line on the amount of people the government is happy with allowing to go to an event, and why can they not allow that number to go and watch football?

Basically, why is allowing 1200 people to go to the London Palladium okay but not 1200 people to the Emirates.

S.M.B.

There's no denying it's an absurd situation but I can't say the government decision making in regards to the situation is as absurd as some would make out.

bob mcbob

This is the most ridiculous thing I have heard of.

No indoor household mixing is allowed in London unless it is for business.
So you cannot have a meal together for pleasure but business - that is fine.

Guess what -

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/oct/24/how-londons-top-restaurants-are-skewering-the-covid-rules

Enzokk

S.M.B. wrote: »

There's no denying it's an absurd situation but I can't say the government decision making in regards to the situation is as absurd as some would make out.

I think the reasons given for not allowing fans are extremely valid, but they count for other gatherings as well and those are being allowed to happen.

Enzokk

bob mcbob wrote: »

This is the most ridiculous thing I have heard of.

No indoor household mixing is allowed in London unless it is for business.
So you cannot have a meal together for pleasure but business - that is fine.

Guess what -

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/oct/24/how-londons-top-restaurants-are-skewering-the-covid-rules

I agree, this is ridiculous. The idea is to have people not mixing, yet they leave gaping loopholes for people to exploit. Then when there is a outbreak again those same people that allowed this to happen will without shame blame others.

If you don't want households to mix you don't allow them to eat in restaurants. Takeaway only should be the way to go, like it is here. Restaurants can stay open and if they want and people can still support them if they can as well. This really isn't rocket science. Yes some decisions will be hard but this halfway there approach achieves nothing.

theological

bob mcbob wrote: »

This is the most ridiculous thing I have heard of.

No indoor household mixing is allowed in London unless it is for business.
So you cannot have a meal together for pleasure but business - that is fine.

Guess what -

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/oct/24/how-londons-top-restaurants-are-skewering-the-covid-rules

There are always going to be absurdities in coming up with all encompassing guidance.

If one had to work physically there would be an exception for mixing at the appropriate distance. I'm glad that restaraunts don't have to fully shut. I agree that this exception doesn't make much sense but if people overall reduce their interactions and modify their behaviour it is possible that the virus can come under control without a complete lockdown again.

S.M.B.

Enzokk wrote: »

You are not looking at 28 000 people though going to football as like for theaters the capacity will be reduced. Granted there would be a concern on getting people to the ground and using public transport, but that same concern is valid for theaters in London. Most people going to them will use public transport as well.

So the question then is where is the line on the amount of people the government is happy with allowing to go to an event, and why can they not allow that number to go and watch football?

Basically, why is allowing 1200 people to go to the London Palladium okay but not 1200 people to the Emirates.

That's a very different question to the one I was responding to which was "why can you watch a football game in the stadium bar but not the stands of the stadium".

With regards to your question I do agree that there are major inconsistencies in how different industries are being managed and there's little to no obvious logic behind it from what I can see.

As for the "eat out with others if business is the primary reason" discussion, the government have decided to take a blanket approach where social contact is perfectly fine if done in the name of business and later educational purposes. Can't say I agree with that attitude as it's rife for abuse.

Peregrinus

Aegir wrote: »

My daughter stayed in school for evening study today. She was going to go out with her friends, but they realised they weren’t allowed to mix as they come from different households, so they stayed at school instead. And mixed.

All the rules have stupid loopholes, but they are there for a reason.

It's not so much that rules have loopholes, but that they always have marginal cases. You can always pick two similar but not identical cases, and then point out that one is treated this way and the other that, even though in substance they present the pretty much same risk of infection.

But this is unfair. It's inherent in the nature of borders that there are borderline cases whose treatment can seem a bit arbitrary. You can always mount criticism of this kind against any rule-based system. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have rule-based systems, or that the particular rule-based system you are criticising is a bad one.

In this case it would be pretty easy to refute the criticism. While all teenagers could stay late at school as an alternative to going out to coffee shops, cinemas, pubs or drinking in the park, relatively few will actually do so. Thus the ban on social gatherings has a signficant effect in reducing contacts and oportunities for transmission, even if some people do lab work or joint study or whatever that they wouldn't otherwise have done (and even if not a lot of lab work or joint study is done on these occasions).

