Reduction in social gatherings.

[talldave]

This guidance from a BBC news article confirms that protests are exempt from the rule of six:

Covid: What are the social distancing rules?

Scotland and Wales are relaxing some of their restrictions around gatherings and mixing with others.

www.bbc.co.uk

I can totally understand the reasoning behind not wanting to ban protests completely, particularly with Brexit and BLM to add to the mix. Also good to hear that youth clubs and support groups can still function as normal. These must be more important than ever with the massive toll on people’s mental health this pandemic is having. Had no idea these were exempt until today funnily enough.

So why the £10k fines at the last Trafalgar Square protests?

 

[NorthOxonian]

Some of the Left Wing commentators seem rather up in arms that normal people aren't allowed to meet, but fox hunting and grouse shooting are allowed in groups of up to 30.

I'm way to the right of the centre and I'm up in arms about that - it really sends the wrong message. After all, those activities are no more or less likely to transmit the disease than any other outdoor gathering!

 

[MikeWM]

Some of the Left Wing commentators seem rather up in arms that normal people aren't allowed to meet, but fox hunting and grouse shooting are allowed in groups of up to 30.

Would be good if something about all this finally annoyed them!

If I'm reading them correctly the new regulations appear to be deficient in terms of describing whether religious services other than 'life events' are allowed more than 6 people - eg. Sunday Mass. Quite an omission

 

[stevetay3]

Just seen police on tv news breaking up a group of toddlers in a park, the fact thay attend the same nursery made no difference. Just as well this country has no real crime.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

So why the £10k fines at the last Trafalgar Square protests?

Well, there is another one planned for midday this Saturday, 19th September, so - presumably - we will see a police presence....

 

[stevetay3]

The whole of the met most likel.

 

[Meerkat]

I'm assuming that you're saying that the actions they took were 'effective' because they were done when the virus had spread less there than here. Presumably you therefore think the virus spread less in Sweden than here in March/April (unless you mean the actions they took reduced the severity of the disease, and I assume you don't mean that).

So now, the virus should be spreading more in Sweden than the UK, because Sweden would have less immunity. But that's not what we're seeing at all.

But if I'm misrepresenting your argument, my apologies.

I think one theory is that we suffered due to a high level of international travel meaning that at the point it was taken seriously the UK was already riddled with Covid - ie there were far more individual outbreaks than Sweden had, which makes the lower level of restrictions less effective, and suppression far harder. I don’t know whether the right data even exists to confirm/deny that theory.

 

[DelayRepay]

Talking to a few people today, I think we have reached the point where the rules will simply be ignored. I am not commenting on the validity of the rule of six, but want to give two examples:

My mum, a pensioner who has never broken the law in her life, says she will have six guests (so 7 people including her) for Christmas lunch, regardless of what the law says

My boss, again someone who as far as I know is completely law abiding (and challenges people who drop litter) is trying to suggest ways of 'gaming' the rules so that we can celebrate a colleague's retirement with eight people. Current ideas include a game of cricket (since sport is allowed, although we would have to find a cricket bat from somewhere as none of us has played for years), two picnics of four people that happen to take place in the same park at the same time, or a celebration at the boss's house where she will hire two of us as caterers/waiters so we are classed as 'working'.

I know two is a small sample, but I've only spoken to three people today! The point is that if normal, law abiding middle aged/pension aged people are looking for ways around the rules, the rules will not succeed.

 

[Smidster]

Some of the Left Wing commentators seem rather up in arms that normal people aren't allowed to meet, but fox hunting and grouse shooting are allowed in groups of up to 30.

I don't think it is a "left v right" thing but an issue of the rules not applying equally

We have a situation where a 7 year old can't have a birthday party with his classmates but it is fine for a group of middle aged white men to dress up and shoot some birds.

That really does not sound at all equitable and undermines the whole thing - we are in this together but some of us are in it more than others.

I am also not convinced in the policy in general - it is going to do further economic and social damage and for what? Let's not forget that quite a few of the areas that are the "hotspots" are those where a "rule of none" has applied for a month

 

[island]

I somehow doubt the police will be going around people's houses if they have 7 people at a BBQ. Around here they don't come out if there are reports of theft or criminal damage.

I would suggest you browse the Greater Manchester Police Twitter feed – there, where local lockdown was in effect, they have indeed being going round people’s houses for that class of thing.

This guidance from a BBC news article confirms that protests are exempt from the rule of six:

So why the £10k fines at the last Trafalgar Square protests?

Protests are exempt from the rules on large gatherings if organised by a formal body including but not limited to a charity or business, but they must have a risk assessment (and show it to police if asked) and abide by any relevance government guidance.

Events arranged by individuals or groups of individuals, or lacking a risk assessment, are liable to violate the law.

