Why is there in practice no distancing in most shops/cafes?

[Bletchleyite]

So this weekend I've been "up north", albeit not in the "lockdown" areas, and I used a few "hospitality" businesses while doing so.

Disappointingly, in absolutely none of those businesses were the staff wearing masks or face shields, and in none of those businesses were the staff distancing from one another nor indeed from customers. In one coffee shop, two employees were working together at the espresso machine. I do accept that perspex screens can substitute for masks when serving customers - but if the staff are not wearing masks nor separated from one another by screens, they need to be a full 2m apart, and that is totally clear from the guidelines.

I have also noted that while businesses seem to be putting cursory effort into increasing the gap between tables for eat-in customers, I haven't seen anywhere where it was split by 2m, nor where any kind of divider was in place. Furthermore, tables are not laid out for customers to distance by even 1m, which does not fit with the idea of being able to sit with two households indoors or six outdoors but with distancing - it simply isn't possible to distance if at the same table.

Similarly, at one coffee shop, the layout had not been changed, so customers who had been served or needed to access the toilets had to pretty much squeeze past people in the queue up close.

With this being the case, I'm not surprised we are seeing cases on the up - and it will also influence what people do at home - "well, in the beer garden we all sat close together so why not in my garden?"

This abject failure clearly risks pubs etc closing again. But why is nobody even putting a cursory effort into doing it right? Why aren't we requiring it by law in workplaces, as Wales did? Why aren't we withdrawing licences of businesses which aren't doing it right? It is clearly a serious workplace H&S issue.

It strikes me that if we properly enforced that businesses actually did "2m, or 1m with mitigations", with a hefty fine and mystery shopping to catch any failing to do so, then we might be able to stem the spike without actually needing to close anything.

So why is this not being done?

 

[talldave]

Well if only 1 in 2000 or 4000 or however many thousand are infected, what's the chance of an employees at the coffee shop having it? Ermmm 1 in <insert large number>.

If they're young they probably also don't fear catching it, because the chances of it killing them are zilch.

Oh and masks are pointless outside of a controlled medical environment. If you can smell the coffee those tiny little virus jobbies are going to pass right on through.

 

[OhNoAPacer]

Because inspections, if you can call them that, are largely done over the phone. HSE budget having been slashed due to austerity and the drive to reel in what some saw as health and safety gone mad. I saw somewhere, nay gave been Private Eye, that they were asking forner inspectors to volunteer.

 

[Crossover]

Agreed that distancing in a restaurant just within the table is not feasible if you’re with people out with your household. Also saw, as things started to loosen a few weeks ago, the staff at a ‘Express’ supermarket all behind the tolls at relatively close distance

I do think the messaging is a bit wayward and that is part of the problem.

 

[DelayRepay]

For the eat in customers at tables, I guess maintaining 2m between each table is very difficult, especially for coffee shops which tend to be quite small. But the fact that you are not normally directly facing diners at another table is probably a mitigation. I think expecting to be able to sit at the same table as another household yet maintain a 2m distance is probably unrealistic - the tables would need to be much bigger to allow this.

I agree about the staff though - they seem to make an effort to distance from customers but not from each other. Although they could be members of the same household, especially in very small family run businesses. I know one coffee shop which is a family business, and because they are all one household they don't need to distance from each other.

If we had an effective Test and Trace system, we would know by now how much of a risk this was as the data would tell us how many infections were transmitting between staff in different types of workplace, between staff and customers, and between different groups of customers. Then changes could be made to the guidelines in response.

 

[Freightmaster]

Well if only 1 in 2000 or 4000 or however many thousand are infected, what's the chance of an employees at the coffee shop having it? Ermmm 1 in <insert large number>.

If they're young they probably also don't fear catching it, because the chances of it killing them are zilch.

But, but, but... what if they then go home and give it to their frail grandparents that they
just happen to live in close quarters with, like Charlie from Willy Wonka?!

OK, so I'm being somewhat facetious there, but my point is that if you try and mitigate against
every "what/if" scenario, hospitality businesses would never be able to trade profitably...




MARK

 

[yorksrob]

Most of the cafes I'ver eaten in have taken precautions. One is taking details and has put up plastic screens between tables. The staff wear PPE. Others are still at takeaway only.

