Reduction in social gatherings.

[LAX54]

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.

Which is as I see it, so really it's pointless really, as you could have 20 to 40 'under one roof'

 

[Crossover]

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.

But look at the numbers. The lag has been mentioned throughout and I have made the same point in the past. However, we have had numerous weeks/months of a number of positive tests but this hasn't turned into much else.

Meanwhile deaths from other issues, possibly undiagnosed, continues

 

[TheSel]

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".

The problem with that approach is that it simply doesn't work. Say you get to 75% capacity. Do you then say to the next critically ill person: "Sorry, Mate, we're 75% full now, you can't come in".

I don't want to be glib about such an important issue, but it reminds me of a situation I witnessed personally in the Civil Service in the 1980's when the office Stationery Clerk went round the office and took away roughly half of the staplers on people's desks, saying "You'll have to share for now - I've got none left in stock, so I'm putting some back there". Absolutely true story.

 

[Yew]

The problem with that approach is that it simply doesn't work. Say you get to 75% capacity. Do you then say to the next critically ill person: "Sorry, Mate, we're 75% full now, you can't come in".

I don't want to be glib about such an important issue, but it reminds me of a situation I witnessed personally in the Civil Service in the 1980's when the office Stationery Clerk went round the office and took away roughly half of the staplers on people's desks, saying "You'll have to share for now - I've got none left in stock, so I'm putting some back there". Absolutely true story.

That's a strawman argument, I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that. What's actually that 75% (as an example number) capacity should be the threshold for restrictions being imposed to stop further spread.

 

[adc82140]

Exactly. Set the threshold at 100% capacity and you have a problem. 75% seems reasonable, but you'd also have to look at the rate the capacity was being filled.

 

[Meerkat]

That's a strawman argument, I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that. What's actually that 75% (as an example number) capacity should be the threshold for restrictions being imposed to stop further spread.

Is that realistic when spread is exponential? You would have to go full lockdown to stop it at that point, considering the delay.
The PR problem is that having a policy based on an acceptable level of hospitalisations is a policy based on an acceptable level of deaths. And whilst sensible people accept this there is a large and noisy group that just won’t accept it (see ranting about ‘you can’t put a price on a human life blah blah’)

 

[takno]

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.

I don't think the 5 day delay is particularly unexpected - they trailed all the mask rules by about the same amount. While there's a possibility of people doing stuff this weekend especially to front-run the ban, there is equally a lot to be gained by not messing up peoples pre-existing weekend plans. Short-notice changes always seem even more arbitrary and make it difficult to comply from the start, which probably leaves a lot of people not taking it seriously at all.

 

[Richard Scott]

Is that realistic when spread is exponential? You would have to go full lockdown to stop it at that point, considering the delay.

Why? What will that achieve. The virus is out there and quicker it goes around sooner we get on with life. These silly restrictions just delay the inevitable.

 

[Meerkat]

Why? What will that achieve. The virus is out there and quicker it goes around sooner we get on with life. These silly restrictions just delay the inevitable.

We should just accept people dying in hospital corridors in large numbers?

 

[adc82140]

We should just accept people dying in hospital corridors in large numbers?

Are they? Where?

 

[Richard Scott]

We should just accept people dying in hospital corridors in large numbers?

Really, are they? What are these large numbers? Cancer patients who haven't had their treatment? People who've had enough and committed suicide? Certainly won't be due to virus as no sign of deaths increasing over past few months despite all the doom and gloom. Need to realise there's more going on in the real world than the virus that solely occupies some people's world.

 

[adc82140]

Another loophole - religious meetings. Have a gathering, and shout "thanks be to God/Allah/Jehova/The Flying Spaghetti Monster (delete as appropriate) if a policeman comes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem with that approach is that it simply doesn't work. Say you get to 75% capacity. Do you then say to the next critically ill person: "Sorry, Mate, we're 75% full now, you can't come in".

No, what you do is apply stricter lockdown measures when you look to be reaching 75% so as to control the number of people getting ill. The 25% above acts as a buffer.

 

[big_rig]

Even the most bored policeman is not going to bother.

I thought this until the police started driving their van round the fields of our local common every single day telling people to stop sitting down and to keep moving, during the 'one walk a day' phase. After that I very sadly no longer think any possible rule is subject to the common sense 'surely they have better things to do than enforce that' feeling.

