Coronavirus precautions: Has the world gone mad?

[Bletchleyite]

Even it were compulsory to leave contact details, do staff of such establishments have any way to check the details given are genuine?

Well, pubs are within their rights to check ID to ensure the person visiting is of drinking age[1], and the ID that most people use is a driving licence, which has details on it and it's a criminal offence for them to be wrong unless you've very recently moved house. While you could use other ID e.g. a passport, this does mean they'll be able to usefully check for the vast majority of people.

[1] They don't have to have suspicion that they're not to check, so it's perfectly legal to ID an 80 year old.

 

[trebor79]

I suspect most pubs are sensible enough not to pander to this nonsense and will not be checking any names that are given.
Anybody who knows the first thing about data processing knows that this ad hoc approach of different places recording information in different ways, if at all, will be almost useless if it's actually required further down the line.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

A group of former and present colleagues and I used to meet up for a meal three or four times a year, though not since lockdown, obviously.
Any pub/restaurant locally that does not insist on leaving contact details will get that revenue on our next meet-up. We’re going out for a meal, not a prison visit!

 

[duncanp]

I have been to two different pubs since they re-opened, and neither of them asked for contact details.

Having read through the 43 pages of official guidance from the government regarding the re-opening of pubs, it is optional to collect contact details. The government, however, wants people to believe that it is compulsory.

The same applies to table service and payment by card, neither of these are compulsory in pubs/restaurants etc.

 

[island]

My understanding is that it is not mandatory but is an option for consideration. I will post my experience in the relevant thread shortly.

I agree with your understanding. It is “suggested”, or perhaps “recommended”, that pubs and restaurants collect the contact details of customers in order that they may be traced if a COVID19 case is detected thereafter.

There is not to my knowledge a legal consequence of not doing so.

A discussion I had with a local pub staff member suggested however that they were implementing a requirement placed upon them by their public liability insurer as a condition of continued cover. Other insurers will, of course, vary.

 

[MikeWM]

Going all the way back to the start of the thread, maybe GPs are just hoping they never have to see anyone again?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/05/gp-appointments-phone-video-coronavirus-lockdown-nhs

NHS figures reveal 48% of GP appointments in May were carried out over the phone

A survey from the BMA suggests remote consultations could be here to stay. The questionnaire, from 1 June, found 95% of GP respondents were providing remote consultations, with 88% wanting greater use of remote consultations to continue in future.

Vautrey said the approach was more environmentally friendly and was often more convenient for patients, allowing them to access appointments at home or at work. He said, however, that physical examinations remained an important option both for clinicians and patients, while remote consultations could take longer than those in person.

and here's my favourite quote from yesterday's 'news'

Marshall said face-to-face appointments were sometimes necessary, including for physical examinations and interventions such as childhood vaccinations

Really? Who'd have thought it? This is the level of journalism in the UK in 2020, folks

 

[Bletchleyite]

A phone appointment is far more convenient if you only have something simple to discuss. It only takes a short time (vs. having to travel to the surgery, wait, have the appointment and travel home) and you don't need to have time off work.

It would to me make sense that a telephone appointment should precede all GP visits, then the GP will either prescribe or advise based on the conversation or they'll request an in person appointment, or even just do a referral straight away. It would also allow for "internal referrals" more easily - larger practices like mine have GPs with some specialisms, as an example there's one who I know is a distance runner so if I have a running related issue I will see him as he'll likely have experienced it himself.

I know a number of the Swiss insurers do that and have for a while, for what it's worth.

 

[MikeWM]

A phone appointment is far more convenient if you only have something simple to discuss. It only takes a short time (vs. having to travel to the surgery, wait, have the appointment and travel home) and you don't need to have time off work.

I agree with that for very 'routine' appointments (eg. renewing repeat medication). I had one with my GP last month and it was much less hassle than going to the surgery.

(It strikes me that it would be better still if you could register at two practices, one near your home, and one near your job, if they are sufficiently far apart. With computer records, I'm not sure why that couldn't work).

It would to me make sense that a telephone appointment should precede all GP visits, then the GP will either prescribe or advise based on the conversation or they'll request an in person appointment, or even just do a referral straight away.

I disagree with that though. For anything not entirely routine an in-person interaction is important. For example, a good doctor may well be able to pick up more information from the presentation and demeanour of the patient.

 

[talldave]

Well, pubs are within their rights to check ID to ensure the person visiting is of drinking age[1], and the ID that most people use is a driving licence, which has details on it and it's a criminal offence for them to be wrong unless you've very recently moved house. While you could use other ID e.g. a passport, this does mean they'll be able to usefully check for the vast majority of people.

[1] They don't have to have suspicion that they're not to check, so it's perfectly legal to ID an 80 year old.

I carry neither driving licence or passport with me, so any establishment asking for ID won't be getting my business. Nor will any business that asks me to wear a mask or touch their sanitiser bottle. I mean why would you touch something that everyone else has touched if there's a risk of catching a deadly virus???

 

[takno]

I don't think this is correct, but can you please edit your post to include a link to, and quote from, your source, in line with forum rules please? Thanks

My understanding is that it is not mandatory but is an option for consideration. I will post my experience in the relevant thread shortly.

