22nd February - Roadmap out of the pandemic, lifting of restrictions.

[greyman42]

My feeling is that elements of these rules will still be in place at the discretion of private companies for some time after. Not because they're being funny or awkward or dictatorial. Because they want to be cautious and wary, just as a significant number of people remain cautious and wary.

What are they cautious and wary about?

There seem to be three themes:

1) People who are genuinely bothered that either the vaccine isn’t 100% effective, or that a new strain is going to emerge which subverts the vaccine.

2) People who think *everyone* should be vaccinated before things open up

3) People who want to big all this up in order to maintain the elements of their current lifestyle which they find agreeable. I think we all know what that is, so I’m not going to repeat it!

I can get the first one to a point, but equally such people need to realise that the logical conclusion is permanent lockdown, which isn’t viable. The second ones I think are just plain daft, and I would be breaking forum rules to put into words my feelings on the third group!

Bone idle? I hope that is within forum rules.

 

[PHILIPE]

Why do the Government appear to assume that everybody has a smartphone. I have never seen any added guidance such as "If you haven't got a Smartphone.........."

This is an extract from the Daily Telegraph where a pub refused to serve an elderly man without a Smartphone.:-

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/13/older-drinkers-risk-discrimination-says-charity-pub-refuses/

Staff told him customers were required to use an app to order and submit their contact details to NHS Test and Trace, despite government guidance that allows drinkers to fill in their details on a paper form if they are unable to use the official NHS app.

 

[jumble]

Why do the Government appear to assume that everybody has a smartphone. I have never seen any added guidance such as "If you haven't got a Smartphone.........."

This is an extract from the Daily Telegraph where a pub refused to serve an elderly man without a Smartphone.:-

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/13/older-drinkers-risk-discrimination-says-charity-pub-refuses/

And there you go
The pub retracted pretty quickly when they faced bad publicity as a result of their discriminatory policy
filling out a paper form proves nothing and so is a complete waste of time
Only a fool thinks it achieves anything

 

[MikeWM]

There seem to be three themes:

1) People who are genuinely bothered that either the vaccine isn’t 100% effective, or that a new strain is going to emerge which subverts the vaccine.

2) People who think *everyone* should be vaccinated before things open up

3) People who want to big all this up in order to maintain the elements of their current lifestyle which they find agreeable. I think we all know what that is, so I’m not going to repeat it!

I can get the first one to a point, but equally such people need to realise that the logical conclusion is permanent lockdown, which isn’t viable. The second ones I think are just plain daft, and I would be breaking forum rules to put into words my feelings on the third group!

A lot of people seem to pay little regard to the wider consequences of all this, which I find rather selfish.

Certainly it seems that few are seeing, or want to see, the bigger picture in terms of what they are asking for.

I'd guess quite a number are in your group #1, but as you say, even if that was the case, that's not something that's going to fix itself by continuing measures and restrcitions for 'a bit longer'. In that case we either need to accept restrictions *forever*, which is totally unacceptable, or learn to 'live with the virus', just as we have with every other virus that has come along since the beginning of time.

Group #2 would appear to be just wanting a 'comfort blanket' rather than making any epidemological sense.

And people in group #3 don't really have an argument other than 'I'm alright Jack', and I think they may well find long-term that they're not actually alright with it after all, even if it seems ok right now.

I am picking up a vibe that there is a core of people who seem to feel that the “new normal” (a term I despise in itself) is hibernation every winter. I suspect that we are going to find an element of pressure for this every time NHS admissions rise, as they do every winter. This needs to be strongly resisted, I for one do not want a way of life where we hibernate under a bed of restrictions every year from November to May.

Absolutely. Even if we somehow are allowed to get our 'normal' life back at some point, it isn't going to be sufficient to breathe a sigh of relief and try to forget about all this, because unless resisted it will happen again and again.

 

[35B]

The virus still gets through doesn't it though? Yes they have gone down the road of almost complete isolation, but they have failed to eliminate the virus, which was pretty much their aim. If their strategies really worked there would be no need for any further lockdowns, yet Australia in particular seems to have them with monotonous regularity. And of course they have yet to figure out any kind of strategy to get out of isolation.

