Reduction in social gatherings.

[AdamWW]

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?

I don't know how else to make my point.

Stevetay3 asked:

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

My view is that the government is not saying that one is "safe" and not the other.

They want to reduce transmission and this is their method for trying to do so.

Reducing transmission is not an all-or-nothing approach so approaches to do it don't have to show the same consistency as health and safety rules designed to protect individuals.

(E.g. if R was slightly above 1, banning people from meeting in houses on alternate weeks might be enough to get it below 1, and that doesn't mean it's safe to meet people one week and not the next).

In order for me to express this opinion I do not have to support the government approach or have my own policy on where we should go.

 

[Meerkat]

How is that done.

How is what done?

 

[stevetay3]

How is what done?

How do thay make a workplace covid safe.

 

[Meerkat]

How do thay make a workplace covid safe.

Restrict numbers to match space
Make desks distanced or screened
assess ventilation
one way routes
cleaning Regimes on Touch points
etc etc

 

[Ian Cunningham]

Sturgeon is saying she’s going to consult experts to see if it’s safe to exempt children from the “2 household” rule to allow for birthday parties of up to 6 for example.

Goodness knows how England is able to allow 6 households, surely this wouldn’t possibly be political one-upmanship, would it?

The point (as further explained today in an answer to the press) is to minimise spread. If you have a gathering of six individuals from six households and you get a postiive case then you now have 6 households potentially exposed and potentially spreading the virus If those 6 then each meet up with another 6 then you're now at 36 potential exposures and so on. The same incidence with 2 households gives you 8 potential exposures
Less potential spread and a better chance of Test and Protect keeping up with an outbreak


Personally I think the 8 from 3 advice was a better balance of freedom for families to meet vs restricting potential spread. Less people affected day to day but still restricting larger gatherings

 

[AdamWW]

Restrict numbers to match space
Make desks distanced or screened
assess ventilation
one way routes
cleaning Regimes on Touch points
etc etc

And signs. Lots of signs. Signs make things safe.

Maybe that's what we need to allow people to safely meet in their homes - Covid safety posters everywhere and lots of hazard tape reminding you what 2 meters looks like.

 

[py_megapixel]

And signs. Lots of signs. Signs make things safe.

Bloody hell, don't even get me started on that...

Whoever thought in my local shopping centre that one entrance door requires 6 "one way" signs, for example.

 

[Richard Scott]

And signs. Lots of signs. Signs make things safe.

Maybe that's what we need to allow people to safely meet in their homes - Covid safety posters everywhere and lots of hazard tape reminding you what 2 meters looks like.

I hope you're being ironic? I'm fed up with signs and tape everywhere, actually makes me want to break the rules. I'm not an idiot and don't need constant reminding and nor do most people (those that do would possibly ignore it anyway).

 

[Huntergreed]

The point (as further explained today in an answer to the press) is to minimise spread. If you have a gathering of six individuals from six households and you get a postiive case then you now have 6 households potentially exposed and potentially spreading the virus If those 6 then each meet up with another 6 then you're now at 36 potential exposures and so on. The same incidence with 2 households gives you 8 potential exposures

I understand the logic behind it, I just don’t see why she has to be different from England on everything, this being no exception (even down to the terminology she uses). It’s quite pathetic.

Personally I think the 8 from 3 advice was a better balance of freedom for families to meet vs restricting potential spread. Less people affected day to day but still restricting larger gatherings

I agree, but there’s no way she would let us have an rule less stringent than it is in England.

 

[yorksrob]

I must admit, I'm glad that our rule of six (in England) includes multiple households. It seems a lot less authoritarian then being restricted to one or two households.

Since the harshest period of lockdown, I've enjoyed many walks with 2 -6 people from different households and as a single person, it would be a bloody shame if this were not to be allowed.

 

[Yew]

I understand the logic behind it, I just don’t see why she has to be different from England on everything, this being no exception (even down to the terminology she uses). It’s quite pathetic.

To show that she cares more than Uncle Boris.

 

[AdamWW]

I hope you're being ironic? I'm fed up with signs and tape everywhere, actually makes me want to break the rules. I'm not an idiot and don't need constant reminding and nor do most people (those that do would possibly ignore it anyway).

I can assure you that this was not meant seriously.

I don't think anywhere needs huge signs pointing the direction to the nearest hand sanitizing station.

(I'd rather they put the money towards hand sanitizer that takes less than 5 minutes to evaporate...)

 

[stevetay3]

Restrict numbers to match space
Make desks distanced or screened
assess ventilation
one way routes
cleaning Regimes on Touch points
etc etc

And that’s only possible in the workplace.

 

[Ian Cunningham]

I understand the logic behind it, I just don’t see why she has to be different from England on everything, this being no exception (even down to the terminology she uses). It’s quite pathetic.

Simple - if the Scottish Government thinks the UK Government's policy or advice is either incorrect or inappropriate for Scotland they will put into place policies that they believe are better for the country - that is their job
With a bunch of incompetents in London lead by that buffoon it's not surprising that Scottish/Welsh/NI policy differs.

I agree, but there’s no way she would let us have an rule less stringent than it is in England.

Some relaxations came slightly later in Scotland as our curve lagged England (actually more of a delay from London) and some came in ahead of England such as ending physical distancing requirements for under 12s.

 

[Bantamzen]

I must admit, I'm glad that our rule of six (in England) includes multiple households. It seems a lot less authoritarian then being restricted to one or two households.

Since the harshest period of lockdown, I've enjoyed many walks with 2 -6 people from different households and as a single person, it would be a bloody shame if this were not to be allowed.

