Reduction in social gatherings.

[geoffk]

Our orchestra has met tonight in a hall, 16 members plus conductor (strings only) all 2 metres apart, observing all the rules, for the first time since March. So does this mean a maximum of six only now? Obviously pointless.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

Easy then. Meet your mates in the park, but remember to bring a football. If a policeman comes along, you can argue it's half time

It has to be "organised" sport I believe.

 

[alex397]

Easy then. Meet your mates in the park, but remember to bring a football. If a policeman comes along, you can argue it's half time

In reality I agree this is ill thought out, as usual. A gathering of more than 6 in a park is liable to be broken up, even though it's low risk, but it's highly unlikely anyone will notice 7 or 8 people in a house where the risk of transmission is high.

In addition, if people are more likely to meet in private locations for 6+ social gatherings, this means those people won't be going in to town centres to give the shops, pubs, and cafes much needed custom, and not using a bus or train to reach the town centre for those things.

 

[adc82140]

It has to be "organised" sport I believe.

Fine. One person is designated as the organiser. There's no register of sports clubs they can check against.

 

[bramling]

Yes for all the faults of their handling of the pandemic, every announcement in easing/adding restrictions, national or local will be big news and acts as good cover. Easing restrictions probably played a part in trying to get Cummings' Barnard Castle business out of the news as quickly as possible.

Today Bolton's local "lockdown" and now this story will do as theorised, especially as many newspaper front pages have gone for the gatherings restriction over the international law issues. It also explains they're announcing it now almost a week in advance.

Thinking about it (I hadn’t clocked it wasn’t coming in for another 5 days) why else would they be announcing it so far in advance? That is rather suspicious.

 

[adc82140]

Thinking about it (I hadn’t clocked it wasn’t coming in for another 5 days) why else would they be announcing it so far in advance? That is rather suspicious.

Blimey it is 5 days. That means big blowout meetings this weekend. Could they get this any more wrong?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Blimey it is 5 days. That means big blowout meetings this weekend. Could they get this any more wrong?

Not if they are doing it to cover up a certain Brexit related legal issue?

He really is the lowest of the low, isn't he?

 

[NorthOxonian]

Not if they are doing it to cover up a certain Brexit related legal issue?

He really is the lowest of the low, isn't he?

It is Prime Minister's Questions tomorrow - I hope Keir Starmer considers points like this when choosing his lines of questioning. It isn't just the policy development itself, but all this baggage around it which needs to be examined.

 

[MikeWM]

All the safeguards in our system have failed. You have a government that feels it can ignore inconvenient bits of treaties that it signed less than a year ago, and continues to issue unprecedented wide-ranging regulations that massively infringe on the liberties of its citizens - under a procedure that is only valid if it is 'too urgent to consult parliament', while Parliament is sitting daily.

And probably the most ironic thing is that it seems the only MPs expressing doubts about the latter are the ones most likely to be cheering on the former.

Our institutions are broken beyond repair. These are not good times.

 

[adc82140]

Not if they are doing it to cover up a certain Brexit related legal issue?

He really is the lowest of the low, isn't he?

It's curious how the French are clocking in 8000 cases a day, and have a minor uptick in hospital admissions but nobody is panicing there. There's been a bit of additional mask mandation, but that's it. No local lockdowns, the French PM has ruled a national one out, therefore their economy is recovering with confidence. The health minister has said that the hospitals have the capacity to deal with whatever is thrown at them. What a difference.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

How far apart would two groups of six need to be to be considered separate? Can you not go and sit in the park with 5 mates and, goodness me, there just across the grass are six of my other friends, if we talk a bit loud we can hear each other - but no intermingling! I can imagine just that in the park, or down on Tesco car park where the 'car crazies' meet up to chat. Three cars in adjacent spaces with two people in each, then a couple of spaces away another three cars.

I guess it's a lot about recent 'raves' and 'moonshine weddings' taking place because official weddings (of over 30) have been banned. For the uninitiated, moonshine weddings are like moonshine liqour in the prohibition era - banned in public so it happens behind closed doors.

 

[brad465]

Blimey it is 5 days. That means big blowout meetings this weekend. Could they get this any more wrong?

Not to mention there maybe more protests this weekend like the ones seen in Trafalgar square, especially if restriction "fatigue" is setting in among more people.

Not if they are doing it to cover up a certain Brexit related legal issue?

He really is the lowest of the low, isn't he?

