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

[nedchester]

Johnson is a more consistent liar. However, since Raab said "social distancing or masks" and Johnson said "no social distancing", I know where I'd put my money

I've said it before but the public will decide whether to social distance or wear masks whatever the 'law'.......

I suspect the Government would be well advised to say 'recommended' for masks and social distancing for June 21st

 

[Luke McDonnell]

Do you think mandatory masks will be dropped in most settings on 21st June (and if they do do you think they will still be a requirement on air transport and in healthcare settings (hospitals/care homes etc.) as they are the only places I think may still continue to require them). I am used to wearing them in the required settings but moving to making them advisory rather than mandatory means that it would feel more comfortable on longer train journeys and may encourage more passengers back to public transport as well as helping people who are apprehensive come back into outside society as I think that requiring masks is a constant reminder of the threat of Covid to those who are still worried.

 

[nedchester]

Do you think mandatory masks will be dropped in most settings on 21st June (and if they do do you think they will still be a requirement on air transport and in healthcare settings (hospitals/care homes etc.) as they are the only places I think may still continue to require them). I am used to wearing them in the required settings but moving to making them advisory rather than mandatory means that it would feel more comfortable on longer train journeys and may encourage more passengers back to public transport as well as helping people who are apprehensive come back into outside society as I think that requiring masks is a constant reminder of the threat of Covid to those who are still worried.

Agreed but not sure about care homes because all the residents will have been vaccinated.

 

[trainophile]

Perhaps they will return everything to "guidance" not rules. I can live with that.

 

[Jonny]

Perhaps they will return everything to "guidance" not rules. I can live with that.

... as long as they do not resort to fines (or same-difference criminal FPNs (fixed penalty notices)) to enforce the guidance. As long as there is enough vaccine available for those who want it, and they have had a chance to take it, precautions can be dispensed with altogether.

 

[Cdd89]

My pessimistic prediction, but one I could live with, is that the 21st June will instigate a new roadmap, with some immediate easings, and dates for further easings. If those dates are vaccination led, such as holding off certain minor things until the vaccine has been offered to those in the 18+ age group, I would be (begrudgingly) tolerant of that.

I wouldn't agree with it because even in the under 40s, the risk is incredibly low, and if we're willing to shut down society for tiny risks to the (eg) 18-25 group why not to the 15-18 group and so on. But I can imagine it being an easy political decision that would "make people feel safe" (sigh).

 

[Domh245]

I wouldn't agree with it because even in the under 40s, the risk is incredibly low, and if we're willing to shut down society for tiny risks to the (eg) 18-25 group why not to the 15-18 group and so on. But I can imagine it being an easy political decision that would "make people feel safe" (sigh).

Outside of the JCVI target groups 1-9*, the main benefit of vaccination is the reduced ability to spread it, rather than any particular personal benefit if you caught covid. It isn't about reducing the risk to 18-25 year olds, it'd be more about trying to eliminate as many potential 'sources' of covid as possible, though I think any roadmaps based on vaccination seem incredibly unlikely. I'd personally be expecting that there'll be very little in the way of domestic restrictions after June 21, but I'd expect Test & Trace and the travel quarantine scheme to remain in place at least

*arguably excluding the large number of NHS staff & carers in group 2

 

[island]

Do you think mandatory masks will be dropped in most settings on 21st June (and if they do do you think they will still be a requirement on air transport and in healthcare settings (hospitals/care homes etc.) as they are the only places I think may still continue to require them). I am used to wearing them in the required settings but moving to making them advisory rather than mandatory means that it would feel more comfortable on longer train journeys and may encourage more passengers back to public transport as well as helping people who are apprehensive come back into outside society as I think that requiring masks is a constant reminder of the threat of Covid to those who are still worried.

i don’t know if it’ll be June 21st but I expect that at some point over the summer, face covering legislation will be revoked/allowed to expire in England. At that point my expectations are:

• Businesses where there is local competition such as cafés, pubs, restaurants, bookmakers, hairdressers and most shops will not require face coverings, because any place that requires them will rapidly see money walk out the door and down the road to the competition
• ground public transport whilst not having competition will rapidly revert to no face coverings owing to lack of enforcement
• Banks etc. will stop requiring them for security reasons and because of staff demand
• Businesses with less competition and where enforcement is feasible such as aviation and healthcare will continue to require face coverings for the time being
• Recommendations/guidance/advice will be in place around wearing them when it’s crowded.

