Reduction in social gatherings.

[DelayRepay]

Purely from the perspective of reducing transmission of the virus, banning pub crawls would probably be a reasonably effective tool. Not just because it would reduce interactions, but also because pub crawls tend to happen when the pubs are busy and people who are drunk are even less likely to socially distance than sober people.

From a practical point of view, I think it would be virtually impossible to enforce.

 

[py_megapixel]

There's another daft thing about this, that I haven't seen mentioned yet.

Presumably 8 friends meeting up for a walk in the park, at 2 metre distance, washing their hands etc. is in violation of the rules. But following 7 others around one of these convoluted one way systems indoors is not??

I'm not in any way anti-lockdown or anti-mask. But I certainly am anti-box-ticking-exercise, and in favour of things being thought out properly before introduction.

 

[adc82140]

I think that the rules have been designed to give proper powers to break up these large house parties. However in the true tradition of this government they have utterly mucked up the implementation. The 30 limit outdoors should have stayed. Indoors 6 or 8 should have been implemented.

All that aside, my take on the whole thing is that nothing should have changed unless we started seeing an increase in hospital admissions to the point where other NHS services were put at risk. If you are vulnerable, you can always take the unilateral decision to stay away from your relatives you believe have been to large gatherings, or tell them not to go.

 

[py_megapixel]

FWIW I would support exempting people who are in the same year-group "bubble" at school from this. Surely, if someone has the virus, they're going to catch it in school, regardless of whether they have met outside of school? And it avoids the police labelling groups of teenagers as "irresponsible" for ignoring the legislation "designed to keep us safe" (really should be "designed to keep us safer but I digress) when in reality they probably don't pose a massive risk.

 

[Steveoh]

As ever this is confusing but as I read it as a household of 5 I can't have my parents round? Or if we do someone will have to go out. It would be better to form mutual bubbles of households I reckon. That would make things far more sustainable. Three or four households form together, that means families can meet up. I don't believe the government should be giving itself the power to say I cannot hold my new nephew / neice due in a few weeks. That time doesn't come back.

However let's not confuse authoritaianism with popularism or weak government. Most of this is driven by politics and most of politics nowadays seems to be driven by news management. Poltiicians in this country cannot afford lots of Covid deaths. I think it's as simple as that. The media won't allow that to happen, and we don't have politicians of enough stature to make a stand. I'm expecting this to go onto March at least. Policatlly Covid is the only game in town at the moment and they will want to get through the winter.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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!

They have now completely lost my support. Which as they had it quite strongly at the start is a very impressive achievement.

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

As ever this is confusing but as I read it as a household of 5 I can't have my parents round? Or if we do someone will have to go out.

It appears so. My sister will be in the same position. I wonder if that's deliberate, though? They are concerned about spread from groups of young people to older people. But the thing is it only affects families of 5, not 4.

I suspect that bit won't be well-enforced.

 

[Huntergreed]

What is clearer than ever is that they have no idea what they’re doing. The only viable strategy is to let the virus spread without overwhelming the NHS at this point. Elimination is unrealistic and impossible, and continued suppression will only lead to more draconian measures like this as time goes on. I don’t think they have a clue what they’re doing and instead are simply pandering to whoever can scream the loudest (in this case, it’s the ones who demand that it be suppressed and blame young people for that, hence this ridiculous new measure)

 

[DB]

They have now completely lost my support. Which as they had it quite strongly at the start is a very impressive achievement.

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



It appears so. My sister will be in the same position. I wonder if that's deliberate, though? They are concerned about spread from groups of young people to older people. But the thing is it only affects families of 5, not 4.

I suspect that bit won't be well-enforced.

Well, let's hope lots of people think the same way as you because unless the government sees that their measures are increasingly unpopular they will keep pushing.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

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.

If, as might be expected, the amendment of the Regulations simply involves substituting 6 for 30 in the current restriction on gatherings, then events such as orchestra meetups indoors would not be restricted in any way. Of course venues may decide to impose their own limits...

The 30 person gathering limits that have existed for the last couple of months have been applicable solely to private dwellings (i.e. people's houses and also gardens), as well as public outdoor spaces (i.e. parks, roads etc.). Contrary to government messaging (there's a surprise ) there has been no restriction on gatherings taking place in non-residential premises, such as concert halls.

Ironically this means it is legal to meet with 100 of your friends and family for a wedding indoors (assuming you could find a venue willing to risk being issued with a closure notice under the draconian No. 3 Regulations), but not outdoors in a park.

 

[adc82140]

There are so many loopholes in this that you could hang your curtains from it.

 

[Andyh82]

With it allegedly being a Boris, Cummings thing they’ve just cobbled together according to many here, it’ll be interesting to see what the response is from the SNP, Wales and the opposition.

