England & Wales Tracing App to be released Sept 24th

[DelayRepay]

Well, my parents are some of those who don't have a Smart Phone. They have all on with the Sky Remote. After frequenting their Local for the last 13 years, they got turned away from said Local on Saturday because they could not scan a QR code....
Up until last week, the pub had been handing out a slip of paper with name, number and time on it.

Did they enquire why? I would genuinely like to know whether the landlord mistakenly thought use of the App is now a legal requirement (as opposed for the requirement for him to display the QR code), or whether he had decided that taking everyone's details on paper was so much admin that it was preferable to turn customers away.

 

[packermac]

Well, my parents are some of those who don't have a Smart Phone. They have all on with the Sky Remote. After frequenting their Local for the last 13 years, they got turned away from said Local on Saturday because they could not scan a QR code. They don't even know what a QR code is. (they have a basic mobile, with big buttons, it calls and sends texts)
Up until last week, the pub had been handing out a slip of paper with name, number and time on it.

I refuse to own a smartphone, I realise it gives me limitations, car parks I can not use etc, unable to check in on line for flights in more normal times without a PC. My choice, same as if I did not want a landline either (although I do have one)

 

[PHILIPE]

The procedures as advertised lack clarity and only mention QR Codes so I asked a well known Coffee chain by E-Mail and received a reply back to say there would be a member of staff available and armed with a laptop to record details.

 

[matt_world2004]

It might be argued that smartphone ownership being considerably higher amount the young and the fact that there are people with disabilities who may not be able to use a smartphone. That discriminating on the basis of smartphone ownership discriminates against those that are old and disabled. However it would be a reach and the case would require a court to test it

 

[WestRiding]

Did they enquire why? I would genuinely like to know whether the landlord mistakenly thought use of the App is now a legal requirement (as opposed for the requirement for him to display the QR code), or whether he had decided that taking everyone's details on paper was so much admin that it was preferable to turn customers away.

The 'waitress' stopped them on entry, at the sign telling them to wait to be seated, asked them if they had the app, they said no, don't have a capable phone etc etc. So she got the Landlord who said sorry but we can not serve you without the app. They asked for a slip of paper as it was the previous times, to be told they don't do this anymore as it is law to use the app. They got the bus to Wetherspoon where they were presented with a slip of paper. So its very inconsistent at the very least.

 

[DelayRepay]

It might be argued that smartphone ownership being considerably higher amount the young and the fact that there are people with disabilities who may not be able to use a smartphone. That discriminating on the basis of smartphone ownership discriminates against those that are old and disabled. However it would be a reach and the case would require a court to test it

There might be mileage in the disabled argument, but only if the venue refused to make reasonable adjustments. So they could allow a disabled person to sign in using pen and paper, but wouldn't have to allow everyone to do so.

I don't think there's mileage in the elderly argument because there is nothing preventing them from owning and using a smart phone. Just like a 'no jeans' rule doesn't discriminate against young people, including young people whose only trousers are jeans.

 

[WestRiding]

The procedures as advertised lack clarity and only mention QR Codes so I asked a well known Coffee chain by E-Mail and received a reply back to say there would be a member of staff available and armed with a laptop to record details.

Sounds like Costa. I had this at Newcastle Station, they would not let me sit on their chairs outside. They would not do paper, only the app. So i went to Platform 5.... i think, where they didn't ask anything, and gave me a coffee without question and let me sit on their few chairs outside. And i do not have the app, because i do not want it. I asked Costa in an email, and got the laptop reply back, but they will investigate further, Newcastle Station branches, with different ideas of enforcement.

 

[Howardh]

Well, my parents are some of those who don't have a Smart Phone. They have all on with the Sky Remote. After frequenting their Local for the last 13 years, they got turned away from said Local on Saturday because they could not scan a QR code. They don't even know what a QR code is. (they have a basic mobile, with big buttons, it calls and sends texts)
Up until last week, the pub had been handing out a slip of paper with name, number and time on it.

Big buttoned phones usually indicate some disability, maybe poor eyesight or functioning with fingers. There may be big-buttoned smart phones, but if there are I bet they are expensive. Therefore as alluded to above, there may be a case for discrimination against the disabled. An analogy would be - a pub not letting me in after a hockey game if I were carrying my stick - clearly that could constitute a weapon. however if they refused a person entry if they had a walking stick...??