 

[C J Snarzell]

The knock on effect to the economy and people's mental health is catastrophic.

My step father works for an outreach organisation supporting people with drug & alcohol issues and all of them have been denied group meetings such as the ones run by the AA. This is a vital support network to many people who have sadly relapsed since March because everything has been closed off.

My mum attends a Slimming World class about once a month and this has only started up again in the last month so I would assume last night's news will mean a U-turn again of cancelled classes until further notice.

Boris Johnson is clearly running out of support & popularity and I do believe he is seen in a different light to six months ago.

The issue has always been around Covid deaths and many families who have lost loved ones have launched a campaign to start an enquiry to hold the government to account for their failings that might have avoided deaths.

I have lost people I know to Covid but they were all in ill health with no quality of life and their immediate families have accepted they were going to die anyway and no one is to blame.

As with anything campaign related - I always think there is always pound signs ringing in certain ears with people on a mission to fill their pockets if they can prove negligence made by governments and other organisations.

The way I see it - the government are trying to protect a very small number of further deaths, but in doing so they are holding 66 million other people to ransom by these farcical measures which are just going to influct even more damage on the economy and people's lives.

I am actually starting to support some of Kier Starmer's views that his rivals have made a complete hash of this situation now. I do hope he continues to hold the PM to task - we need to avoid a situation we have seen in years gone by where the country descends into civil unrest.

From speaking to a friend who lives in Bolton, there is already an air of tension which is not good. As we saw in the 1981 & 2011 riots - it only needs one incident for something to erupt into a much bigger problem.

CJ

 

[trebor79]

I think the police had very little to do in the lockdown, which gave them time to do things like drive round parks and spy on walkers with drones.
Friend in a more sane force says they welcomed the opportunity to spend serious effort on nabbing some proper organised crime kingpins.
With society being more open, I suspect the police will have better things to do than spy on people. The most they will do is use these powers to shut down obvious gatherings.

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

I am actually starting to support some of Kier Starmer's views that his rivals have made a complete hash of this situation now. I do hope he continues to hold the PM to task - we need to avoid a situation we have seen in years gone by where the country descends into civil unrest.

I'd like to see him actually start to challenge this nonsense rather than trot out "we support this measure but would have done it earlier/better/more stringently". Problem he has is that a lot of Labour voters tend to be those screaming for more restrictions and pay cheques signed by Rishi Sunak.

 

[LAX54]

Why? What will that achieve. The virus is out there and quicker it goes around sooner we get on with life. These silly restrictions just delay the inevitable.

I do not know anyone who has had C19, some have 'thought' they have had it, but maybe have been a mild dose of flu/cold, likewise I know of no one who has died obviously, but do know of some that have died of other causes, and those that are iller than they need to be, as appts were cancelled, I also know first hand of what a bad case of 'normal' flu can do, it was very scary from 2017/18,

 

[MikeWM]

I think the police had very little to do in the lockdown, which gave them time to do things like drive round parks and spy on walkers with drones.
Friend in a more sane force says they welcomed the opportunity to spend serious effort on nabbing some proper organised crime kingpins.
With society being more open, I suspect the police will have better things to do than spy on people. The most they will do is use these powers to shut down obvious gatherings.

All these things - ie. continually criminalising normal behaviour - are changing the relationship between the police and the rest of us though, in a way that I don't think is helpful at all. (To be fair, I think the better police officers are aware of this).

When I saw BTP on the gateline at Norwich on Saturday evening, instead of my usual vague impression of 'fairly sensible they're there in case the Saturday night crowds get a bit out of hand', my only thought was 'I hope they're not going to pester me because I'm not wearing a mask'. They didn't say or do anything, as it happens, but it is a problem that instead of being reassured by the police presence, I was uncomfortable with it.

There are other issues too where they *are* using the powers they keep being given by ministerial fiat - eg. I'm very concerned with the way Piers Corbyn is being arrested pretty much every weekend now, for seemingly no particular reason other than he's out there protesting about these things.

 

[Mag_seven]

Can I remind everyone that we are discussing the new rules surrounding the number of people attending social gatherings in this thread.