That is to suggest that if something isn't perfectly effective, it is wholly ineffective. I'm not suggesting the eliminationist strategy is necessarily desirable or appropriate for the UK, and I agree that the exit from isolation will be a real challenge, but I'd still suggest that the use of quarantine is pretty damn effective given the scale of events they are having.

 

[bramling]

Certainly it seems that few are seeing, or want to see, the bigger picture in terms of what they are asking for.

I'd guess quite a number are in your group #1, but as you say, even if that was the case, that's not something that's going to fix itself by continuing measures and restrcitions for 'a bit longer'. In that case we either need to accept restrictions *forever*, which is totally unacceptable, or learn to 'live with the virus', just as we have with every other virus that has come along since the beginning of time.

Group #2 would appear to be just wanting a 'comfort blanket' rather than making any epidemological sense.

And people in group #3 don't really have an argument other than 'I'm alright Jack', and I think they may well find long-term that they're not actually alright with it after all, even if it seems ok right now.



Absolutely. Even if we somehow are allowed to get our 'normal' life back at some point, it isn't going to be sufficient to breathe a sigh of relief and try to forget about all this, because unless resisted it will happen again and again.

I am very bothered that the new thing is likely to be just this - we get let out of our box for a few months over the summer, then back to “tough restrictions” to “protect the NHS”. I think there’s quite a real possibility of that happening to at least some extent if people don’t actively resist it. The only saving grace is possibly that such a policy is completely unaffordable, but that doesn’t seem to stop things any more!

 

[WelshBluebird]

Why do the Government appear to assume that everybody has a smartphone. I have never seen any added guidance such as "If you haven't got a Smartphone.........."

This is an extract from the Daily Telegraph where a pub refused to serve an elderly man without a Smartphone.:-

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/13/older-drinkers-risk-discrimination-says-charity-pub-refuses/

Surely in that case the pub is at fault for making that assumption and not the government?

The governments position is pretty damn clear - you must not be making that assumption and must give people without a smartphone (or people with one but who don't have battery or signal) an alternative means of providing their data. Infact in terms of the government not making things clear in what the rules are over the last 12 months, this one point is where they have made it very clear. The only people to blame where pubs don't pay attention to that are the pubs themselves.

By all means debate if the rules are needed or not (I'm not getting into that debate, I've been told off by forum staff for that) but at the very least if a pub willingly denying service like that then the only people to blame are the pub staff themselves as the government rules are actually pretty clear and every pub or restaurant I have been in when they have been open during the pandemic have been able to manually take details where required, so clearly most places actually do understand the rules.

Also I guess another point related is that actually, pubs and bars can deny service to whoever they want to as long as its not based on a handful of protected characteristics. You already see that with quite a lot of places becoming contactless payment only over the last few years (even before COVID). If a pub doesn't want yours or my service, then they are able to not serve us. Of course that will likely impact their bottom line and it is ultimately a business decision to be made (In terms of contactless, if the efficiency and speed offered along with the savings from not having to handle cash outweigh the revenue lost from people who aren't able to use contactless, then the business decision is easy which is why a lot of especially urban / city centre places have done it. For COVID stuff, if the cost and effort of manually getting details from some customers is greater than the revenue lost by denying those people service, I can understand the business deciding to try that even though I totally disagree with it and the government rules make it clear that isn't supposed to be allowed).

 

[MikeWM]

I hope you are wrong and more people will resist this nonsense as I fully intend to do.

I continue to hope that I'm wrong too, but I worked out where I thought this was going sometime last summer and sadly nothing has shown me to be wrong about that so far.

I can get quite creative if I wish to be without breaking any laws and without anyone being able to do much about it.
ie
disrupt the checking process by being a noisy nuisance at the " ihre pappier bitte" check point

sneak in by the back door and avoid the check point altogether

although as I have said before I believe that commercial premises will soon get fed up of people behaving like I intend to do and just give up

etc etc

Sounds good to me

Hopefully people will be rather more reluctant to going along with this sort of thing, and resist a little more whole-heartedly, than they have towards other 'measures' for the last year or so.

I am very bothered that the new thing is likely to be just this - we get let out of our box for a few months over the summer, then back to “tough restrictions” to “protect the NHS”. I think there’s quite a real possibility of that happening to at least some extent if people don’t actively resist it. The only saving grace is possibly that such a policy is completely unaffordable, but that doesn’t seem to stop things any more!

