Reduction in social gatherings.

[317 forever]

The players and staff get regular tests to ensure that no one taking part in the event has the virus.

And yet, on Friday, Matt Hancock said that people without symptoms should not be having tests, as this is causing the current shortage of testing resources.

 

[greyman42]

And yet, on Friday, Matt Hancock said that people without symptoms should not be having tests, as this is causing the current shortage of testing resources.

The amount of people involved in these tests is negligible in the big picture of things and the pros outweigh the cons.

 

[adc82140]

And yet, on Friday, Matt Hancock said that people without symptoms should not be having tests, as this is causing the current shortage of testing resources.

The tests are done privately and paid for by the sports clubs.

 

[greyman42]

And also people wanting to have a final fling before lock down. Covidiots at their worst if you consider how many more people could have become infected while they were behaving in this manner

We have no idea if anybody became infected. The answer could be 0.

 

[PHILIPE]

We have no idea if anybody became infected. The answer could be 0.

The potential could have been there

 

[island]

I'd be rather interested in knowing where the wedding was held. It seems unlikely that it was held at a private dwelling as there aren't many such places that could fit 100 people - even before social distancing became 'a thing'! I suppose it's just about possible it was in a park or similar public outdoor place...

Maybe they were having a rave at the wedding

 

[adc82140]

I am quite curious as to why people have started having "raves" again in 2020. I though they died out in the late 90s. Perhaps there will be lots of restriction breaking Acid House parties as well.

 

[bramling]

I am quite curious as to why people have started having "raves" again in 2020. I though they died out in the late 90s. Perhaps there will be lots of restriction breaking Acid House parties as well.

Presumably it has started in consequence of pubs being closed or open with restrictions? Likewise no doubt some have realised that they can buy alcohol from places like supermarkets at much cheaper cost and “drink from home”?

 

[Yew]

I am quite curious as to why people have started having "raves" again in 2020. I though they died out in the late 90s. Perhaps there will be lots of restriction breaking Acid House parties as well.

For the most part they are parties in a field, nothing like the massive raves of the 90's. But the media never let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

 

[Cowley]

I am quite curious as to why people have started having "raves" again in 2020. I though they died out in the late 90s. Perhaps there will be lots of restriction breaking Acid House parties as well.

They never really stopped actually.

 

[Ian Cunningham]

I am quite curious as to why people have started having "raves" again in 2020. I though they died out in the late 90s. Perhaps there will be lots of restriction breaking Acid House parties as well.

Probably because all venues that would normally hold EDM gigs etc are all still closed with no timetable for reopening. The demand hasn't gone away so if you can't hold legal, licensed events then you will get illegal, unlicensed ones

 

[Bantamzen]

And also people wanting to have a final fling before lock down. Covidiots at their worst if you consider how many more people could have become infected while they were behaving in this manner

So riddle me this, if the restrictions were "urgent", why didn't the government impose them immediately instead of 5 days down the road? After all changes to ravel advice can happen in a matter of hours, so why the delay? Perhaps, and I'm just putting it out there, these are political decisions not scientific. Maybe the true "covidiots" are those being le by the nose by this inept government?

 

[bramling]

So riddle me this, if the restrictions were "urgent", why didn't the government impose them immediately instead of 5 days down the road? After all changes to ravel advice can happen in a matter of hours, so why the delay? Perhaps, and I'm just putting it out there, these are political decisions not scientific. Maybe the true "covidiots" are those being le by the nose by this inept government?

I suspect Boris didn’t want a headline along the lines of “child devastated as birthday party cancelled last minute”.

Once again we see a restriction announced at a quiet time, and brought in on a Monday.

At least that means I can take my holiday in Wales safe in the knowing that I’ve got until the next Monday before any second lockdown happens!