 

[NorthOxonian]

There agree that there be mileage in the disabled argument, but only if the venue refused to make reasonable adjustments. So they could allow a disabled person to sign in using pen and paper, but wouldn't have to allow everyone to do so.

I don't think there's mileage in the elderly argument because there is nothing preventing them from owning and using a smart phone. Just like a 'no jeans' rule doesn't discriminate against young people, including young people whose only trousers are jeans.

I think there's more mileage in that argument: I've heard that the app doesn't work with screen readers and so the visually impaired can't really use it. But as you say, I would expect having a system specifically in place for that eventuality (and only for those who were disabled) would be sufficient.

 

[matt_world2004]

There might be mileage in the disabled argument, but only if the venue refused to make reasonable adjustments. So they could allow a disabled person to sign in using pen and paper, but wouldn't have to allow everyone to do so.

I don't think there's mileage in the elderly argument because there is nothing preventing them from owning and using a smart phone. Just like a 'no jeans' rule doesn't discriminate against young people, including young people whose only trousers are jeans.

I believe businesses have to do an equality impact assessment of any changes they make . Including if it puts some customers off.

But they could equally argue mandating smart phone sign in makes the environment safer for the elderly as it ensures they get promptly informed about any outbreak

 

[ainsworth74]

There may be big-buttoned smart phones, but if there are I bet they are expensive.

A wide range of accessibility options including ease of use features like bigger buttons are included as a standard within Android and IOS (the dominant smartphone operating systems). No need for a special phone (though they may exist).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Because businesses and their staff are generally ingnorant (or at best poorly informed) about the finer points of full GDPR compliance, despite most larger operations providing training for it. I can explicityl remember two restaurants that I have visited where the list of names and phone contact numbers were on a list where every customer could photograph the entries before them.

I've seen that more often than not. It beggars belief that people don't realise that isn't the way to do it!

 

[WelshBluebird]

In terms of discrimination, someone being old does not stop them from using a smartphone. My parents are almost in their 70's and use theirs to do all sorts of things. You have to remember that smartphones have been with us for almost two decades in a somewhat recognizable form now, and for over a decade in large scale public usage. Mobile phones have been with us obviously even longer, and we are getting to the point now where even those people who are starting to get to an older age have spent much of their life happily using such technology. We really have to stop assuming old = technologically illiterate because it just is not the case these days!

The disabilities argument does win me around a little more, but I would imagine that those could be treated on a case by case basis (and I'd also suggest that some of the alternatives such as having a sign telling you to write your details on a pen and paper would also cause issues for some of the same disabilities and health issues as a smartphone app does).

 

[Freightmaster]

I refuse to own a smartphone, I realise it gives me limitations, car parks I can not use etc, unable to check in on line for flights in more normal times without a PC. My choice, same as if I did not want a landline either (although I do have one)

Despite my full time job revolving around running a website (so I am not a Luddite by any stretch of the imagination),
I have never owned a smartphone, nor do I plan to because:

a) I ave no need for one as I work from home

b) I cannot justify the cost (£400-800 for the phone itself then £20 a month for data/calls/texts)





MARK

 

[Bletchleyite]

I refuse to own a smartphone, I realise it gives me limitations, car parks I can not use etc, unable to check in on line for flights in more normal times without a PC. My choice, same as if I did not want a landline either (although I do have one)

Then you must accept that, increasingly, that means that some elements of public life will be unavailable to you, and as time progresses, COVID or not, that will be more and more things.

I think you do accept that based on what I've quoted above, though.

In terms of discrimination, someone being old does not stop them from using a smartphone. My parents are almost in their 70's and use theirs to do all sorts of things.

Smartphones and tablets are a great way into technology for older people because unlike Windows PCs and Macs they really are consumer devices, designed for "normal people" to use and not just IT-savvy people - particularly iOS, but Android is fairly intuitive these days too. So I'd probably expect that there are more older people using them than there are older people using actual computers.

 

[jtuk]

Despite my full time job revolving around running a website (so I am not a Luddite by any stretch of the imagination),
I have never owned a smartphone, nor do I plan to because:

a) I ave no need for one as I work from home

b) I cannot justify the cost (£400-800 for the phone itself then £20 a month for data/calls/texts)

While point a may be valid regardless, point b may not be - you can get a decent enough Android phone for less than a ton, and my sim-only contract is half that for unlimited calls/texts and more data than I'd ever need, and I use a fair amount

 

[bspahh]

A wide range of accessibility options including ease of use features like bigger buttons are included as a standard within Android and IOS (the dominant smartphone operating systems). No need for a special phone (though they may exist).