Expect more dead cat stories in future the closer we get to December, Covid is certainly helping provide the Government with them.

 

[bramling]

Not if they are doing it to cover up a certain Brexit related legal issue?

He really is the lowest of the low, isn't he?

Working so far. All the major papers have the restrictions on their front page, and it’s all over tonight’s news. Brexit hardly features at all.

Unfortunately I find myself agreeing with the various posts here predicting we’re in for some civil unrest. Even if they were so bothered about cases rising, the handling has been the precise opposite of statesmanlike - more bull in china shop, and in fact worse because Hancock’s threatening tone is inflammatory.

 

[Meerkat]

I'm quite angry about that to be honest. There is no need to have such a stringent restriction outdoors; there is basically no outdoor spread.

As a guess the issue is “outdoors” being taken as garden parties that involve a fair bit of indoors, and quite a lot of contact risk.

Indeed. This is idiotic and it seems to be, if I'm reading the article right, because the Police asked for it.

What that makes us is a Police state.

The law should never, ever be determined or influenced by the Police. Their job is to enforce it, not write it.

As I read it the police simply asked for the government to decide a limit and put it into a law that the police were able to enforce, rather than the police demanding a particular limit. ie the police were interested in enforceability, not policy.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Ha, ha, ha.

Just looked at the comments under the story on The Telegraph website. If that is what people who read The Telegraph think... there may be trouble ahead....

I hope Boris has a bolthole sorted.

 

[DB]

As a guess the issue is “outdoors” being taken as garden parties that involve a fair bit of indoors, and quite a lot of contact risk.

It's really not hard to define the difference between outdoors and indoors, if they wanted to...

 

[Meerkat]

It's really not hard to define the difference between outdoors and indoors, if they wanted to...

Actually it is, and even harder to enforce.
”Sure there is ten of us, but we are in the garden” - does the copper hide in the bushes, and what constitutes a breach, if seven people happen to be getting a beer from the kitchen fridge at the same time??

 

[bramling]

Ha, ha, ha.

Just looked at the comments under the story on The Telegraph website. If that is what people who read The Telegraph think... there may be trouble ahead....

I hope Boris has a bolthole sorted.

An interesting read. I think a more immediate problem will be people turning on each other, for example neighbour snitching to police. With people starting to be seriously at the end of their tethers with all this that would be the obvious flashpoint.

 

[DB]

Actually it is, and even harder to enforce.
”Sure there is ten of us, but we are in the garden” - does the copper hide in the bushes, and what constitutes a breach, if seven people happen to be getting a beer from the kitchen fridge at the same time??

It's really not - outside is not within a building, (a building is defined in assorted laws).

But it's going to be pretty much impossible to enforce anyway - like many of the ridiculous laws they've come up with in response to the Deadly Killer Virus.

 

[brad465]

Ha, ha, ha.

Just looked at the comments under the story on The Telegraph website. If that is what people who read The Telegraph think... there may be trouble ahead....

I hope Boris has a bolthole sorted.

Just read them and agree it's very interesting. I do think this is possible because many Telegraph journalists have been anti-lockdown all year.

 

[bramling]

Just read them and agree it's very interesting. I do think this is possible because many Telegraph journalists have been anti-lockdown all year.

Just heard on the news (in relation to Caerphilly) “obey social distancing or face the consequences”.

This continuing threatening tone is seriously inflammatory. Of even more concern is that if things do kick off I’m not sure Boris and company would have the first idea how to handle it. Presumably management of civil unrest would fall to Priti Patel - that’s seriously scary.

 

[Reliablebeam]

It's curious how the French are clocking in 8000 cases a day, and have a minor uptick in hospital admissions but nobody is panicing there. There's been a bit of additional mask mandation, but that's it. No local lockdowns, the French PM has ruled a national one out, therefore their economy is recovering with confidence. The health minister has said that the hospitals have the capacity to deal with whatever is thrown at them. What a difference.

I have been talking to collaborators and suppliers in France and Germany and they seem to be getting back into the swing of things much better than the UK. Worrisome and does not bode well for the economy that we measure up so badly against our peers.

The Telegraph comments are a bojo hatefest. Oh dear.

 

[3rd rail land]

Our orchestra has met tonight in a hall, 16 members plus conductor (strings only) all 2 metres apart, observing all the rules, for the first time since March. So does this mean a maximum of six only now? Obviously pointless.