You’d be hoping they don’t support it and don’t implement similar?

 

[DB]

With it allegedly being a Boris, Cummings thing they’ve just cobbled together according to many here, it’ll be interesting to see what the response is from the SNP, Wales and the opposition.

You’d be hoping they don’t support it and don’t implement similar?

That will depend on whether they see any political mileage to be gained!

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

There are so many loopholes in this that you could hang your curtains from it.

Legally, yes, but in practice you can be sure that this is just the new equivalent of the "loitering"/"jaywalking" offences they have in the US - a ludicrous non-offence to nick people PC Plod doesn't like the look of (or who don't bow to Plod's authority).

Enforcement is going to be as selective as it has been throughout this pandemic. Officers will continue to get it wrong and to harass people acting quite legally. Nothing to see here, move along please

 

[Bletchleyite]

With it allegedly being a Boris, Cummings thing they’ve just cobbled together according to many here, it’ll be interesting to see what the response is from the SNP, Wales and the opposition.

You’d be hoping they don’t support it and don’t implement similar?

Scotland already had a fairly low limit (8 from 3) so I'd figure that is likely to remain.

 

[Steveoh]

It appears so. My sister will be in the same position. I wonder if that's deliberate, though? They are concerned about spread from groups of young people to older people. But the thing is it only affects families of 5, not 4.

I suspect that bit won't be well-enforced.

I feared as much, but my parents are grown up and adult enough to make their own decisions and I'm sure they will. Government legislating to keep families apart might work in the short term but it is not sustainable even in the medium term and we are already seeing the fruit of that. As we get into shorter, colder, wetter days expect family (and friend) gatherings to increase indoors.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I feared as much, but my parents are grown up and adult enough to make their own decisions and I'm sure they will. Government legislating to keep families apart might work in the short term but it is not sustainable even in the medium term and we are already seeing the fruit of that. As we get into shorter, colder, wetter days expect family (and friend) gatherings to increase indoors.

Thinking about the 6, the most common size of a student or young professional house share is probably 4...is the idea of 6 specifically preventing two of those house shares meeting?

 

[talldave]

It's so stupid I can see it causing an increase in gatherings as people decide to stick two fingers up at the police state we're slipping towards.

 

[adc82140]

I feared as much, but my parents are grown up and adult enough to make their own decisions and I'm sure they will. Government legislating to keep families apart might work in the short term but it is not sustainable even in the medium term and we are already seeing the fruit of that. As we get into shorter, colder, wetter days expect family (and friend) gatherings to increase indoors.

Don't forget the "C" word on 25th December. If they prevent family gatherings then, it could turn ugly for them. Their Daily Mail and Express reading voter base will turn against them. I can just see the lonely grannies on Christmas Day headlines now.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Don't forget the "C" word on 25th December. If they prevent family gatherings then, it could turn ugly for them. Their Daily Mail and Express reading voter base will turn against them. I can just see the lonely grannies on Christmas Day headlines now.

Could the aim be to push down the numbers a bit now so they can go "look at us, we've allowed you a family Christmas"?

 

[brick60000]

Oh dear, they’ve really messed this one up haven’t they. Must be at least 90% of comments I’ve read on this which are completely against the government line on this one...

I’ve thought all along that unless they make the rules clear, with honest and open explanations backed up with accurate data for why, there’s no way they’re going to get public support and buy in. Demonstrated perfectly here...

As I think some people said up thread, the press conferences should never have stopped. Last nights headline caught me completely off guard, as it no doubt did others. Surley that’s going to reduce buy in too.

Not that I’m saying I agree with any of these measures, by the way! The outdoor restrictions seem particularly crazy.

Good to know that I'm allowed to attend university tutorials, but it's illegal for me to walk to them with my friends or go for a coffee afterwards.

Very much so! I know there’s another thread for this, but seems relevant here. This new restriction really is yet another nail in the coffin for freshers & returning university students. As a final year, I’d quite have liked my last year to have involved some socialising, even if restricted to outdoors. Looks like that’s out the window now.....

 

[adc82140]

My town's Facebook group posted the news last night. The reaction? Not a single "like". Not one. Back in May there would have been dozens. People are not stupid. They know that hospital admissions and deaths are low. The tide is turning I think.

 

[Huntergreed]

My town's Facebook group posted the news last night. The reaction? Not a single "like". Not one. Back in May there would have been dozens. People are not stupid. They know that hospital admissions a d deaths are low. The tide is turning I think.