 

[Richard Scott]

The potential could have been there

So? Becoming infected is almost an irrelevance for most people. If people don't become infected how do you propose we get out of this? Sit and wait for a vaccine whilst mental health issues increase? There is no Utopia, we can't just keep focusing on the virus whilst society and the economy still continue to go downwards.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

So riddle me this, if the restrictions were "urgent", why didn't the government impose them immediately instead of 5 days down the road? After all changes to ravel advice can happen in a matter of hours, so why the delay? Perhaps, and I'm just putting it out there, these are political decisions not scientific. Maybe the true "covidiots" are those being le by the nose by this inept government?

In Brighton today we saw many gatherings of more than six people on the beach as we took a long stroll. With the weather forecast for the next week being unseasonably warm, is Boris seriously expecting police to adopt a mantra of ‘we shall fine them on the beaches, we shall fine them in the fields, we shall fine them on the streets’?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Also, unless this is lifted by December, means very few real Christmas parties will be officially allowed this year.

I would be astonished if it wasn't lifted potentially for 1 or 2 weeks over the actual Christmas bank holiday, they could do that by suppressing the virus to a lower level than necessary and allowing a week or two of relatively high spread, then locking down again afterwards to bring it back down. In a way the summer was a bit like doing that.

Fundamentally if "Boris bans Christmas" that's the end of him - I can see the "Scrooge" headlines now. He will find a way to allow it.

And yet, on Friday, Matt Hancock said that people without symptoms should not be having tests, as this is causing the current shortage of testing resources.

Private tests, you can pay for one or I can, they're about £150 a pop. Though I suppose the Government could and perhaps should requisition the labs.

(There are a number of websites where you can pay for pretty much any medical test you feel like regardless of whether a doctor would say it was indicated or not)

 

[Cowley]

‘we shall fine them on the beaches, we shall fine them in the fields, we shall fine them on the streets’?

Sometimes you’ve just got to find the humour where you can, and that did make me laugh.

 

[initiation]

So the statutory instrument used to introduce the new limit of 6. Available 15 minutes before they came into force. They won't be debated in parliament until afterwards... This is concerning stuff.

A good explanatory thread here

https://twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1305276954816503808?s=19

 

[DelayRepay]

I would be astonished if it wasn't lifted potentially for 1 or 2 weeks over the actual Christmas bank holiday, they could do that by suppressing the virus to a lower level than necessary and allowing a week or two of relatively high spread, then locking down again afterwards to bring it back down. In a way the summer was a bit like doing that.

I agree, but also they might be able to 'offset' higher household/family transmission against lower transmission due to schools being closed and fewer people being at work over the period. When I used to commute, the period between Christmas and New Year was never busy either on the trains or in the City.

There are a lot of things that won't happen though, even if they lift restrictions. I doubt the kids will be able to sit on Santa's knee in the grotto, I doubt we will have work Christmas parties and things that are traditions for some like going to Christmas markets, carol concerts and Boxing Day football won't happen.

My mum is already worried about Christmas, as she normally has six visitors for Christmas lunch (so seven people including her), and she doesn't want to break the law. I have told her not to worry but as she pointed out, we've already missed family get togethers for Mothers Day, Easter, my birthday, my sister's birthday and generally seen a lot less of each other this year.

 

[TheSel]

The tests are done privately and paid for by the sports clubs.

Private tests, you can pay for one or I can, they're about £150 a pop. Though I suppose the Government could and perhaps should requisition the labs.

No matter WHO pays for them, they are still tests that mean there are fewer available elsewhere.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No matter WHO pays for them, they are still tests that mean there are fewer available elsewhere.

That isn't true unless the Government is going to pay to acquire the private tests that are being sold freely. That option is available to them but they are not presently taking it, ergo they are available.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

We are now being encouraged to snitch on our neighbours. Welcome to Nazi England !
Coronavirus: 'Rule of six' comes into effect https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54142699

Crime Minister Kit Malthouse said people should report neighbours they suspect of hosting a gathering of seven or more people.

The crazy bit is this fool Malthouse says to use the non-emergency number to grass-up your neighbours. Which is not only abhorrent, but completely ineffective as the people will have likely gone home by the time PC Plod arrives....