I think I recall a suggestion that it would be compulsory in Scotland which wouldn't be entirely surprising, but I think we'll just have to see if what emerges there is different to England.

 

[Class 33]

Just been out for a few hours out on the train to Gloucester and back. Nice 50 minute journey there and back. My longest train journey since early March. When I came back through Gloucester station I noticed the toilets there had a sign saying "These toilets are for Key Workers and Essential Workers ONLY. Please gain your pass from the ticket office.". Absolute madness! And very discriminatory towards people who aren't "Key workers" or "Essential Workers". These people have as much right to use the toilets as well! Anyone else noticed station toilets that are marked "For key workers and essential workers ONLY"?

 

[DB]

Just been out for a few hours out on the train to Gloucester and back. Nice 50 minute journey there and back. My longest train journey since early March. When I came back through Gloucester station I noticed the toilets there had a sign saying "These toilets are for Key Workers and Essential Workers ONLY. Please gain your pass from the ticket office.". Absolute madness! And very discriminatory towards people who aren't "Key workers" or "Essential Workers". These people have as much right to use the toilets as well! Anyone else noticed station toilets that are marked "For key workers and essential workers ONLY"?

Sounds like the railways making up their own rules again - and the government doesn't seem to have any interest in reining them in.

 

[317 forever]

I don't think this is correct, but can you please edit your post to include a link to, and quote from, your source, in line with forum rules please? Thanks

My understanding is that it is not mandatory but is an option for consideration. I will post my experience in the relevant thread shortly.

Hi Yorkie. I have seen an applicable link. Sorry for my omission and in case I have the wrong end of the stick regarding any specific clauses.

 

[Enthusiast]

A discussion I had with a local pub staff member suggested however that they were implementing a requirement placed upon them by their public liability insurer as a condition of continued cover. Other insurers will, of course, vary.

And of course, as soon as a customer who catches Covid goes to those insurers saying "I caught it in your policyholder's pub" they will pay out immediately! What utter nonsense. There is not a cat in hell's chance of anybody who gets out and about (as those using pubs must do) and who contracts the virus establishing where they caught it.

 

[Skymonster]

There is not a cat in hell's chance of anybody who gets out and about (as those using pubs must do) and who contracts the virus establishing where they caught it.

I thought that was the whole point of track and trace.

 

[DB]

I thought that was the whole point of track and trace.

That will (in theory) show that they've been somewhere where the risk of catching it is (in theory) increased. It won't prove that they caught it there.

 

[Enthusiast]

That will (in theory) show that they've been somewhere where the risk of catching it is (in theory) increased. It won't prove that they caught it there.

And certainly not to the satisfaction of an insurer who may face paying out a tidy sum in compo.

I think we need to move away from this idea that establishments such as shops and pubs have a responsibility to keep their customers "safe" from contracting a disease. They can take reasonable precautions (though some mentioned on here are unreasonable) provided they can conduct their business reasonably normally. But they cannot keep everybody safe from an airborne disease. Anyone seeking 100% safety needs to stay indoors (where they may get electrocuted by a faulty iron). The rest can assess the risks and decide whether they want to get on with their lives or not.

 

[MikeWM]

I think we need to move away from this idea that establishments such as shops and pubs have a responsibility to keep their customers "safe" from contracting a disease. They can take reasonable precautions (though some mentioned on here are unreasonable) provided they can conduct their business reasonably normally. But they cannot keep everybody safe from an airborne disease.

Spot on. The idea that businesses should be responsible for trying to stop someone catching a virus on their premises is bonkers.

 

[Skymonster]

That will (in theory) show that they've been somewhere where the risk of catching it is (in theory) increased. It won't prove that they caught it there.

Indeed. Which in turn demonstrates track and trace is pointless in environments such as pubs. It will merely end up trying to confine people without proof that they need to be confined. And without verification, the data has the potential to be totally unreliable and incomplete anyway.

”If Mickey Mouse catches Coronavirus we’ll have to tell Lord Lucan, Adolph Hitler,Marilyn Monroe...”

 

[45107]

And certainly not to the satisfaction of an insurer who may face paying out a tidy sum in compo.

I think we need to move away from this idea that establishments such as shops and pubs have a responsibility to keep their customers "safe" from contracting a disease. They can take reasonable precautions (though some mentioned on here are unreasonable) provided they can conduct their business reasonably normally. But they cannot keep everybody safe from an airborne disease. Anyone seeking 100% safety needs to stay indoors (where they may get electrocuted by a faulty iron). The rest can assess the risks and decide whether they want to get on with their lives or not.

I generally agree however unfortunately the ‘where there‘s blame there’s a claim’ culture means otherwise. I will get shot down for saying that most on here seem happy with delay repay which means that the railway pays for delays that can be deemed outside of their control as an example.
Insurers will stipulate all sorts of things to reduce the risk of a claim. Local authority licensing will also stipulate whatever. Then there are are the (local) government ‘guidelines’ that establishments have to follow.
Add in the social media walkahs who will shame anyone who doesn’t comply with their ideals.

