Reduction in social gatherings.

[yorksrob]

There's nothing on that list specifically about coach travel. I've just organised a coach holiday for 36 pax, members of a walking club, in October. The company took the balance cheques on Tuesday, and my own cheque had cleared already by Wednesday. So far I have heard nothing to suggest that we will be prevented from going, so I'm assuming that group travel of this kind is still OK. I'm not worried, since we got our money back without difficulty when we had to cancel in April. I notice from an email received earlier today that Ramblers Walking Holidays are adopting a policy of 1 leader for every 5 walkers on their holidays, so no doubt we shall have to do the same.

Sounds perfectly within the letter and spirit of the guidance. You will be together on the coach (as you could be on any public transport) then you will be in groups of six doing the walk.

 

[AdamWW]

How can it be safe for hundreds to meet in the workplace, but only six to meet at private homes.?

But it's not about what's "safe" and what's "not safe", it's about trying to reduce transmission.

Reducing in one area and not others still has an effect.

And it seems that contact tracing is showing that meetings in households are a significant cause of transmission.

You can only contact trace when you're aware of contacts, but workplaces ought also to be fairly easy to identify contacts in too.

 

[Huntergreed]

The Scottish new regulations from 14 September 2020 (but not yet, as far as I can see, the English) have been published. Warning: it's a long and complex read!
SSI 2020 / 279
I am struggling to understand the (repeated) provision which allows (I think) any gathering of students which

It reads, to me, as that all students may gather who live in the same building (most buildings only have one washing facility).

Very much welcome this if this is indeed the case

 

[Domh245]

I am struggling to understand the (repeated) provision which allows (I think) any gathering of students which

My reading of that is that it's a specific allowance for students within the same house/shared accommodation/halls to have gatherings within said house/accommodation/hall. A bit of a fudge as they're presumably not a 'household' by the normal definition, despite functionally being one

It reads, to me, as that all students may gather who live in the same building (most buildings only have one washing facility).

It's been a good few years since I was last in halls, but each 'flat' of 5 in mine had it's own wash facilities. Either you've got tiny buildings for accommodation or unbelievably poor provision

 

[bramling]

How can it be safe for hundreds to meet in the workplace, but only six to meet at private homes.?

I suppose anything that envloves making money for our paymasters is OK anything else a big No No.
Why can they not just say this.

Theres quite a few good reasons why going to work is more important than social gathering.

If supermarket workers had taken the view that they didn't want to go for the paymasters then what would have happened?

 

[Nicholas43]

The new regulations also state "When you visit one of these places, such as a pub, shop, leisure venue, restaurant or place of worship you should..... provide contact details"

Does that mean you need to provide contact details to shops ?

That quote is from the (non-binding) guidance, not the regulations. The published Scottish regulations say that

A person who is responsible for a relevant hospitality premises [ie pub or the like; not a shop] must, in relation to the premises, take measures to—
(a)obtain and record visitor information,
(b)record visitor information in a filing system (which may be an electronic system) suitable for recording, storing and retrieving the information,
(c)retain visitor information for a period of at least 21 days beginning with the date on which the visit occurred.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suspect the above is to deal with student halls of residence where they are shared flats with a shared kitchen, but because of the locks on the individual bedroom doors and individual tenancies/licence agreements each individual room would otherwise legally be a household.

 

[yorksrob]

Theres quite a few good reasons why going to work is more important than social gathering.

If supermarket workers had taken the view that they didn't want to go for the paymasters then what would have happened?

Work is obviously more important in the grand scheme of things.

But in situations where one can either work from home or not, social gatherings are more important than physically being in a place of work.

 

[Nicholas43]

My reading of that is that it's a specific allowance for students within the same house/shared accommodation/halls to have gatherings within said house/accommodation/hall. A bit of a fudge as they're presumably not a 'household' by the normal definition, despite functionally being one

It's been a good few years since I was last in halls, but each 'flat' of 5 in mine had it's own wash facilities. Either you've got tiny buildings for accommodation or unbelievably poor provision

I agree it must be something like that. But why does it keep saying

cooking, dining, toilet or washing facilities which are shared with any [random person who has nothing to do with the university ???] who is not a member of their household

 

[Richard Scott]

But it's not about what's "safe" and what's "not safe", it's about trying to reduce transmission.

Reducing in one area and not others still has an effect.

And it seems that contact tracing is showing that meetings in households are a significant cause of transmission.

You can only contact trace when you're aware of contacts, but workplaces ought also to be fairly easy to identify contacts in too.

Why? I'm getting to the point that we just have to let this run its course otherwise we're like this for rest of our lives. You may want to live like that but I'm getting to the end of my tether.