That's one of the oddest things about all of this. One of the plus points of living in a free-market capitalist system is that it (supposedly) prevents things like this from happening - because the economic consequences are so disastrous - as opposed to big-government, controlled economy, controlled people societies. That we're now behaving more like the latter is... very strange.

 

[Bantamzen]

That is to suggest that if something isn't perfectly effective, it is wholly ineffective. I'm not suggesting the eliminationist strategy is necessarily desirable or appropriate for the UK, and I agree that the exit from isolation will be a real challenge, but I'd still suggest that the use of quarantine is pretty damn effective given the scale of events they are having.

Well dialled back to the very basic principle, yes quarantine works. But to be even vaguely effective it pretty much has to be permanent, and much, much more localised than even they are having. However it is not effective in a cohesive, interactive society. Yes Australia have had large events, but even one or two cases detected can see them cancelled on a whim. I'm not sure how these events are being organised, but in the long term it will be very difficult to plan anything long term when you have no idea if they will actually go ahead. And then they still have no strategy to expand their borders save a tentative bubble with New Zealand, which could be burst in a moment too.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

What needs to be considered here is current response to an increase in cases will be some form of increased restrictions or worse a lockdown. As i see it we have contained the UK variant with the current vaccination programme so that will allow a substantial return to normality come 21st June and ought to be earlier but that boat has sailed with CRG now rolling over. My take though is if we allow international travel, with whatever measures, we risk importing a new variant that may evade the vaccine but until proven it doesn't caution should be the watchword. Furthermore, if the govt allows international travel it will seek to offset the risk that may bring with maintaining masks and social distancing. I for one would rather have a normalised society than have any restrictions just so people can go and get some sun somewhere else. We dont get that choice we get Shapps being wheeled out to give a good news you can book a holiday in the sun as thats more of a vote winner.

OK if they say we can have no restrictions in England and goto green countries all the better but I doubt that is what will happen come 21st June. So just consider what the primary goal should be.

 

[jumble]

The continued mask farce is going to lead to more of this episode where a bloke with one lung after cancer is abused by some know it all lump on a train.

Can anyone here tell me why the man on the train believes that the presence or absence of a lanyard makes any difference at all to anyone at all.
I really cannot understand and can only think it is to appease people who are hard of thinking
To give the train manager his due he certainly knows that a lanyard is not important

 

[35B]

Well dialled back to the very basic principle, yes quarantine works. But to be even vaguely effective it pretty much has to be permanent, and much, much more localised than even they are having. However it is not effective in a cohesive, interactive society. Yes Australia have had large events, but even one or two cases detected can see them cancelled on a whim. I'm not sure how these events are being organised, but in the long term it will be very difficult to plan anything long term when you have no idea if they will actually go ahead. And then they still have no strategy to expand their borders save a tentative bubble with New Zealand, which could be burst in a moment too.

I actually agree. But organising events here is also a challenge - I'm involved in organising an event for early November, and two of our key risks as organisers are that the government don't relax social distancing fully, or that despite all our hopes and expectations, incidence of Covid is not at a low level.

We can manage the first risk relatively well, by being really cautious about when we start spending money, but the second is beyond our realistic control and we have to acknowledge that circumstances may change at short notice.

I agree there's too much about dates in the current planning, and not enough about data; by the same token, and despite the PM's rhetoric, I regard data as paramount in how the government will manage in future.

 

[Huntergreed]

I actually agree. But organising events here is also a challenge - I'm involved in organising an event for early November, and two of our key risks as organisers are that the government don't relax social distancing fully, or that despite all our hopes and expectations, incidence of Covid is not at a low level.

We can manage the first risk relatively well, by being really cautious about when we start spending money, but the second is beyond our realistic control and we have to acknowledge that circumstances may change at short notice.

I agree there's too much about dates in the current planning, and not enough about data; by the same token, and despite the PM's rhetoric, I regard data as paramount in how the government will manage in future.

The prevalence of Covid shouldn’t have any impact on your plans. Of course it’ll spike in winter, it’s a seasonal virus, but since when did event organisers have to take into account the prevalence of seasonal viruses at the time of their events?