 

[bramling]

i don’t know if it’ll be June 21st but I expect that at some point over the summer, face covering legislation will be revoked/allowed to expire in England. At that point my expectations are:

• Businesses where there is local competition such as cafés, pubs, restaurants, bookmakers, hairdressers and most shops will not require face coverings, because any place that requires them will rapidly see money walk out the door and down the road to the competition
• ground public transport whilst not having competition will rapidly revert to no face coverings owing to lack of enforcement
• Banks etc. will stop requiring them for security reasons and because of staff demand
• Businesses with less competition and where enforcement is feasible such as aviation and healthcare will continue to require face coverings for the time being
• Recommendations/guidance/advice will be in place around wearing them when it’s crowded.

I really hope this turns out to be the case. I have to say, I'm a little sceptical however. Whilst I'm sure that a considerable number of people only wear them to keep the peace, for a small but significant subset of the population they've become almost religion - not for any practical reasons, but because they've become a statement of virtue.

Let's hope the majority trump the minority on this.

I have a sneaking suspicion masks on transport, at least, may well last longer - again not for any practical reason, but to allow people to "travel with confidence" (whatever that means). At some point there surely has to be a proper push to get as many people as possible back to their workplaces, and lack of masks will doubtlessly be used by some as a reason why returning to the office is too dangerous for them.

 

[initiation]

The face masks in shops legislation in England expires/up for renewal at the end of July (it was a 12 month initial period).

Although I would really like masks to go, I doubt they will go on June 21st. A more feasible scenario is they roll it on another month to 'assess the data'.

 

[Jonny]

The face masks in shops legislation in England expires/up for renewal at the end of July (it was a 12 month initial period).

Although I would really like masks to go, I doubt they will go on June 21st. A more feasible scenario is they roll it on another month to 'assess the data'.

I think that it is about the 24th July for the main one, maybe sooner for public transport vehicles (if they are still on a different order, it may even expire earlier in June).

====

i don’t know if it’ll be June 21st but I expect that at some point over the summer, face covering legislation will be revoked/allowed to expire in England. At that point my expectations are:

• Businesses where there is local competition such as cafés, pubs, restaurants, bookmakers, hairdressers and most shops will not require face coverings, because any place that requires them will rapidly see money walk out the door and down the road to the competition
• ground public transport whilst not having competition will rapidly revert to no face coverings owing to lack of enforcement
• Banks etc. will stop requiring them for security reasons and because of staff demand
• Businesses with less competition and where enforcement is feasible such as aviation and healthcare will continue to require face coverings for the time being
• Recommendations/guidance/advice will be in place around wearing them when it’s crowded.

It's going to be a bit awkward given that some air journeys are in competition to train journeys, especially on the North/South axis (especially London and the South to various points in Scotland or near the England/Scotland border).

 

[Class 33]

The chopping and changing of the headlines in the press does my head in. One day it's "Face masks to be scrapped on 21st June!" and then a day or so later it's "Face masks may have to remain after 21st June". I hate this.

 

[RomeoCharlie71]

Tomorrow's front page of The Times suggests that hospitality, theatre and cinema venues will be allowed to reopen at full capacity from June 21st, but mask requirements, ventilation, staggered entry and other mitigations must remain in place.


(above image shows the front page of The Times for May 3rd 2021, with the headline "Social distancing to be scrapped", and the subheading of "Pubs, restaurants and theatres can open fully from June 21 but mask rules will remain")

 

[BJames]

If nightclubs reopen on 21st June, masks will not be able to be mandated there. If they try, they will find a lot of people just won't listen. In a club you are constantly drinking, dancing and wearing a mask in a hot environment such as this would be almost impossible really - it would certainly put me and many others off going. Bouncers at some of our bars in town even now were not wearing masks on the door.

Really, June 21st needs to be the end of everything. Guidance is fine (I shall not be wearing a mask after then) but I'm sure there was a promise in that roadmap that "any and all capacity limits will be removed"... this is what needs to happen. All the vulnerable have been vaccinated, many fully vaccinated. We really cannot count cases for the rest of our lives.

 

[brad465]

Tomorrow's front page of The Times suggests that hospitality, theatre and cinema venues will be allowed to reopen at full capacity from June 21st, but mask requirements, ventilation, staggered entry and other mitigations must remain in place.

(above image shows the front page of The Times for May 3rd 2021, with the headline "Social distancing to be scrapped", and the subheading of "Pubs, restaurants and theatres can open fully from June 21 but mask rules will remain")

I can say with confidence I won't be going to any hospitality venues where a mask requirement remains, except maybe pubs and restaurants if they allow one to not wear masks at their own table, but cinemas and theatres definitely not. Besides, how does one enforce that where during performances the lights go out and the audience is all focused on the show/film?

