Coronavirus

[Quagmire]

The consistency behind it all is what grates me.

I can play Sunday league football this weekend, with another 22 people on the pitch at the same time if you include the ref, then there are the subs that come on so I will be mixing with around 30 different people, but I can only go for a beer with 5 of them after the game.

Professional football clubs aren’t allowed any fans, but non league clubs are allowed 3-400 in a much smaller space.

It’s just ridiculous.

[Bogus Dave]

It’s not just moving it back an hour or two though. I’ve been in three of four bars since pubs re-opened, in Swindon and Poole (weirdly) past 1 in the morning, and as you can imagine a lot of distancing and inhibitions were gone at that point - I can only assume it’s the same throughout the country. Putting in place a legal requirement to shut at 10pm will inhibit that kind of thing

The impact it will have on spreads from little locals and pubs will be minimal I’d imagine, and you’ll get a pocket of people who will just start drinking earlier in response. But it puts a stop to a fairly high risk activity I think. I don’t think it’s a silver bullet, I’m not convinced the restrictions won’t be made stricter in a month, but the hospitality rules as a whole *will* have some positive effect on spread. And keeps hospitality open

It’s a fudge, but we’re in an era of fudges at the moment (out of necessity, I should add)

[pauld]

It’s not just moving it back an hour or two though. I’ve been in three of four bars since pubs re-opened, in Swindon and Poole (weirdly) past 1 in the morning, and as you can imagine a lot of distancing and inhibitions were gone at that point - I can only assume it’s the same throughout the country. Putting in place a legal requirement to shut at 10pm will inhibit that kind of thing

The impact it will have on spreads from little locals and pubs will be minimal I’d imagine, and you’ll get a pocket of people who will just start drinking earlier in response. But it puts a stop to a fairly high risk activity I think. I don’t think it’s a silver bullet, I’m not convinced the restrictions won’t be made stricter in a month, but the hospitality rules as a whole *will* have some positive effect on spread. And keeps hospitality open

It’s a fudge, but we’re in an era of fudges at the moment (out of necessity, I should add)

Fair enough and I'm not ignoring the impact of insisting on table service, I recognise that also makes a difference. I'm not as confident as you that the minor fudges will make enough of an impact, and I think we're likely to end up fudging our way into a second lockdown, unneccessarily. I hope you're right and I'm wrong.

[pauld]

From ITV's political correspondent

"Michael Gove said that the ‘evidence’ for early closing times ‘comes from parts of the country where restrictions have already been put in place’.

I asked the Cabinet Office to point to a specific local authority where it‘s been proven to work.

They haven’t been able to do so."

https://twitter.com/hannahITV/status/1308456663469432833

[RobertT]

The consistency behind it all is what grates me.

I can play Sunday league football this weekend, with another 22 people on the pitch at the same time if you include the ref, then there are the subs that come on so I will be mixing with around 30 different people, but I can only go for a beer with 5 of them after the game.

Professional football clubs aren’t allowed any fans, but non league clubs are allowed 3-400 in a much smaller space.

It’s just ridiculous.

This is where Governments have done a pretty poor job in my eyes.  I'll argue for them, in so far as certain activities do have different risk factors associated with them - so sitting inside in a pub is more risky than playing football due to the sustained contact in a confined space with poor ventilation.  However, they've muddled their messaging all along to try and be all things to all people economic activity wise and completely fucked up any chance of giving a complicated message to the public in a way that can be understood and followed.

As an example - once the infection rate was low, opening up pubs with seating, in a controlled manner, was probably low risk.  Opening up pubs that enable standing and congregation at the bar is likely high risk though.  They had to be more surgical, and to be more surgical you need to be able to explain why in language that people get.  Make it clear you are not punishing people randomly.

Right now, where I am, I won't step foot in a Restaurant or bar.  The only one I can think of that would be worth a visit in the current climate is closed because they didn't want to be responsible for spread.  Everywhere else is simply high risk.  However, plenty of larger shops are generally poorly attended, so visiting them with a mask on is pretty low risk.

You also look at a place like Disney World, where no confirmed cases have been linked to as yet.  That could well be because they've taken a hatchet to their normal operating procedures.  They've insisted on masks, checked temp on arrival, put a ceiling on capacity below 50%, marked out the floor, reverted to virtual queues, closed off any activity that caused people to group together in a single location for more than a few minutes, shut any eating establishment that couldn't adhere to social distancing etc.

So, I get the 10pm thing - but it actually relates to allowing places to be open that don't insist on you sitting at a table.  It would have been less arbitrary to prevent those places from opening unless that brought tables in.

[horlock07]

.

[The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey]

There is a huge disparity based on cultural ethnicity. Resources should be targeted

[tans]

The govt say people in an ‘established relationship’ who dont live together no longer have to socially distance.

The also say people in ‘the early stages of a relationship’ who dont live together still have to socially distance.

WTF? Whats the difference?

[Samdy Gray]

If you're nobbing them, you can carry on.

If you're not, you have to wait.

[tans]

As if people have been paying attention to that!

[Bogus Dave]

The long awaited track and trace app is released today. But I can’t see anywhere that says whether you need to have the app open for it to scan, whether it will scan if it’s open and in the background, or whether just having it installed will be enough.

[Batch]

^^^^^^ I thought exactly the same,

logic dictates it'll work in the background. it's useless if not
---------
one further q, it has a qr scanner to log visits to e.g. pub.

how does that work given the app supposedly doesn't track who I am?

[REDBUCK]

On the qr scanner, presumably it records the code of the venue against the phone.

[Batch]

On the qr scanner, presumably it records the code of the venue against the phone.

I get that, but if its anonymous then yeah I'll get a warning if there was an infected person there - but it means nobody has details to follow up.

I guess its down to me to self isolate if I get the notification.

I could of course have failed to understand how it works, maybe you submit your details after scanning, but they aren't stored in app. Will be interested when someone uses it!

[Nemo]

It works in the background as long as you have Bluetooth on, yes.

Have also downloaded, the tech on it is a big improvement on the first version (in that it actually follows some industry standards) but uptake will be a real challenge. They piloted it in the Borough of Newham and saw about 10% downloads - and the percentage with Bluetooth on was likely lower still.