The accessibility statement for the app is here https://covid19.nhs.uk/accessibility.html

It has links to how to adjust the accessibility settings on your smart phone. You can contact the developers if there are problems.

 

[Freightmaster]

In terms of discrimination, someone being old does not stop them from using a smartphone. My parents are almost in their 70's and use theirs to do all sorts of things.
The disabilities argument does win me around a little more, but I would imagine that those could be treated on a case by case basis

With all due respect, people are totally missing the point here; it's not about about "being old" in itself,
but it's disingenuous to think that people on low incomes, especially pensioners, can afford the not
insignificant purchase and 'running' costs' of a smartphone that they don't even want in the first place
(as per my comment above).

Some seem to be saying that to visit a pub to enjoy their £9.95 steak and ale pie, it's entirely reasonable
to insist that pensioners should splurge £100+ on a phone (and more on an ongoing contract); if that is the
case, people on here must have wealthy parents/grandparents compared to most OAPs I know!



MARK

 

[Howardh]

Then you must accept that, increasingly, that means that some elements of public life will be unavailable to you, and as time progresses, COVID or not, that will be more and more things.

I think you do accept that based on what I've quoted above, though.



Smartphones and tablets are a great way into technology for older people because unlike Windows PCs and Macs they really are consumer devices, designed for "normal people" to use and not just IT-savvy people - particularly iOS, but Android is fairly intuitive these days too. So I'd probably expect that there are more older people using them than there are older people using actual computers.

As an aside; the problem I have with smart phones is that if I am wearing my distance glasses or contacts, I can't read the screen. If I'm wearing my intermediates or reading glasses, then I can't see beyond 5m clearly; so, for example, if I go out in contacts I have to carry reading spex too, (or distance spex with reading) which I don't always remember.
So far no issues with QR codes etc, but if I forget my reading spex and I'm fiddling around trying to buy a train or bus ticket on my mobile I can understand how difficult it must be for glaucoma or AMD sufferers.

 

[WestRiding]

With all due respect, people are totally missing the point here; it's not about about "being old" in itself,
but it's disingenuous to think that people on low incomes, especially pensioners, can afford the not
insignificant purchase and 'running' costs' of a smartphone that they don't even want in the first place
(as per my comment above).

Some seem to be saying that to visit a pub to enjoy their £9.95 steak and ale pie, it's entirely reasonable
to insist that pensioners should splurge £100+ on a phone (and more on an ongoing contract); if that is the
case, people on here must have wealthy parents/grandparents compared to most OAPs I know!



MARK

Exactly!!!! Lets not forget, this is about going for a pint. Paper was perfectly acceptable last week. 10 million people have apparently got the app now, that means 55+ million people do not have it. Why should they have to. Pen and Paper. It was ok last week. I am absolutely fine with giving my details, but i will not have the app.

 

[Huntergreed]

How detailed is the protected characteristic requirements? For instance, saying:

We will not serve customers over the age of 60

and

We will not serve customers with grey hair

Achieve a similar outcome, however technically one of them would be legal under this 'protected characteristic law'. Similarly, saying:

We will not serve customers with no mask on

and

We will not serve customers with a breathing impairment

achieve a similar outcome but the former would be legal. How is this monitored/regulated?

 

[WelshBluebird]

With all due respect, people are totally missing the point here; it's not about about "being old" in itself,
but it's disingenuous to think that people on low incomes, especially pensioners, can afford the not
insignificant purchase and 'running' costs' of a smartphone that they don't even want in the first place
(as per my comment above).

Some seem to be saying that to visit a pub to enjoy their £9.95 steak and ale pie, it's entirely reasonable
to insist that pensioners should splurge £100+ on a phone (and more on an ongoing contract); if that is the
case, people on here must have wealthy parents/grandparents compared to most OAPs I know!



MARK

Again though - the point is that each place needs to work out what makes sense when taking into account the demographic of customers they get.
If a place has customers who are say generally between 20-40 with disposable income (e.g. Craft beer places), then the vast vast majority will have a smartphone. Hell they may well not get anyone trying to come in who doesn't have one.
But if you have a place that is popular with OAP's or is maybe in a less affluent place (say a Spoons), then yeah of course just going down the app route doesn't make any sense.