This never happened with flu, and vaccines should make Covid about as manageable as flu. I understand your concerns surrounding distancing being mandated, but whether the prevalence of Covid is high or not, unless the government mandate restrictions there should be nothing to worry about.

 

[Snow1964]

I’m glad that National statistics last week started to suggest that need to focus on other causes of death again, and not Covid

On average about 1650 people die every day (600,000 per year) in UK, so changes to lifestyle are now overblown (yesterday’s figures were 17 deaths within 28 days of positive Covid test)

Data is showing 1% of deaths involve Covid, but higher proportion are dying of other things such as heart disease so now got priorities out of kilter

 

[birchesgreen]

I had a really odd happening this morning. A couple of people turned up at my door, wearing masks, visors and gowns. What was this I wondered as I opened the door? Had there been a toxic leak? Mandatory testing?

"Hello sir, have you thought about changing your energy provider?"

 

[Bantamzen]

I actually agree. But organising events here is also a challenge - I'm involved in organising an event for early November, and two of our key risks as organisers are that the government don't relax social distancing fully, or that despite all our hopes and expectations, incidence of Covid is not at a low level.

We can manage the first risk relatively well, by being really cautious about when we start spending money, but the second is beyond our realistic control and we have to acknowledge that circumstances may change at short notice.

I agree there's too much about dates in the current planning, and not enough about data; by the same token, and despite the PM's rhetoric, I regard data as paramount in how the government will manage in future.

The prevalence of Covid shouldn’t have any impact on your plans. Of course it’ll spike in winter, it’s a seasonal virus, but since when did event organisers have to take into account the prevalence of seasonal viruses at the time of their events?

This never happened with flu, and vaccines should make Covid about as manageable as flu. I understand your concerns surrounding distancing being mandated, but whether the prevalence of Covid is high or not, unless the government mandate restrictions there should be nothing to worry about.

Indeed, the reality is that covid is going to be around for a long time, and we can't keep taking it as such a risk infinitely. For events in Australia, they can potentially plan for large ones but run the risk of them being cancelled at a moment's, and very short notice. In the UK events currently can only be planned with potentially much less capacity, with other mitigations in place meaning demand might not even meet the limited capacities. Didn't the FA have problems offloading FA Cup Semi-Finals due to the restricted nature of the event?

The simple reality for events, hospitality, holiday and large parts of the retail industries is that this constant tip-toeing just isn't sustainable. Many businesses and venues are already failing, tipping more & more people into a jobs market that is contracting. And for what reason, fear of another wave or variant that "might" happen, even though here in the UK we are well advanced in the primary mitigation of vaccinations. No sorry, enough is enough. We have the data, we can be well assured that the vaccines will offer enough of a firebreak to prevent an NHS disaster, time to start getting back on with it.

 

[davews]

The poll on the Telegraph vaccine passport item currently suggests 11% of people don't have a smartphone (and probably more who do but it is not compatible with the NHS app).

I was refused entry to one pub on the South Bank last summer because I didn't have a smartphone. There again another pub wrote my details on what looked like a doodle pad which would probably be shredded at the end of the day.

 

[GodAtum]

Tried to go into a pub ... staff said they needed to see proof of vaccination. Guess what, most of the patrons where over 50!

 

[Class 33]

The simple reality for events, hospitality, holiday and large parts of the retail industries is that this constant tip-toeing just isn't sustainable. Many businesses and venues are already failing, tipping more & more people into a jobs market that is contracting. And for what reason, fear of another wave or variant that "might" happen, even though here in the UK we are well advanced in the primary mitigation of vaccinations. No sorry, enough is enough. We have the data, we can be well assured that the vaccines will offer enough of a firebreak to prevent an NHS disaster, time to start getting back on with it.

Indeed. Thousands of businesses have gone under as a result of these nonsense restrictions, and there are still thousands that on the brink of going under pretty soon.

Johnson keeps going on about a third wave. This may not even happen atall! And if there is a third wave of infections, due to the mitigation of the vaccines this is not going to lead to a huge surge in hospital admissions and deaths like before! The link between cases leading to hospital admissions and deaths has now been broken!

Also the excuse of having to be cautious of "variants of concern" just doesn't wash anymore. We've had numerous "variants of concern" over the past few months, all of which have been overblown by the press and media. And all of these variants have not led to an uptick in cases, hospital admissions, and deaths! All these stats have continued to tumble over the past few months.