 

[duncanp]

OK, so I'm being somewhat facetious there, but my point is that if you try and mitigate against
every "what/if" scenario, hospitality businesses would never be able to trade profitably...

I agree.

The cafes and pubs that I have been in over the past month are making an effort to comply with the guidelines.

You might have to pass within 1 metre of someone to get to and from the toilet, for example, but if you are only in close proximity to someone for a fraction of a second, the risk of any virus transmission is negligible.

We cannot completely eliminate transmission of the virus whilst keeping businesses open, in the same way that we can't prevent transmission of seasonal flu or the common cold.

What we can do is reduce the number of transmissions as far as is reasonably possible, whilst enabling the business to remain profitable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

We cannot completely eliminate transmission of the virus whilst keeping businesses open, in the same way that we can't prevent transmission of seasonal flu or the common cold.

What we can do is reduce the number of transmissions as far as is reasonably possible, whilst enabling the business to remain profitable.

I do agree, but it disappoints me that all the businesses of that nature I used this weekend were not taking simple measures to do that effectively, and were basically just paying it lip service.

 

[duncanp]

I do agree, but it disappoints me that all the businesses of that nature I used this weekend were not taking simple measures to do that effectively, and were basically just paying it lip service.

You could try asking the owner of the business, or if you feel unable to do that, report it to the relevant local authority.

It is impossible for a local authority to be everywhere at once, but if a local authority takes enforcement action against one business and publicises it, then hopefully other businesses will comply voluntarily.

I was in London the weekend before last, and in place I went to the server said that Westminster City Council do drop in at random to see that the establishment is keeping proper track and trace records, and take action against anywhere that isn't observing the rules. It is precisely this sort of early intervention that can prevent the need for more drastic action later on.

 

[westv]

Shouldn't the thread title be "some" not "most"?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Shouldn't the thread title be "some" not "most"?

It was "most" where I was at the weekend.

 

[Richard Scott]

Shouldn't the thread title be "some" not "most"?

I agree, in fact everywhere I've been so far they were rigidly sticking to the rules.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

So this weekend I've been "up north", albeit not in the "lockdown" areas, and I used a few "hospitality" businesses while doing so.

Disappointingly, in absolutely none of those businesses were the staff wearing masks or face shields, and in none of those businesses were the staff distancing from one another nor indeed from customers. In one coffee shop, two employees were working together at the espresso machine. I do accept that perspex screens can substitute for masks when serving customers - but if the staff are not wearing masks nor separated from one another by screens, they need to be a full 2m apart, and that is totally clear from the guidelines.

I have also noted that while businesses seem to be putting cursory effort into increasing the gap between tables for eat-in customers, I haven't seen anywhere where it was split by 2m, nor where any kind of divider was in place. Furthermore, tables are not laid out for customers to distance by even 1m, which does not fit with the idea of being able to sit with two households indoors or six outdoors but with distancing - it simply isn't possible to distance if at the same table.

Similarly, at one coffee shop, the layout had not been changed, so customers who had been served or needed to access the toilets had to pretty much squeeze past people in the queue up close.

With this being the case, I'm not surprised we are seeing cases on the up - and it will also influence what people do at home - "well, in the beer garden we all sat close together so why not in my garden?"

This abject failure clearly risks pubs etc closing again. But why is nobody even putting a cursory effort into doing it right? Why aren't we requiring it by law in workplaces, as Wales did? Why aren't we withdrawing licences of businesses which aren't doing it right? It is clearly a serious workplace H&S issue.

It strikes me that if we properly enforced that businesses actually did "2m, or 1m with mitigations", with a hefty fine and mystery shopping to catch any failing to do so, then we might be able to stem the spike without actually needing to close anything.

So why is this not being done?

In simple, they probably want to take enough money to make it worthwhile opening.