 

[mmh]

My reading of that is that it's a specific allowance for students within the same house/shared accommodation/halls to have gatherings within said house/accommodation/hall. A bit of a fudge as they're presumably not a 'household' by the normal definition, despite functionally being one



It's been a good few years since I was last in halls, but each 'flat' of 5 in mine had it's own wash facilities. Either you've got tiny buildings for accommodation or unbelievably poor provision

Each flat had its own washing machine? Student life is posh these days!

 

[AdamWW]

Why? I'm getting to the point that we just have to let this run its course otherwise we're like this for rest of our lives. You may want to live like that but I'm getting to the end of my tether.

Why what?

Why do I disagree with the statement " How can it be safe for hundreds to meet in the workplace, but only six to meet at private homes.? "?

 

[Richard Scott]

Why what?

Why do I disagree with the statement " How can it be safe for hundreds to meet in the workplace, but only six to meet at private homes.? "?

Why are we worrying about reducing transmission? If people aren't getting bit how are we going to move on?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Each flat had its own washing machine? Student life is posh these days!

5 is a very small number per flat. Mine was either 8 or 10, I forget.

 

[Domh245]

Each flat had its own washing machine? Student life is posh these days!

One laundry room per building, (of 30 students - it was seldom used ) but each flat had two small bathrooms

I agree it must be something like that. But why does it keep saying

Look at the definition of household in the legislation

“household” means—

(a)
one person living alone, or
(b)
a group of persons living together in the same place as a family or other unit (whether or not related) and who have the place as their only or main residence,

'any person who has nothing to do with the university' won't meet the second criteria and it'll therefore remain illegal. The issue is the definition of household in the way they describe it, rather than (for example) people with the same address. Under the definition of household they use, any flatmates won't count as a household as they aren't a family nor a 'unit' - merely people with the same address.

That 'phrase' appears 3 times in the legislation as there are 3 targeted restrictions, gatherings in public, gatherings in a private dwelling, and parties in private dwellings

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Sep 2020 ==

5 is a very small number per flat. Mine was either 8 or 10, I forget.

I think I did get quite lucky in having a small flat - I knew other flats within the same accommodation 'area' had higher numbers

 

[mmh]

5 is a very small number per flat. Mine was either 8 or 10, I forget.

Mine was something like 7, but of course it will vary. It certainly did where I was (Manchester.) I doubt universities are the guiding force behind it though, they're far from the only place where people live in bedsits / HMOs.

 

[Nicholas43]

...Look at the definition of household in the legislation...

You must be right that it has something to do with that. But I am still struggling to imagine a worked example of

cooking, dining, toilet or washing facilities which are shared with any [apparently random?] person who is not a member of their household

 

[Bletchleyite]

Mine was something like 7, but of course it will vary. It certainly did where I was (Manchester.) I doubt universities are the guiding force behind it though, they're far from the only place where people live in bedsits / HMOs.

HMOs of more than 6 aren't that common outside of student flats, though. They exist but they're not common, simply because most houses don't have 7 bedrooms even if you convert the lounge!

Bedsits are self-contained so it doesn't really apply.

You must be right that it has something to do with that. But I am still struggling to imagine a worked example of

I think you're reading it wrong. Any random person isn't going to be sharing those facilities. It clearly describes the situation where a set of student (or other HMO) rooms (each its own household due to a single tenancy/licence agreement and a locked door, just as it is for TV licencing purposes) has a shared facility.

 

[AdamWW]

Why are we worrying about reducing transmission? If people aren't getting bit how are we going to move on?

The government is trying to reduce transmission, and in that context what they are doing is in my opinion justifiable.

Whether they should be trying to do that or not is an entirely different question.

(I think they should but I appreciate that in this forum that is probably a minority view).

 

[Nicholas43]

I think you're reading it wrong.

You're right, I must be! Are you suggesting I should read it as something like:

cooking, dining, toilet or washing facilities which are shared with at least one person who is not a member of their household but, obviously, is a fellow student

 

[Domh245]

You must be right that it has something to do with that. But I am still struggling to imagine a worked example of

Have you lived in a student hall before? I'm struggling to see why you aren't quite getting it, but here's a worked example.

Andy, Becca, Charlie, Danielle, and Eric are all first year uni students living in the same self-catered flat (flat 1) at their uni halls. They each have their own lockable bedroom (1a-1e), but have a shared kitchen/living area and bathrooms. As they've moved from across the country to their university (from Aberdeen, Birmingham, Cardiff, Dover, and Edinburgh respectively) they're not in each other's households by definition, but are exempted through the the clause you've picked out.
In the eyes of the law, they are 5 completely random people, however they are functionally a household from the point of view of infection control - just one formed through the allocation of rooms to names by a spreadsheet, rather than any sort of natural way.