The NHS will never again be under "extreme pressure due to Covid". Those days are long gone!

Just look at the very low daily deaths we have now, which is continuing to fall week on week. Along with the hospital admissions, people in hospital, and those on mechanical ventilators.

Enough is enough as you say. Time to get a bloody move on in getting these nuisance damaging restrictive social distancing and face mask wearing restrictions scrapped for good, and allow all the businesses and people of this country to get back to normal.

 

[35B]

The prevalence of Covid shouldn’t have any impact on your plans. Of course it’ll spike in winter, it’s a seasonal virus, but since when did event organisers have to take into account the prevalence of seasonal viruses at the time of their events?

This never happened with flu, and vaccines should make Covid about as manageable as flu. I understand your concerns surrounding distancing being mandated, but whether the prevalence of Covid is high or not, unless the government mandate restrictions there should be nothing to worry about.

Leaving all other factors aside, our event's success will depend on the willingness of the public to attend. To say the least, I think your's is a minority view of the risk of Covid.

 

[Freightmaster]

A one way system can in principle eliminate close contact between people.

In practice, there is liable to be bunching, overtaking etc, which reduces the effect.

The benefit to the business may be as simple as 'It makes (some) people feel safer, so they use the shop'.

Predictably, it turns out that only "benefit" of all the Covid safety theatre in supermarkets over
the past 12 months has been a massive drop in profits despite bumper sales:

Sainsbury's: Cost of Covid has been high

While full-year sales jumped 8% the supermarket giant made a loss due to pandemic and other costs.

www.bbc.co.uk

Hopefully the 'big four' will now realise that continuing to mollycoddle the fearful is unsustainable
from a business point of view and all of the pointless 'we need to be seen to be doing something'
measures will be quietly dropped...




MARK

 

[VauxhallandI]

Predictably, it turns out that only "benefit" of all the Covid safety theatre in supermarkets over
the past 12 months has been a massive drop in profits despite bumper sales:

Sainsbury's: Cost of Covid has been high

While full-year sales jumped 8% the supermarket giant made a loss due to pandemic and other costs.

www.bbc.co.uk

Hopefully the 'big four' will now realise that continuing to mollycoddle the fearful is unsustainable
from a business point of view and all of the pointless 'we need to be seen to be doing something'
measures will be quietly dropped...




MARK

So even the big companies are being screwed by the Coronaphobes. Maybe this might help some imagine the destruction it has done for SME's and Sole Traders.

Leaving all other factors aside, our event's success will depend on the willingness of the public to attend. To say the least, I think your's is a minority view of the risk of Covid.

Well the 7,772 other people with me at Wembley on Sunday didn't look like they gave much regard to the risk of covid.

 

[bramling]

Can anyone here tell me why the man on the train believes that the presence or absence of a lanyard makes any difference at all to anyone at all.
I really cannot understand and can only think it is to appease people who are hard of thinking
To give the train manager his due he certainly knows that a lanyard is not important

Because some people's outlook is sufficiently simple to be "it's not fair someone else is getting something I'm not".

There is no rational reason for people being reassured by a lanyard or sticker, in fact on the contrary there's good reasons why such identifiers are a bad thing.

 

[35B]

Well the 7,772 other people with me at Wembley on Sunday didn't look like they gave much regard to the risk of covid.

Fair enough - I just need to consider how that affects the probability of getting the few hundred we need to turn out when we need them to!

 

[Smidster]

Leaving all other factors aside, our event's success will depend on the willingness of the public to attend. To say the least, I think your's is a minority view of the risk of Covid.

I would tend to say that a majority of the public would be willing to use whatever freedoms they are given by the Government as soon as possible.

There seems to be pretty good evidence to support that including festivals selling out in record time, the numbers booking holidays for the Summer or the amount of people packing who packed into restaurants last Summer. Of course some will want to be more cautious, and that is fine, but I think that for most people they are ready to get back to a more active life - and for most people once they have been offered the vaccine that is the point at which I wonder how well restrictions can really hold.

It will be interesting to see what regulations remain after June 21st and how they are enforced. I certainly expect to see masks remain for a good while longer - I did a survey for Northern the other week and masks seemed to be a key part of there plans going forward. Councils continue to employ, and tender for , "Covid Marshals" for the rest of the year so there is certainly an expectation of some rules remaining for the foreseeable.