S.M.B.

It's a shame we need some of these very low level rules/laws at all as those marginal cases often lead to resentment. In an ideal world the powers that be would have explained the gravity of the situation from day one and the masses would have the trust and social responsibility to do all they can to limit the spread of the virus.

All I know is that I've limited my social, professional and general day to day close contact with others ~100 fold if not more over the past 8 months. I have not travelled beyond central London in 8 months even though my newborn sons extended family is overseas. I'm pretty annoyed that it's illegal for me to have a single indoor interaction with someone outside of my household given all the efforts I've gone to over the past few months. All while social media connections post photos of their lovely get togethers that blatantly go against not only the spirit of the law but the law itself.

</rant over>

Seth Brundle

spook_cook wrote: »

All this "essential only" items is bollx, and Leo should watch himself trying to bring this level of insanity here - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-54685886

"Wales lockdown: Shopper told period products 'not essential'"

But the issue here is that Tesco decided not to sell those products, not the Welsh government.

theological

spook_cook wrote: »

No it's not. You think Tesco would arbitrarily decide not to get business? The Welsh government has been completely all over the shop about what is and is not essential. Only a matter of days til they completely row back on this.

The gov there are only meeting with supermarkets today to let them know the jazz, all because of the shocking lack of clarity.

See the guy who went in shopping yesterday in his boxers as the gov stated they were not essential

This is why governments should avoid this sort of micromanagement.

They should have listed the stores which must close and those which should stay open without going into the nonsense of what products are permissible to buy.

Enzokk

theological wrote: »

This is why governments should avoid this sort of micromanagement.

They should have listed the stores which must close and those which should stay open without going into the nonsense of what products are permissible to buy.

In theory this is the solution, but the problem becomes explaining why Tesco is allowed to stay open because they sell milk and bread and can therefor also sell clothing but a clothing store has to close. I don't have a solution though, just pointing out that even a simple solution as you state will not make sense for those that rely on employment in shops that are forced to close, especially if the same items are being sold by another shop.


Seems like SAGE has been warning about the spread if the virus,

https://twitter.com/joepike/status/1322197568651169792?s=20

https://twitter.com/joepike/status/1322199130660372480?s=20

You sort of hoped that at this stage there would be some progress towards getting things under control, but I guess the failure to get a proper test and trace system up and running is still causing trouble.

S.M.B.

I have been very critical of T&T since inception but the above Twitter thread also highlights that peoples behaviour is an issue too. Whether it's the governments duty to better educate or enforce is up for debate but people are clearly not limiting household mixing.

I on the other hand like an idiot am entering the bleak winter ahead having severely limited my household mixing for the past 8 months. The consequence will be that no household mixing will be allowed going forward.

S.M.B.

S.M.B. wrote: »

I have been very critical of T&T since inception but the above Twitter thread also highlights that peoples behaviour is an issue too. Whether it's the governments duty to better educate or enforce is up for debate but people are clearly not limiting household mixing.

I on the other hand like an idiot am entering the bleak winter ahead having severely limited my household mixing for the past 8 months. The consequence will be that no household mixing will be allowed going forward.

far easier for people to blame the government than their own actions.

Personal responsibility seems to be a skillset the human race is rapidly losing.

Enzokk

Aegir wrote: »

far easier for people to blame the government than their own actions.

Personal responsibility seems to be a skillset the human race is rapidly losing.

Sure, people need to be held personally responsible if they break the rules. Where do you stand on bars and restaurants being areas that are particularly risky and the UK government fighting to keep these open? Personal responsibility or some government responsibility?

BonnieSituation

spook_cook wrote: »

All this "essential only" items is bollx, and Leo should watch himself trying to bring this level of insanity here - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-54685886

"Wales lockdown: Shopper told period products 'not essential'"

We lost our middle aisles in Lidl and Aldi ffs and the rest of the curtain twitchers are all shouting about closing off-licences now.

lainey_d_123

Aegir wrote: »

far easier for people to blame the government than their own actions.

Personal responsibility seems to be a skillset the human race is rapidly losing.