I'm not, my son-in-law & daughter-in-law have four children. That means that they cannot see anyone else at home unless they kick one of the family out of the house. This is not right, and this rule will be ignored.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm not, my son-in-law & daughter-in-law have four children. That means that they cannot see anyone else at home unless they kick one of the family out of the house. This is not right, and this rule will be ignored.

I did say that I was glad the rule included multiple households. I reserve judgement on whether the "six" is appropriate.

 

[Bantamzen]

I did say that I was glad the rule included multiple households. I reserve judgement on whether the "six" is appropriate.

I know, but it will be of scant consolation to households of six or more that some other households might be able to socialise at home whilst they cannot.

 

[AdamWW]

I'm not, my son-in-law & daughter-in-law have four children. That means that they cannot see anyone else at home unless they kick one of the family out of the house. This is not right, and this rule will be ignored.

Is that true? There was talk of exceptions for households of 6 and over. Has that not happened?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is that true? There was talk of exceptions for households of 6 and over. Has that not happened?

It has, but it only exempts that household (i.e. avoids them needing to have some move to another home), which means you still can't have other households round.

 

[duncanp]

I live in the borough of Sandwell in the West Midlands, which has been placed under a local "lockdown" as from Monday.

Apparently the "rules" state that you are not allowed to travel anywhere in the UK and visit someone in their home, but it is OK to meet the same person in a restaurant, pub or park.

I fail to see the logic in this, as if the point is to avoid infection spread, surely there is just as much risk of infecting someone if you spend a couple of hours with them in the pub as if you spend a couple of hours with them at their home.

I predict that this rule will be widely ignored, as in the example below how is someone in London going to know whether you are from one of the three boroughs in the West Midlands affected by the lockdown?

Your lockdown questions answered on Birmingham, Solihull and Sandwell

Birmingham public health director Dr Justin Varney seeks to answer some of your questions - and ours - about what happens now

www.birminghammail.co.uk

There are no travel restrictions - however, the rule about not visiting someone at their private home, or sharing a 'household' with them applies wherever you visit.

Q: I was planning to visit my parents in London next weekend and stay with them - is that okay?

A: No. As of Tuesday anyone living in Birmingham, Solihull and Sandwell must not visit another household, in their house or garden, anywhere in the country. That includes far away locations.

You can still travel anywhere - so in this example you could visit London and stay in a hotel, meet your parents in a restaurant or park, but not visit them at home.

 

[AdamWW]

It has, but it only exempts that household (i.e. avoids them needing to have some move to another home), which means you still can't have other households round.

Ah I thought it was something more sensible.

Well I expect this has been brought in with the full knowledge that people are going to stretch the rules, in particular large households.

I'm not personally in favour of the "Make the law strict so that when people ignore it we'll get what we actually want" approach.

Like charging entry for children under 3 on the grounds that people will claim their child is 3 when they're 5.

It just penalises the law-abiding.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Sep 2020 ==

I fail to see the logic in this, as if the point is to avoid infection spread, surely there is just as much risk of infecting someone if you spend a couple of hours with them in the pub as if you spend a couple of hours with them at their home.

I do actually see some sense in this.

In a pub you're much less likely to be making each other cups of tea or eating food prepared by someone from a different household.

 

[Bantamzen]

Is that true? There was talk of exceptions for households of 6 and over. Has that not happened?

It has, but it only exempts that household (i.e. avoids them needing to have some move to another home), which means you still can't have other households round.

Yep, households of 6 or more are being allowed by our glorious leaders, but they are not allowed to have anyone visit unless they kick some of the household out for the duration.

 

[duncanp]

I do actually see some sense in this.

In a pub you're much less likely to be making each other cups of tea or eating food prepared by someone from a different household.

I see your point.

A pub, cafe or shop will have had a COVID secure risk assessment, and there are strict hygiene protocols and cleaning regimes to follow.

How many people can say that their own house is "COVID secure"?

For example is the toilet thoroughly cleaned after each use, and how often do you wipe down the surfaces in the kitchen?

 

[yorksrob]

I must admit, I've not been in anyone elses house since xmas, so that's not an aspect of the guidance I'll personally find particularly onerous.

 

[Mag_seven]

Generally what they were saying yesterday was that transmission was high in domestic settings - I can see the logic in that. Transmission is therefore probably much lower in pubs, shops and public transport.

 

[TheSel]

Generally what they were saying yesterday was that transmission was high in domestic settings - I can see the logic in that. Transmission is therefore probably much lower in pubs, shops and public transport.

So what's changed about the nature of this virus, since we were being told to 'Stay at Home' to control it?

 

[Jamiescott1]

How many people can say that their own house is "COVID secure"?

For example is the toilet thoroughly cleaned after each use, and how often do you wipe down the surfaces in the kitchen?

Is there any reliable information on how much trasmission there is through contaminated surfaces ?

 

[Yew]

In a pub you're much less likely to be making each other cups of tea or eating food prepared by someone from a different household.

Surely you're much more likely, as the barstaff and chef will be preparing them?

 

[Bletchleyite]

For example is the toilet thoroughly cleaned after each use, and how often do you wipe down the surfaces in the kitchen?

I've been in a number of pubs since they reopened, and not in a single one was the toilet cleaned, thoroughly or otherwise, while I was there.

 

[AdamWW]

So what's changed about the nature of this virus, since we were being told to 'Stay at Home' to control it?

Nothing needs to have changed about the nature of the virus.

But - so far as I can see:

We know more now about where infectious contacts are coming from than we did then.

At the start with hospitalisations rising rapidly, potentially towards the point of collapse, the government was aiming for much lower transmission levels than they think there is the need for now.

Surely you're much more likely, as the barstaff and chef will be preparing them?

Well they should be doing it in a way that reduces the chance of transmission to a very low level, following procedures that few people are going to observe in their homes.