There have been several local/low key news stories revealing how masks encourage/help shoplifting, so I would imagine many small shops and other businesses in general would like to see the back of mandates ASAP.

 

[Jonny]

The chopping and changing of the headlines in the press does my head in. One day it's "Face masks to be scrapped on 21st June!" and then a day or so later it's "Face masks may have to remain after 21st June". I hate this.

I'm not saying that it's gaslighting (in the proverbial sense) but I would say that if - and that is very much an if - someone was gaslighting the public, that is exactly what someone would do.

 

[kez19]

I can say with confidence I won't be going to any hospitality venues where a mask requirement remains, except maybe pubs and restaurants if they allow one to not wear masks at their own table, but cinemas and theatres definitely not. Besides, how does one enforce that where during performances the lights go out and the audience is all focused on the show/film?

There have been several local/low key news stories revealing how masks encourage/help shoplifting, so I would imagine many small shops and other businesses in general would like to see the back of mandates ASAP.

For the shoplifting side of things, you couldn’t tell me the governments didn’t see this coming when introduced? Very short sighted on that one!

 

[brad465]

Looks like one element of the roadmap is changing to take place earlier than planned, in the form of scrapping guest limits at funerals being moved forward to the 17th May:

Covid-19: Limit on mourners in England lifted from 17 May

The government is preparing to remove the 30-person legal limit a month earlier than planned.

www.bbc.co.uk

Families and friends will be able to mourn their loved ones in unlimited numbers at funerals in England from 17 May, under new plans.

As part of the next step in easing restrictions, the government is preparing to remove the 30-person legal limit a month earlier than planned.

This means any number of mourners will be able to gather so long as they can safely socially distance in the venue.

Weddings will be limited to 30 from 17 May, and an unlimited number from June.

The limit for weddings in England is currently 15 people.

During the pandemic, many have been forced to watch funerals from home over live-streams, making grieving harder. And those able to attend have had to do without handshakes and hugs.

Communities Secretary Robert Jenrick said people have made "huge sacrifices", nowhere more apparent than in the "deeply painful" restrictions on funerals.

I do wonder if, as great as bringing this forward is, this breaks purdah?

 

[kez19]

The chopping and changing of the headlines in the press does my head in. One day it's "Face masks to be scrapped on 21st June!" and then a day or so later it's "Face masks may have to remain after 21st June". I hate this.

Just opinion here, this is why I find the whole media perspective is like a circus, they’ll back for things but when opinion changes they start batting the other side (of course the likes of BBC/Sky are slow but would rather stay put), I noticed this recently in the Daily Express last week demanding freedoms back, but since these lockdowns readers letters say differently (back governments), unless the likes of the Express are seeing some impact hence the change? (no expert either but it does make me wonder)

 

[brad465]

Just opinion here, this is why I find the whole media perspective is like a circus, they’ll back for things but when opinion changes they start batting the other side (of course the likes of BBC/Sky are slow but would rather stay put), I noticed this recently in the Daily Express last week demanding freedoms back, but since these lockdowns readers letters say differently (back governments), unless the likes of the Express are seeing some impact hence the change? (no expert either but it does make me wonder)

The Daily Mail is one of the strongest examples of this of late: not too long ago they had a succession of anti-restriction headlines, but recently (away from front pages criticising Johnson's flat makeover), they've been running a Covid victim memorial campaign.

 

[kez19]

The Daily Mail is one of the strongest examples of this of late: not too long ago they had a succession of anti-restriction headlines, but recently (away from front pages criticising Johnson's flat makeover), they've been running a Covid victim memorial campaign.

Still strikes me as strange, in one sense they championed it to then suddenly go against it? Either it’s people’s opinion changing it or on the other challenging the likes of BBC/Sky etc to see the alternative or look differently but it’s clear they ain’t budging or taking on difference of opinion

 

[duncanp]

If nightclubs reopen on 21st June, masks will not be able to be mandated there. If they try, they will find a lot of people just won't listen. In a club you are constantly drinking, dancing and wearing a mask in a hot environment such as this would be almost impossible really - it would certainly put me and many others off going. Bouncers at some of our bars in town even now were not wearing masks on the door.

Really, June 21st needs to be the end of everything. Guidance is fine (I shall not be wearing a mask after then) but I'm sure there was a promise in that roadmap that "any and all capacity limits will be removed"... this is what needs to happen. All the vulnerable have been vaccinated, many fully vaccinated. We really cannot count cases for the rest of our lives.

I think there is very little point in enforcing thw wearing of masks in the pub once social distancing rules are scrapped.