A paperwork nightmare for business.

 

[MikeWM]

I generally agree however unfortunately the ‘where there‘s blame there’s a claim’ culture means otherwise. I will get shot down for saying that most on here seem happy with delay repay which means that the railway pays for delays that can be deemed outside of their control as an example.
Insurers will stipulate all sorts of things to reduce the risk of a claim. Local authority licensing will also stipulate whatever. Then there are are the (local) government ‘guidelines’ that establishments have to follow.
Add in the social media walkahs who will shame anyone who doesn’t comply with their ideals.

A paperwork nightmare for business.

The Government could pass a 1-line bill exempting all businesses from any liability with respect to catching the virus. That'd make the matter nice and clear.

After all, they've already done similar in the Coronavirus Act for the NHS with respect to any treatment received for COVID (which is very worrying, and that *shouldn't* be the case! But the point is that is easy to do if the Government wanted to get a grip).

 

[45107]

The Government could pass a 1-line bill exempting all businesses from any liability with respect to catching the virus. That'd make the matter nice and clear.

After all, they've already done similar in the Coronavirus Act for the NHS with respect to any treatment received for COVID (which is very worrying, and that *shouldn't* be the case! But the point is that is easy to do if the Government wanted to get a grip).

They could but I am sure that it conflict with the 1974 H&S legislation.
It would create nightmare scenarios where business have no responsibility for either staff or customers/patrons.

The Free Marketeers/right wing perfect wet dream.

 

[MikeWM]

They could but I am sure that it conflict with the 1974 H&S legislation.
It would create nightmare scenarios where business have no responsibility for either staff or customers/patrons.

The Free Marketeers/right wing perfect wet dream.

Not if specifically restricted to this virus (though I'd agree there is a troubling tendancy for things like this to get mission creep).

Unless a business is specifically hiring people to go around coughing in people's faces, I'm not sure there are any circumstances it seems desirable to hold a business responsible for customers or staff catching a virus. It's just something that happens.

 

[45107]

Not if specifically restricted to this virus (though I'd agree there is a troubling tendancy for things like this to get mission creep).

Unless a business is specifically hiring people to go around coughing in people's faces, I'm not sure there are any circumstances it seems desirable to hold a business responsible for customers or staff catching a virus. It's just something that happens.

I think you summed it up in your previous comment “if the government wanted to get a grip”

 

[philosopher]

I generally agree however unfortunately the ‘where there‘s blame there’s a claim’ culture means otherwise. I will get shot down for saying that most on here seem happy with delay repay which means that the railway pays for delays that can be deemed outside of their control as an example.
Insurers will stipulate all sorts of things to reduce the risk of a claim. Local authority licensing will also stipulate whatever. Then there are are the (local) government ‘guidelines’ that establishments have to follow.
Add in the social media walkahs who will shame anyone who doesn’t comply with their ideals.

A paperwork nightmare for business.

I am correct in thinking that pubs, restaurants and shops do not legally have to follow any of the Covid-19 guidance such as one way systems, getting people to fill in contact details and keeping tables 2 metres apart. However if they do not follow the guidance and a patron gets Covid-19 at the pub that patron can subsequently sue the landlord for not following guidance?

 

[DB]

I am correct in thinking that pubs, restaurants and shops do not legally have to follow any of the Covid-19 guidance such as one way systems, getting people to fill in contact details and keeping tables 2 metres apart. However if they do not follow the guidance and a patron gets Covid-19 at the pub that patron can subsequently sue the landlord for not following guidance?

How is the patron going to prove where they caught it?

 

[Skimpot flyer]

There are many sceptics who, like myself, are inclined to disbelieve the official statistics on Coronavirus deaths. If a person dies and shows symptoms of coronavirus, a doctor can record - without a confirmatory test - coronavirus on the death certificate.
Many people are now starting to fully understand the distinct difference between dying with coronavirus, and dying from coronavirus.
Here’s a comment under a YouTube video of a Sky Australia broadcaster, who did a piece questioning the ‘party line’:
‘I read a report of a man who died from Covid19 in the US, eventually it was pointed out that his death may have had something to do with the two large gunshot wounds through his chest”

 

[HSTEd]

‘I read a report of a man who died from Covid19 in the US, eventually it was pointed out that his death may have had something to do with the two large gunshot wounds through his chest”

Clearly the virus has mutated to gain the ability to use firearms!

Everyone be even more afraid.

 

[philosopher]

How is the patron going to prove where they caught it?

Good point, I suppose the patron would have to say they think they most likely got from the pub.

 

[45107]

I am correct in thinking that pubs, restaurants and shops do not legally have to follow any of the Covid-19 guidance such as one way systems, getting people to fill in contact details and keeping tables 2 metres apart. However if they do not follow the guidance and a patron gets Covid-19 at the pub that patron can subsequently sue the landlord for not following guidance?

My understanding is that the majority of the paperwork is guidance and the only legal restriction is to do with the capacity / maximum number of people INSIDE premises
They may have a multitude of reasons and ‘external pressures’ for adhering to (or otherwise) the guidance. I am sure that they have taken into account the factors and risks before taking their course of action.