 

[Class 33]

Festivals selling out in record time. Indeed there is a lot of pent up demand to goto festivals this year, after festivals were completely wiped out from the calendar last year. But this year due to the very low Covid stats we have now which are continueing to still get lower week on week due to the success of the vaccines, there is every reason why all festivals after 21st June should be allowed to go ahead with no restrictions. If the government still keep this social distancing nonsense still dragging on past then, then that is going to mean all those festivals wiped out again this year, and many of them may well be unable to return again. We just can't have this happening.

Masks remaining for a good while longer. Why?? When over half the country's population(so far) has been vaccinated? They're absolutely pointless! The government have said they plan to allow nightclubs to finally reopen on 21st June. I can't see many people atall wanting to goto nightclubs and having to wear these darn things. Then also the same situation with theatres and cinemas.....

The vast majority of people in this country have had enough of all this now. These restrictions really really need to go by 21st June at the latest. Any excuses as to why they must stay will be absolutely unacceptable.

 

[Richard Scott]

Leaving all other factors aside, our event's success will depend on the willingness of the public to attend. To say the least, I think your's is a minority view of the risk of Covid.

Disagree, majority, not minority, of people I know share the same view.

 

[Hawkwood Junc]

Even the most cautious of people I know are now eagerly awaiting the next relaxation in May and looking forward to June even more. Barring an absolute catastrophe, these dates should not be allowed to slip. Our furloughed neighbours are also dead keen to get back to work ASAP - currently scheduled for the end of next month.

I do feel that a fair bit of the reistance to restrictions ending soon is that it spells the end of COVID as an overgrown cottage industry. I'm not necessarily talking about big pharma etc as they have an important role to play but more the COVID marshalls, people responsible for directing one way systems, those responsible for drawing up Covid 'secure' (what a load of nonsense) plans for every eventuality, people creating posters and so on. Add to that the feeling from some that they actually like being in some kind of 'war' scenario as if it makes them particularly virtuous. The fringe scientists too, who are absolutely loving a live action experiment on a grand scale, are enjoying being listened to and don't want it to end. The end of Covid being the be all and end all spells the end of relevance/prominence for some and thay aren't keen to give it up.

 

[WelshBluebird]

there is every reason why all festivals after 21st June should be allowed to go ahead with no restrictions. If the government still keep this social distancing nonsense still dragging on past then, then that is going to mean all those festivals wiped out again this year, and many of them may well be unable to return again.

The big problem is the uncertainty - given that many festivals are starting to get into the stage where they have to be shelling out money to actually prep their sites. So cancelling now gives them a chance of surviving until next year as they wouldn't have spent most of their money yet, whereas waiting until July and then having to cancel will cause massive issues given the lack of any serious and widely available insurance that can be used in the case that plans diverge from what has been shared (and this has already caused a few festivals to cancel as it is - Boomtown, 2000 trees to name just two).

Plus, even ignoring local restrictions, you still have the bands / artists playing too. Again going to use 2000 Trees as an example as that is the one I had tickets for until they postponed until next year, a large percentage of their main acts are not UK based (most are in the US) and so you also have to consider international travel too (which a lot of bands / artists have already decided just isn't going to happen for them this year, regardless of what is announced). And whilst I am sure some smaller festivals would be fine with just UK based acts, many of the bigger ones rely on international acts too.

 

[greyman42]

Predictably, it turns out that only "benefit" of all the Covid safety theatre in supermarkets over
the past 12 months has been a massive drop in profits despite bumper sales:

Sainsbury's: Cost of Covid has been high

While full-year sales jumped 8% the supermarket giant made a loss due to pandemic and other costs.

www.bbc.co.uk

Hopefully the 'big four' will now realise that continuing to mollycoddle the fearful is unsustainable
from a business point of view and all of the pointless 'we need to be seen to be doing something'
measures will be quietly dropped...




MARK

At the moment a lot of people seem to be going along with these stupid measures which will only serve to prolong them. What we need is a kickback from the public saying enough is enough and then they will be quietly dropped.
An example was government saying people could not meet up outside to sit on a bench. When it became obvious to the government that people were not taking any notice of the rule, they dropped it.