You would have the situation where you are allowed to sit or stand near (less than 1 metre) to someone whilst you are having a drink, but as soon as you get up to go to the bar or the toilet you are supposed to put a mask on.

What on earth is the point with such a rule?

When pubs reopen indoors on 17th May, perhaps there should be a trial, whereby some pubs have no social distancing and masks, just to see whether this increases the risk of transmission.

I don't think there would be any shortage of volunteers willing to take part in such a trial, me included

Any measures that do remain in place after June 21st must have a definite end date, or objective criteria that can reasonably be met in the next few months before the restriction is removed. (eg, no more masks in the pub after all adults have been offered a first dose of the vaccine - at the end of July)

What we don't want is an open ended law that says, for example, masks must be worn on public transport, and there is no specified end date or criteria that needs to be met before the law is abolished.

 

[DustyBin]

I think there is very little point in enforcing thw wearing of masks in the pub once social distancing rules are scrapped.

You would have the situation where you are allowed to sit or stand near (less than 1 metre) to someone whilst you are having a drink, but as soon as you get up to go to the bar or the toilet you are supposed to put a mask on.

What on earth is the point with such a rule?

There’s no point whatsoever. It’s a nightmare for the staff to enforce and generally detracts from the enjoyment of visiting these establishments. We know now though that they love to victimise and scapegoat hospitality do this is simply a continuation of that policy. I honestly think they’re being vindictive, partly for puritanical reasons and partly because the industry dared to challenge them.

 

[westv]

Isn't distancing far more effective than masks?

 

[island]

I can say with confidence I won't be going to any hospitality venues where a mask requirement remains, except maybe pubs and restaurants if they allow one to not wear masks at their own table, but cinemas and theatres definitely not. Besides, how does one enforce that where during performances the lights go out and the audience is all focused on the show/film?

Indeed. My local cinema (a Vue) during the few months last year they were open with face covering rules in place had signage up to the effect that they need only be worn until one had sat down. That is less intolerable than the legal position.

The problem is that the general public sees face coverings as a very small imposition and more acceptable than capacity limits and distancing rules, even though the latter are considerably more effective.

 

[duncanp]

I honestly think they’re being vindictive, partly for puritanical reasons and partly because the industry dared to challenge them.

I do think there is an element of spite in the government's policy.

This is them getting their own back after that court case challenging them as to what hospitality couldn't open indoors on April 12th.

However, if the data that gig in Liverpool this weekend, where there were several thousand people with no masks or social distancing, shows that there is little or no risk of COVID spreading at events like music festivals and football matches, then it is going to be a bit difficult to try and justify why Joe Bloggs has to wear a mask to go to the toilet at the Dog & Duck on a wet Wednesday afternoon when there are only a handful of people present.

Either the rule will be widely ignored, or there will be another court case challenging the government to justify this restriction, or both hopefully.

But I do think there is an element of the government leaking various proposals to the papers just to see what the reaction is at the moment.

 

[yorkie]

Isn't distancing far more effective than masks?

There is no evidence mask mandates are effective at all; if they are effective to any extent, it must be very minimal.

 

[DustyBin]

There is no evidence mask mandates are effective at all; if they are effective to any extent, it must be very minimal.

Having read the (conflicting) expert opinions, and looked at the actual evidence, I have concluded they work in much the same way as a handkerchief or tissue. However, as apparently we can’t be trusted to use a handkerchief or tissue, and because masks are a highly visible ‘abnormal’, the government decided to muzzle us instead. Its another example of the ‘blunt instrument’ approach so beloved by the government and their advisors.

Of course, for masks to be effective they need to be of the correct type and correctly used; that’s a bit of an issue based on my experience and observations!

 

[Cdd89]

Isn't distancing far more effective than masks?

Masks are less harmful to the economy and easier to live with than distancing, if the general orthodoxy is to be believed. (In any case, distancing has broken down already; this is just a change to reflect the obvious reality).

On the plus side, once distancing is officially gone, people will really start to question why masks are so incredibly important if we’re all allowed to get within inches of each other. I am optimistic that, for that reason, they won’t be far behind.

 

[Yew]

Having read the (conflicting) expert opinions, and looked at the actual evidence, I have concluded they work in much the same way as a handkerchief or tissue. However, as apparently we can’t be trusted to use a handkerchief or tissue, and because masks are a highly visible ‘abnormal’, the government decided to muzzle us instead. Its another example of the ‘blunt instrument’ approach so beloved by the government and their advisors.

Of course, for masks to be effective they need to be of the correct type and correctly used; that’s a bit of an issue based on my experience and observations!

Indeed the companion of masks-vs-nothing is disngenuous at best