As to the final point. It is not being done because those in charge are clueless. They don't do detail - by which I mean implementation. They speak, so it has happened, although not actually out there in the world most of us inhabit. But if you cover your eyes, ears and mouth (like the three wise monkeys), you can think everything is just fine.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

The obvious answer is that if they restrict the number of customers in their establishment to the degree the law insists, then their takings do not even cover the cost of the staff’s wages, let alone their other overheads!
Go ahead, report these establishments to whoever you like.
Just don’t expect them to be open next time you want to use them

 

[bramling]

For the eat in customers at tables, I guess maintaining 2m between each table is very difficult, especially for coffee shops which tend to be quite small. But the fact that you are not normally directly facing diners at another table is probably a mitigation. I think expecting to be able to sit at the same table as another household yet maintain a 2m distance is probably unrealistic - the tables would need to be much bigger to allow this.

I agree about the staff though - they seem to make an effort to distance from customers but not from each other. Although they could be members of the same household, especially in very small family run businesses. I know one coffee shop which is a family business, and because they are all one household they don't need to distance from each other.

If we had an effective Test and Trace system, we would know by now how much of a risk this was as the data would tell us how many infections were transmitting between staff in different types of workplace, between staff and customers, and between different groups of customers. Then changes could be made to the guidelines in response.

I suspect expecting people who work closely with one another is unrealistic in practice. I’ve been in a couple of railway signalling centres since this all started, and the distancing within has been akin to zero - any attempt just breaks down in practice as natural human instincts take over. Having said that, this may have changed since some of the shielding people have come back.

I suspect this is much more of a spread-risk than somewhere like a supermarket, but having said that my place doesn’t seem to have had any such mass outbreaks.

 

[Huntergreed]

As I understand it, the Covid distancing and PPE advice for hospitality is 'guidance', and businesses are free to (not) interpret it as they wish.

Unless it's legally mandated, it's down to each business to find how best they operate, whether that be with full distancing, some distancing and visors, no measures etc...

I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that the 'safety' advice was 'guidance' rather than legislation/rules.

 

[6Gman]

I do agree, but it disappoints me that all the businesses of that nature I used this weekend were not taking simple measures to do that effectively, and were basically just paying it lip service.

I'm surprised by your experience. Round here (S Cheshire) there's pretty good observance of the guidelines.

(During the day at least; I fear that after dark some places are rather crowded.)

 

[Bikeman78]

So this weekend I've been "up north", albeit not in the "lockdown" areas, and I used a few "hospitality" businesses while doing so.

Disappointingly, in absolutely none of those businesses were the staff wearing masks or face shields, and in none of those businesses were the staff distancing from one another nor indeed from customers. In one coffee shop, two employees were working together at the espresso machine. I do accept that perspex screens can substitute for masks when serving customers - but if the staff are not wearing masks nor separated from one another by screens, they need to be a full 2m apart, and that is totally clear from the guidelines.

I have also noted that while businesses seem to be putting cursory effort into increasing the gap between tables for eat-in customers, I haven't seen anywhere where it was split by 2m, nor where any kind of divider was in place. Furthermore, tables are not laid out for customers to distance by even 1m, which does not fit with the idea of being able to sit with two households indoors or six outdoors but with distancing - it simply isn't possible to distance if at the same table.

To be honest, I have lost track of what is allowed. I went to visit my parents for the first time since February. We went for a pub lunch on Sunday and all sat at the same table. Rather pointless driving all that way if we're going to sit separately. In any case, the kids were climbing on them and sitting on their laps.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be honest, I have lost track of what is allowed. I went to visit my parents for the first time since February. We went for a pub lunch on Sunday and all sat at the same table. Rather pointless driving all that way if we're going to sit separately. In any case, the kids were climbing on them and sitting on their laps.

You'd have thought pubs would provide for this sort of scenario by setting out tables for multiple households, e.g. a table for 8 with 2 chairs removed so the two households can sit at opposite ends and distance properly. It's part of my disappointment that nobody seems to be considering these simple and obvious answers to reducing spread.

 

[AdamWW]

You'd have thought pubs would provide for this sort of scenario by setting out tables for multiple households, e.g. a table for 8 with 2 chairs removed so the two households can sit at opposite ends and distance properly. It's part of my disappointment that nobody seems to be considering these simple and obvious answers to reducing spread.

Yes - although I suppose that reduces capacity even more.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes - although I suppose that reduces capacity even more.