I've had to move some posts about infection rates and hospitalisation rates to this thread:

Covid : Infection rates v death rates and a possible second wave

I've said all along there will be no "second wave" (as defined by as spike in the death rate more or less as high as the first) in any similar country to the UK with a death rate above (pref well above) 500 per million. Note I am not saying there will not be bumps and dips in the graph curves...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Huntergreed]

Sturgeon surprisingly has not introduced a new law on this today, however it is the 3-weekly lockdown review, and I wouldn’t be surprised if she waits until then to do so

 

[Ianigsy]

Jacob Rees-Mogg might be regretting having five children now.

 

[philosopher]

Assuming these restrictions are still in place in December, I do wonder what will happen over Christmas. My guess is that non compliance will be particularly high during that time. Not being able to celebrate Christmas with your extended family I think will be a restriction too far for most people.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Assuming these restrictions are still in place in December, I do wonder what will happen over Christmas. My guess is that non compliance will be particularly high during that time. Not being able to celebrate Christmas with your extended family I think will be a restriction too far for most people.

Hancock seems to be suggesting they're trying to get cases down so that can be allowed - I suppose it's a fairly rough hammer and dance approach.

 

[adc82140]

Jacob Rees-Mogg might be regretting having five children now.

I'm sure they'll have written in a Rees-Mogg clause into the legislation somewhere that excuses him.

 

[trebor79]

Definite change in tone and mood on social media. More people are coming to the view that this is all nonsensical and contradictory.

Assuming these restrictions are still in place in December, I do wonder what will happen over Christmas. My guess is that non compliance will be particularly high during that time. Not being able to celebrate Christmas with your extended family I think will be a restriction too far for most people.

God I'd love it. I detest the in-laws hanging around our place for a week or more. And every year I have to resist my wife's desire to turn our house into some kind of indoor camp site for her extended family.

 

[philosopher]

Hancock seems to be suggesting they're trying to get cases down so that can be allowed - I suppose it's a fairly rough hammer and dance approach.

Perhaps the government will increase the permitted size of gatherings a week before Christmas allow people to celebrate Christmas somewhat normally. Boris can then portray himself as the PM who saved Christmas and it may help distract the public from any no deal Brexit.

 

[Bantamzen]

Hancock seems to be suggesting they're trying to get cases down so that can be allowed - I suppose it's a fairly rough hammer and dance approach.

Hancock isn't going to have a say in it, certainly not in my family.

 

[MikeWM]

I suppose it's a fairly rough hammer and dance approach.

A slight aside - but the author of the 'hammer and dance' paper, one Tomas Pueyo, is (entirely coincidentally I'm sure) 'VP of growth' for an online education platform, that has done *very well indeed* as a result of ongoing lockdowns and the panic over returning to schools.

 

[joncombe]

Sturgeon surprisingly has not introduced a new law on this today, however it is the 3-weekly lockdown review, and I wouldn’t be surprised if she waits until then to do so

Yes but she also said she cannot rule out changing it. Which I think is Sturegeon speak for "I'm going to change it". The BBC article also has the comment

A journalist also asks if the first minister should not just pick up the phone to Health Secretary Matt Hancock and create the same rules and guidance on either side of the border.

Sturgeon replies: "Look, we'll make the decisions we think are right for Scotland."

See here

Which suggests to me she's going to change it, but still make sure it differs from England.

 

[adc82140]

Hancock seems to have landed himself in a bit of trouble over last night's announcement :

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-54084834

PMQs may be over but there is one more bit of drama in the chamber.

Sir Desmond Swayne - a Tory MP known for criticising lockdown restrictions - complains that the latest measure to reduce the number who can gather was not announced in the Commons, meaning MPs couldn't question the minister.

He asks the Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle: "What remedy is there for those who enthusiastically support the prime minister but nevertheless want to restrain the government's ability to govern by order without debate?"

Sir Lindsay says he is "very sympathetic" with the point, and that decisions made by government are having to be made fast.

But, he says, it is "really not good enough", revealing he has sent a letter to Health Secretary Matt Hancock on the matter.

Raising his voice, the Speaker adds: "I think the total disregard for this chamber is not acceptable."

And he calls on the PM to ensure it doesn't happen again - and to get his colleague to apologise to MPs.

Des Swayne is my MP, and we have corresponded over the mask issue. He and I disagree massively on Brexit, but when it comes to this we are in complete agreement.