 

[Bletchleyite]

We are now being encouraged to snitch on our neighbours. Welcome to Nazi England !
Coronavirus: 'Rule of six' comes into effect https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54142699

The crazy bit is this fool Malthouse says to use the non-emergency number to grass-up your neighbours. Which is not only abhorrent, but completely ineffective as the people will have likely gone home by the time PC Plod arrives....

Would you say people should not report it if they saw another crime being committed, for instance a car being stolen?

The issue is really whether it should be a crime or not, rather than whether a crime should be reported. There is no point in having crimes which should not be reported; either it's a crime, in which case nobody should be doing it and it should be reported, or it's not a crime.

 

[adc82140]

Meanwhile the chairman of the National Police Chiefs Council says we shouldn't be shopping neighbours

"We will then encourage people to comply," he says.

"Only in circumstances when people refuse to comply we will fine."

There is a fine of £100 for a first offence, doubling on each further offence up to £3,200.

Hewitt says he is "not encouraging anybody to shop their neighbours", but if people are deliberately breaking the law "we would expect members of the public to take responsibility to report that".

But former Supreme Court justice Lord Sumption says the new regulations are "unenforceable", and are "only enforceable with an army of snoopers and informers and that is the kind of thing the police rightfully abhor".

Link

What I can conclude from that is that if your neighbour is hosting an obvious big party you should draw their attention to it, but don't pester them if you think that 7 people may or may not be in the house.

 

[bramling]

Would you say people should not report it if they saw another crime being committed, for instance a car being stolen?

The issue is really whether it should be a crime or not, rather than whether a crime should be reported. There is no point in having crimes which should not be reported; either it's a crime, in which case nobody should be doing it and it should be reported, or it's not a crime.

Rightly or wrongly it’s hardly going to do cohesion much good, is it?

 

[Bantamzen]

Rightly or wrongly it’s hardly going to do cohesion much good, is it?

Not only that, but do we want to run the risk of the services being swamped with people dobbing people in?

 

[TheSel]

That isn't true unless the Government is going to pay to acquire the private tests that are being sold freely. That option is available to them but they are not presently taking it, ergo they are available.

Palpably it IS true. There is a finite number of tests available. Whether they're "paid for" or free at the point of use does not change the number being produced.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Palpably it IS true. There is a finite number of tests available. Whether they're "paid for" or free at the point of use does not change the number being produced.

It does, because the tests available through the Government depend on how many they have decided to procure, not on the total production.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Would you say people should not report it if they saw another crime being committed, for instance a car being stolen?

The issue is really whether it should be a crime or not, rather than whether a crime should be reported. There is no point in having crimes which should not be reported; either it's a crime, in which case nobody should be doing it and it should be reported, or it's not a crime.

That was such a predictable response.
This law is utterly stupid. Gathering in the open air, with 7 people is a crime, but travelling on a tube with 100 others is not? Where is the higher risk of mass transmission?

 

[Smidster]

Would you say people should not report it if they saw another crime being committed, for instance a car being stolen?

The issue is really whether it should be a crime or not, rather than whether a crime should be reported. There is no point in having crimes which should not be reported; either it's a crime, in which case nobody should be doing it and it should be reported, or it's not a crime.

It is for each individual person to make their own personal value and moral judgement about what they think is a level of "crime" which needs reporting.

For a start you absolutely cannot compare someone stealing a car with someone having 7 people in their house as they are not in the same league - A better comparison might be would you report your neighbour if you didn't think they had a TV license or would you run around for a Traffic Warden if you saw a car that had overstayed its parking limit?

Personally I would never look to get involved - We are talking about really minor indiscretions and on a selfish level what is a "good" outcome from your perspective? How can shopping your neighbors to the police for this possibly help your life?

It is just another chance to bring out the absolute worst in people - And I think there are enough bad people out there that we really don't need to be encouraging it.