That’s certainly what everyone up here (Scotland) seems to think, and we hope (but aren’t confident) that Sturgeon won’t follow suit.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’ve thought all along that unless they make the rules clear, with honest and open explanations backed up with accurate data for why, there’s no way they’re going to get public support and buy in. Demonstrated perfectly here...

Agreed. They started that way, then they went all "secret squirrel".

As I think some people said up thread, the press conferences should never have stopped. Last nights headline caught me completely off guard, as it no doubt did others. Surley that’s going to reduce buy in too.

Daily was probably too much, but they do need reinstating say twice a week.

Not that I’m saying I agree with any of these measures, by the way! The outdoor restrictions seem particularly crazy.

Yes, it's ridiculous. We're on the cusp of being allowed Parkrun with 500 people crammed together at the start on the basis of evidence of outdoor spread being negligible - yet 7 people sat in the park are all going to get it? It's ludicrous.

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

That’s certainly what everyone up here (Scotland) seems to think, and we hope (but aren’t confident) that Sturgeon won’t follow suit.

Sturgeon will probably go for a maximum of 5 just to get one up on Bozza again

 

[LAX54]

so with a maximum of 6 per gathering including pubs, cafe etc from Monday, I assume most of these places will shut down again, as it will not be viable to open ? and of course once shut again, stand a real risk of not opening again. do we not need to focus on deaths FROM C19 and not just 'with it', and also ignore those that prove positive ? (unless really ill) life is a risk everyday, you cannot hide from the World for ever !

 

[Bletchleyite]

so with a maximum of 6 per gathering including pubs, cafe etc from Monday, I assume most of these places will shut down again, as it will not be viable to open ?

I think that means including in pubs etc, not that a pub will be limited to 6 on the premises. As pretty much all pubs are just booking tables of 6, it won't change that much other than that if someone rings up and asks for "can I book two tables of 6" they will have to refuse, and if they find someone has done that independently and then interact they will have to ask them to leave in the way some campsites that are fussy about groups do.

 

[Meerkat]

There's another daft thing about this, that I haven't seen mentioned yet.

Presumably 8 friends meeting up for a walk in the park, at 2 metre distance, washing their hands etc. is in violation of the rules. But following 7 others around one of these convoluted one way systems indoors is not??

I'm not in any way anti-lockdown or anti-mask. But I certainly am anti-box-ticking-exercise, and in favour of things being thought out properly before introduction.

When your group of 8 walk do they do it in a swarm of eight people, hugging and giving piggy backs?
More likely you naturally break into fluid smaller groups. Even the most bored policeman is not going to bother.

What is clearer than ever is that they have no idea what they’re doing. The only viable strategy is to let the virus spread without overwhelming the NHS at this point. Elimination is unrealistic and impossible, and continued suppression will only lead to more draconian measures like this as time goes on. I don’t think they have a clue what they’re doing and instead are simply pandering to whoever can scream the loudest (in this case, it’s the ones who demand that it be suppressed and blame young people for that, hence this ridiculous new measure)

You disagree with yourself - letting it spread without overwhelming the NHS is suppression.
They have a very clear idea of what they are trying to do - you set the restrictions with an assumption that you can’t rigidly enforce them and there will be an underlying level of disobedience. As opposed to a slightly laxer level of restriction but rigidly enforced - something which the English won’t culturally accept and the police don’t have the manpower or will for (policing by consent).

 

[Bletchleyite]

You disagree with yourself - letting it spread without overwhelming the NHS is suppression.

Though a different level of suppression than we are going for - it would involve monitoring hospital admissions and ventilator use and holding that to say 75% of capacity, not aiming to suppress to "zero COVID".

 

[Meerkat]

Though a different level of suppression than we are going for - it would involve monitoring hospital admissions and ventilator use and holding that to say 75% of capacity, not aiming to suppress to "zero COVID".

Aiming for zero Covid isn’t suppression - that’s elimination.
Suppression is maintaining health capacity and keeping the death rate below scary. Trouble is the delay and percentage relationship between cases and hospitalisation/death - we just don’t really know what it is and it seems to be changing, but we know that if you lose control of it you have to go very hardcore to regain control. Hence the caution.

 

[brad465]

As well as the dead cat story theory I proposed earlier, here's another possible theory: Announcing this measure 5 days in advance gives the Government time to judge public mood and if it doesn't go down well, make a u-turn. It might sound bizarre but it's not like there's no precedent for u-turning this year.

 

[Yew]

As well as the dead cat story theory I proposed earlier, here's another possible theory: Announcing this measure 5 days in advance gives the Government time to judge public mood and if it doesn't go down well, make a u-turn. It might sound bizarre but it's not like there's no precedent for u-turning this year.

Prior form would indicate that this would be "leaked" to the media, rather than an actual announcement.