It does, but if there's lots of spread in pubs then pubs will end up closed, so it's in their interests to think about this kind of thing.

 

[AdamWW]

It does, but if there's lots of spread in pubs then pubs will end up closed, so it's in their interests to think about this kind of thing.

Hmmm.

Like a lot of things, I the problem is that any pub that implements this puts itself at a disadvantage, to aid the sector as a whole.

I wonder how many people would actually avail themselves of such a facility even if available? Some, I'm sure. But many?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Hmmm.

Like a lot of things, I the problem is that any pub that implements this puts itself at a disadvantage, to aid the sector as a whole.

True.

I wonder how many people would actually avail themselves of such a facility even if available? Some, I'm sure. But many?

It's something I think should have been in the rules (not guidance) thus levelling the playing field. That is, if you are not from the same household in hospitality you MUST be 1m distanced (outside) or 2m distanced (inside).

 

[AdamWW]

It's something I think should have been in the rules (not guidance) thus levelling the playing field. That is, if you are not from the same household in hospitality you MUST be 1m distanced (outside) or 2m distanced (inside).

Although it's hard to see how that could be enforced, at least that would mean that those who do want to play by the rules would have the opportunity to do so.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Although it's hard to see how that could be enforced, at least that would mean that those who do want to play by the rules would have the opportunity to do so.

It would be easy to enforce it in licensed premises by "mystery shopping" and other checks, and financial penalties etc would be imposed for non-compliance, up to and including permanent loss of licence.

But even without that, yes, it would give people the opportunity to "do it properly". It would also be possible to accommodate 6 all from different households outdoors - large round tables are good for that and would have everyone 1m apart and 2m from those directly opposite mostly in their "firing line".

This is how I expected it *would* be done and it is in line with the guidance - I was quite surprised to find nowhere actually has done it, and rather are just putting multiple households onto one closely-packed table.

 

[AdamWW]

It would be easy to enforce it in licensed premises by "mystery shopping" and other checks, and financial penalties etc would be imposed for non-compliance, up to and including permanent loss of licence.

But even without that, yes, it would give people the opportunity to "do it properly". It would also be possible to accommodate 6 all from different households outdoors - large round tables are good for that and would have everyone 1m apart and 2m from those directly opposite mostly in their "firing line".

This is how I expected it *would* be done and it is in line with the guidance - I was quite surprised to find nowhere actually has done it, and rather are just putting multiple households onto one closely-packed table.

I think you could enforce pubs and restaurants offering such facilities. I think it would be much harder (logistically and politically) to force people to actually use them.

But it does seem rather odd that there doesn't seem to be any way in general to actually keep to the guidelines, other than by not going for a meal/drinks with anyone outside your household.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think you could enforce pubs and restaurants offering such facilities. I think it would be much harder (logistically and politically) to force people to actually use them.

I think they could be required to push the point, i.e. actively ask when you contact them to book how many households there are so they can allocate space appropriately (and for instance guarantee you outside space if you're from 3 or more as indoors isn't within the guidelines). You could lie, of course, but then at least they've made some sort of attempt to control it.

In countries with compulsory identity they could check that to prove it, but the UK doesn't really have that option because passports don't have addresses on them and many people use that as their age ID in pubs if they don't drive.

But it does seem rather odd that there doesn't seem to be any way in general to actually keep to the guidelines, other than by not going for a meal/drinks with anyone outside your household.

That was the biggest surprise - yes - you basically either breach the guidelines or you don't eat/drink out.

 

[island]

As I understand it, the Covid distancing and PPE advice for hospitality is 'guidance', and businesses are free to (not) interpret it as they wish.

Unless it's legally mandated, it's down to each business to find how best they operate, whether that be with full distancing, some distancing and visors, no measures etc...

I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that the 'safety' advice was 'guidance' rather than legislation/rules.

My understanding, which may also be wrong, is that it is legislation in Wales and guidance in the rest of the country.

 

[talldave]

Apart from "wear a mask in shops", I doubt anyone is checking/obeying any guidelines unless they've been promoted with a pretty picture by Facebook Karen. I have no idea what a bubble is and don't care. I keep my distance from elderly relatives and that's it.