It clearly describes the situation where a set of student (or other HMO) rooms (each its own household due to a single tenancy/licence agreement and a locked door, just as it is for TV licencing purposes) has a shared facility.

It has to be specifically student, the opening line of the clause under debate is:

8.(/9/10/)—(1) A person must not attend a gathering in a public place (/ a gathering in a private dwelling / a party in a private dwelling ), unless the gathering—

(d)is taking place in student accommodation, where all the persons in the gathering—

(i)are using cooking, dining, toilet or washing facilities which are shared with any person who is not a member of their household, and

(ii)have the accommodation as their only or main residence.

Which seems particularly limited as it excludes, for example, young professionals in an HMO

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Sep 2020 ==

Are you suggesting I should read it as something like:

That condition is enforced by the rest of the clause. It has to be their main residence, and student accommodation isn't in the business of letting non-students live there

 

[stevetay3]

Random people are going to be together in places like pubs, resturants as witnessed by myself yesterday. Workers may be in coved safe workplace, but not on the commute to work. Lots still not complying with masks on public transport the other day.
I don’t think it is possible to fight a virus such as this, is it not the same family as the common cold and flu,and thay have never had a cure found.
Flu jabs help to an extent, but have to be updated annually, but we manage to live with that, I think we need to return to some sort of normal asp, with things like masks and social distancing optional, those still worried about coved still have the option to self isolate if thay so wish.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You're right, I must be! Are you suggesting I should read it as something like:

Yes, you could read it like that, but it does actually say that as it is as well as allowing the same flexibility for any HMO that isn't a student flat. The qualifier that stops it being any random person is the bit about them already sharing the facility.

 

[Richard Scott]

The government is trying to reduce transmission, and in that context what they are doing is in my opinion justifiable.

Whether they should be trying to do that or not is an entirely different question.

(I think they should but I appreciate that in this forum that is probably a minority view).

Which is why I asked, what is your exit strategy then if you think reducing cases is right way to go? How long is it acceptable to maintain this and then realise we still have virus cases and if we don't have controls they'll rise? The reality is many years so what do we do, carry on like this for years and deal with ruined economy and many mental health issues?

 

[AdamWW]

Which is why I asked, what is your exit strategy then if you think reducing cases is right way to go? How long is it acceptable to maintain this and then realise we still have virus cases and if we don't have controls they'll rise? The reality is many years so what do we do, carry on like this for years and deal with ruined economy and many mental health issues?

But that wasn't my point.

Someone seemed to be suggesting that it was inconsistent allowing hundreds of people to meet at work but not at home.

In the context of what the government is doing, I disagree and think it is a reasonable move.

As for what the government should be doing....this isn't the thread for it and I don't claim to have the answers. Apart from anything else I don't feel I have enough information to make an informed decision, especially as it's several weeks since i last looked at the latest SAGE documents.

 

[Meerkat]

How can it be safe for hundreds to meet in the workplace, but only six to meet at private homes.?

I suppose anything that envloves making money for our paymasters is OK anything else a big No No.
Why can they not just say this.

This has been clearly answered by the government!
Workplaces are supposed to be Covid secure with a distancing and cleaning plan.

 

[stevetay3]

But that wasn't my point.

Someone seemed to be suggesting that it was inconsistent allowing hundreds of people to meet at work but not at home.

In the context of what the government is doing, I disagree and think it is a reasonable move.

As for what the government should be doing....this isn't the thread for it and I don't claim to have the answers. Apart from anything else I don't feel I have enough information to make an informed decision, especially as it's several weeks since i last looked at the latest SAGE documents.

If you wish to live under a orwellian style government with covid police that’s your free choice.

 

[Richard Scott]

But that wasn't my point.

Someone seemed to be suggesting that it was inconsistent allowing hundreds of people to meet at work but not at home.

In the context of what the government is doing, I disagree and think it is a reasonable move.

As for what the government should be doing....this isn't the thread for it and I don't claim to have the answers. Apart from anything else I don't feel I have enough information to make an informed decision, especially as it's several weeks since i last looked at the latest SAGE documents.

So what is your point? If you feel the government move us reasonable then my question if where you see this ending is valid? Are you happy with this carrying on for years or not? If happy with current government position then assume you are?

 

[stevetay3]

This has been clearly answered by the government!
Workplaces are supposed to be Covid secure with a distancing and cleaning plan.

How is that done.

 

[Nicholas43]

Have you lived in a student hall before?

Yes, but a very long time ago. The baths and loos were in the basement of the next-but-one staircase. Thanks for your patience!