You mean like Dominic Cummings?

The government lost every scrap of credibility they had when they refused to condemn Cummings for flouting the lockdown regulations and putting lives at risk by driving round the country with active coronavirus.

You simply cannot expect people to miss being with dying loved ones and excuse someone driving up to the other end of the country for 'childcare' just because that person is deemed special and important.

People are now sick and tired of all the hypocrisy and doing what they want, and it IS the government's fault. They had the goodwill of the people in March/April and they squandered it. They had the cases at a low rate in the summer, and the screwed that up as well with their inane Eat Out to Help Out scheme, rather than encouraging people to stay put and keep numbers low.

It has become obvious to the British public that we are NOT 'all in this together', and so now everyone is doing whatever they fcuk they want, because they don't care anymore. They feel like their efforts were wasted last time, and now they don't care.

That is all down to the government.

O'Neill

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

You mean like Dominic Cummings?

The government lost every scrap of credibility they had when they refused to condemn Cummings for flouting the lockdown regulations and putting lives at risk by driving round the country with active coronavirus.

You simply cannot expect people to miss being with dying loved ones and excuse someone driving up to the other end of the country for 'childcare' just because that person is deemed special and important.

People are now sick and tired of all the hypocrisy and doing what they want, and it IS the government's fault. They had the goodwill of the people in March/April and they squandered it. They had the cases at a low rate in the summer, and the screwed that up as well with their inane Eat Out to Help Out scheme, rather than encouraging people to stay put and keep numbers low.

It has become obvious to the British public that we are NOT 'all in this together', and so now everyone is doing whatever they fcuk they want, because they don't care anymore. They feel like their efforts were wasted last time, and now they don't care.

That is all down to the government.

Also, it may not have been a good idea to let someone like Dido Harding in charge of Track and Trace and Public Health England. Any Government would've made mistakes, for sure, but the incompetence and corruption in their handling of this virus is off the scale. I still can't make my mind if they're really that stupid or it's deliberate, or both. Their brazenness to everything is what sickness me the most personally.

lainey_d_123

O'Neill wrote: »

Also, it may not have been a good idea to let someone like Dido Harding in charge of Track and Trace and Public Health England. Any Government would've made mistakes, for sure, but the incompetence and corruption in their handling of this virus is off the scale. I still can't make my mind if they're really that stupid or it's deliberate, or both. Their brazenness to everything is what sickness me the most personally.

It's because they're Tories and everything has to be a money making opportunity for them and their mates. That's literally it.

O'Neill

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

It's because they're Tories and everything has to be a money making opportunity for them and their mates. That's literally it.

For sure but this lot are definitely not a normal tory Government.

theological

Looks like we're getting another lockdown next week.

All entirely avoidable. I still can't understand why non-essential travel wasn't restricted over the summer.

lainey_d_123

theological wrote: »

Looks like we're getting another lockdown next week.

All entirely avoidable. I still can't understand why non-essential travel wasn't restricted over the summer.

Funny how you keep bleating about travel and saying nothing about eat out to help out, which could have caused up to 20% of new infections, or students going back to university and kids going back to school, which is when we really saw a massive spike.

theological

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Funny how you keep bleating about travel and saying nothing about eat out to help out, which could have caused up to 20% of new infections, or students going back to university and kids going back to school, which is when we really saw a massive spike.

I'm critical of the decision to send students back to university in September.

I'd need to see some data on the 20% figure in order to trust it. Travel is the chief driver of what we've seen across Europe in the last few weeks.

S.M.B.

If you'd like to see stats on that 20% I'd love to see stats on that bold travel claim.

Personally I have issues with both policies. Border control was a must when numbers were low. I think eat out to help out would have been fine if T&T was up to scratch but it clearly wasn't.

theological

S.M.B. wrote: »

If you'd like to see stats on that 20% I'd love to see stats on that bold travel claim.

Personally I have issues with both policies. Border control was a must when numbers were low. I think eat out to help out would have been fine if T&T was up to scratch but it clearly wasn't.

Sure I've mentioned on other threads but the FT published an article yesterday that said that 80% of active coronavirus cases in the UK originate from a coronavirus strain from Spain brought by returning travellers in the summer.