I am desperately hoping that orchestras will be exempt. My local orchestra is trying to restart. Strings in the downstairs room up to the maximum allowed of 30 and 9 woodwind upstairs in a smaller room. All at 1 metre distancing with no shared desks. If we have to abide by the new limit of 6 people then its a non starter. The venue announced today that they weren't ready for use by the public and cancelled our bookings for this week and next. Don't know if that was in response to the new restrictions or not.

 

[Meerkat]

It's really not - outside is not within a building, (a building is defined in assorted laws).

But it's going to be pretty much impossible to enforce anyway - like many of the ridiculous laws they've come up with in response to the Deadly Killer Virus.

It really is! Copper turns up at your front door, you go in the garden.
Now it doesn’t matter and he doesn’t have to prove you were indoors.
I don’t know the data enough to decide whether the decided number is fair, but making it practicably enforceable by the police makes perfect sense.

 

[Yew]

There has been quite a significant spike in cases, in case you hadn't realised. (That said I do still think it's a bit extreme to reduce to 6 - 10 or 15 might make sense possibly)

Look at the tests by date of the sample, and that assertion will be show to be incorrect.

 

[Ian Cunningham]

With little to no increase in hospital admissions or deaths. Whilst I appreciate these lag behind, there is no justification (at least in my opinion) for such drastic action at this point. If hospital admissions start to noticeably rise, then I accept the need for action, but this is just an overreaction/pathetic government pandering.

So we wait for hospitalisations and deaths to increase before we take action them?

The lag between infection and symptoms, then potential hospitalisation and death (for some) is one of the main reasons this pandemic has been so hard to control. The result of each opening up (or closing down) takes weeks to
If you wait for the rate of hospital admissions to increase before taking action then you will have an inevitable excess of admissions from the overshoot of the curve and bluntly that also means avoidable deaths.

Regarding Scotland - I suspect the 8 from 3 indoors guidance may continue as the prevalence is still low in most parts of the country and it's not significantly more relaxed than 6 from 2.
I do expect a hardening of the message to stick to the advice to avoid further restrictions

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Half the newspapers have this story on their front pages tomorrow, which pretty much backs up my dead cat theory.

Cynical but probably sadly true.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Sep 2020 ==

Not if they are doing it to cover up a certain Brexit related legal issue?

He really is the lowest of the low, isn't he?

Yes

 

[talldave]

Not to mention there maybe more protests this weekend like the ones seen in Trafalgar square, especially if restriction "fatigue" is setting in among more people.

There are events planned for the 19th & 26th in Trafalgar Square.

 

[Bantamzen]

Indeed. This is idiotic and it seems to be, if I'm reading the article right, because the Police asked for it.

What that makes us is a Police state.

The law should never, ever be determined or influenced by the Police. Their job is to enforce it, not write it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Sep 2020 ==



They will if it'll cost them 100 quid.

Well some of us were concerned from the start that this sort of thing might happen. I'm not going to say we told them all, but I'm certainly thinking it loudly....

I’ve felt passionate about many things during this pandemic, but THIS is, for me, a tipping point. The government have absolutely NO right to do this given the statistics and evidence at this point, and quite frankly I think this is a loss of democracy and an example of pure authoritarianism. I’m certainly not going to let this one slide without being vocal. I’m sure there’ll be a petition and/or protests (which, by themselves, are illegal in groups more than 6 from Monday), which I will actively be promoting. I can let masks slide to a degree (I’m not happy about them, but I accept their reasoning to SOME degree), but this, this is just too far.

I also fear this will be the cue for Sturgeon to take it a step further up here as she usually does (6 from only 2 households, 4 people, something like that)

Seconded. I will happily, and noisily support any protests against this. It is time for BoJo & Co to find out how far they can, and cannot push us.

Not if they are doing it to cover up a certain Brexit related legal issue?

He really is the lowest of the low, isn't he?

Again, I've been banging this drum. Hopefully now enough people will come to realise this government is capable of doing almost anything to get want they want.

I'm so <bleep> angry right now!

 

[yorksrob]

Another idea I've seen mooted (though I have no idea how they'd enforce it) is restricting people to one pub a day, after the Aberdeen outbreak caused by pub crawls.

Far more outbreaks have been caused by going to work. Why not just ban that.

Needless to say, I don't agree with the proposal. It's been a while since I've engaged in pub crawls as such, however I often visit two or three in a day.