It is the same as places that decided to go card only before the pandemic - many did, especially in London and other cities, just because of the nature of their customer base (I think one bar near me said that before going card only cash only made up something like 5% of their takings, so going card only made perfect sense as they only "lost" 5% of custom, but got rid of costs related to cash use that more than made up for that).

In this case, if a business thinks they will not lose any revenue, or will only lose a small % of revenue, by limiting themselves to Smartphone users only, then why wouldn't they do that if it means they can offload something they currently have to deal with?

 

[45107]

Exactly!!!! Lets not forget, this is about going for a pint. Paper was perfectly acceptable last week. 10 million people have apparently got the app now, that means 55+ million people do not have it. Why should they have to. Pen and Paper. It was ok last week. I am absolutely fine with giving my details, but i will not have the app.

Because last week ‘track and trace’ was “recommended”. Now it is mandatory.
Maybe some places were turning a blind eye to the previous ‘requirements”. (Personal experience leads me to believe this)
Using the app takes away the responsibility of keeping records that are now required?
There has been a noticeable change in how pubs record visits since last Thursday.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How detailed is the protected characteristic requirements? For instance, saying:

We will not serve customers over the age of 60

and

We will not serve customers with grey hair

Achieve a similar outcome, however technically one of them would be legal under this 'protected characteristic law'. Similarly, saying:

We will not serve customers with no mask on

and

We will not serve customers with a breathing impairment

achieve a similar outcome but the former would be legal. How is this monitored/regulated?

All of those would be considered discriminatory. The downside is that to get enforcement, you basically need to sue.

However, as smartphones are available to people of all ages that doesn't count as one. If they didn't provide for people who physically can't use a smartphone due to a disability, then there would be a case to answer. But they don't, legally, have to answer to refuseniks.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Exactly!!!! Lets not forget, this is about going for a pint. Paper was perfectly acceptable last week. 10 million people have apparently got the app now, that means 55+ million people do not have it. Why should they have to. Pen and Paper. It was ok last week. I am absolutely fine with giving my details, but i will not have the app.

Over 80% of people in this country own a smartphone though, with the vast majority of those able to download the app within seconds. So yes, most of those may not have the app right now, but they can if a place they wanted to go to needed it.

As for paper being fine last week - again, if a business can offload one of the things they have to do at the moment then why wouldn't they? It isn't that paper now isn't OK, it is that now there is an alternative that puts less burden on the business. If that business basically only has customers that are in the demographic that own smartphones anyway, I can certainly see why they decided not to bother with an alternative.

In any case - I do wonder how many places we are talking about here.
I have been to 3 pubs since the app came out on Thursday. All had an alternative to the app, although the app was their preferred option. All are places that predominately serve people between 25 and 40 - the kind of demographic that I would say you can pretty much assume has a smartphone (the last figures I read was 95%+ of that demographic have one) so it is interesting even they were still offering an option of not using it. And since they are offering an alternative - I wonder what kind of places aren't!

 

[island]

As mentioned on the other thread, the government website with instructions for businesses clearly states that they “must not” refuse service to people who cannot, do not, or will not use the NHS app and should collect contact details from them in the same way as previous.

 

[Ostrich]

I think at this point, there's still an awful lot of confusion out there regarding the rules.
A non-league football club local to me has (correctly, to assist compliance with FA regulations) got a QR Code, but has stated it is "mandatory" to use it to check in to watch a game. It's been pointed out to them on Twitter that it's not mandatory and the manual T&T system should also be available for spectators to use, which they have now acknowledged.

 

[WelshBluebird]

As mentioned on the other thread, the government website with instructions for businesses clearly states that they “must not” refuse service to people who cannot, do not, or will not use the NHS app and should collect contact details from them in the same way as previous.

Link?
What I've read suggests that places can and should offer an alternative but not that they must.

 

[Scrotnig]

Over 80% of people in this country own a smartphone though, with the vast majority of those able to download the app within seconds.

And many of those do not want to do so.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And many of those do not want to do so.

Given that you can turn off the Bluetooth contact tracing bit, and given that some form of T&T is mandatory, I would suggest anyone who simply elects not to download but has a capable device it is just being stubborn and should not be accommodated.

As I have said before in life, I will put myself out for "can'ts", but "won'ts" get nothing beyond that to which they are legally entitled.

Crikey, and I don't suggest this, if you really object to it you can download it and delete your scans each day.