 

[Meerkat]

Talking to a few people today, I think we have reached the point where the rules will simply be ignored. I am not commenting on the validity of the rule of six, but want to give two examples:

My mum, a pensioner who has never broken the law in her life, says she will have six guests (so 7 people including her) for Christmas lunch, regardless of what the law says

My boss, again someone who as far as I know is completely law abiding (and challenges people who drop litter) is trying to suggest ways of 'gaming' the rules so that we can celebrate a colleague's retirement with eight people. Current ideas include a game of cricket (since sport is allowed, although we would have to find a cricket bat from somewhere as none of us has played for years), two picnics of four people that happen to take place in the same park at the same time, or a celebration at the boss's house where she will hire two of us as caterers/waiters so we are classed as 'working'.

I know two is a small sample, but I've only spoken to three people today! The point is that if normal, law abiding middle aged/pension aged people are looking for ways around the rules, the rules will not succeed.

You have given two examples where the rules will be broken by a very small amount and reckon that means the rules are pointless.
Its a bit like saying the 30 limit on a road is pointless because a few people did 34mph.
if most people follow the rules most of the time and/or don’t break it by much then that will have a positive effect on reducing transmission rates.

 

[AdamWW]

I think one theory is that we suffered due to a high level of international travel meaning that at the point it was taken seriously the UK was already riddled with Covid - ie there were far more individual outbreaks than Sweden had, which makes the lower level of restrictions less effective, and suppression far harder. I don’t know whether the right data even exists to confirm/deny that theory.

Well I was thinking about that. It does seem that we ended up with a large number of infections arriving over a short period which will of course mess up any calculations/models which are just based on transmission within the country.

However I think I read that much the same happened in Sweden.

So I don't know.

In any case we are where we are.

But Sweden seems to be holding infections roughly constant without limiting people to 6 in a house.

It would be very useful to know why what seems to work there doesn't seem to work here.

 

[DelayRepay]

You have given two examples where the rules will be broken by a very small amount and reckon that means the rules are pointless.
Its a bit like saying the 30 limit on a road is pointless because a few people did 34mph.
if most people follow the rules most of the time and/or don’t break it by much then that will have a positive effect on reducing transmission rates.

I acknowledged that my comment was based on a sample of two. I didn't intend for my comment to imply that I think the rules are pointless - I think restrictions are sensible. I am curious as to why the rule is six rather than eight or ten, but I accept there needs to be a rule and personally I will comply (although it is rare for me to meet more than six people at once, and the events where I would do so are currently cancelled or online).

My point was more about enforcement. People considering breaking the rules are not your typical law breakers, they are fine upstanding citizens who would normally never dream of breaking the law. Yet they were both openly stating that they would ignore this law. If, and it's a big if, that's reflective of the wider population, then the police have a hell of a job on their hands and simply won't be able to enforce it. That then promotes further law breaking because if people see others doing it without consequence, they are more likely to think 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'.

 

[Meerkat]

I acknowledged that my comment was based on a sample of two. I didn't intend for my comment to imply that I think the rules are pointless - I think restrictions are sensible. I am curious as to why the rule is six rather than eight or ten, but I accept there needs to be a rule and personally I will comply (although it is rare for me to meet more than six people at once, and the events where I would do so are currently cancelled or online).

My point was more about enforcement. People considering breaking the rules are not your typical law breakers, they are fine upstanding citizens who would normally never dream of breaking the law. Yet they were both openly stating that they would ignore this law. If, and it's a big if, that's reflective of the wider population, then the police have a hell of a job on their hands and simply won't be able to enforce it. That then promotes further law breaking because if people see others doing it without consequence, they are more likely to think 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'.

Six is probably the minimum they could get away with and still allow visitors. Make it 8 and people will flex it to 10 etc etc.
They are very unlikely to enforce 7 or 8. The fact that your examples are making a fuss about breaking it so slightly shows it is having an effect. They are only flexing the law, not organising a rave.

 

[Reliablebeam]

I think one theory is that we suffered due to a high level of international travel meaning that at the point it was taken seriously the UK was already riddled with Covid - ie there were far more individual outbreaks than Sweden had, which makes the lower level of restrictions less effective, and suppression far harder. I don’t know whether the right data even exists to confirm/deny that theory.

Interestingly, it was explained to me by Swedish collaborators that although Stockholm Arlanda isn't a big international transit hub in the way Heathrow is, they did have a lot of problems with their middle classes bringing back The Rona from their skiing holidays in Italy, apparently a very popular winter pastime over there. It would be interesting to know whether their Danish neighbours had the same problem.

The Swedes do seem to have hit some kind of social distancing sweet spot that has buy in from their population and is covid-secure...

 

[stevetay3]

You have given two examples where the rules will be broken by a very small amount and reckon that means the rules are pointless.
Its a bit like saying the 30 limit on a road is pointless because a few people did 34mph.
if most people follow the rules most of the time and/or don’t break it by much then that will have a positive effect on reducing transmission rates.

And how many get fined for 34MPH

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Six is probably the minimum they could get away with and still allow visitors. Make it 8 and people will flex it to 10 etc etc.
They are very unlikely to enforce 7 or 8. The fact that your examples are making a fuss about breaking it so slightly shows it is having an effect. They are only flexing the law, not organising a rave.

It has been suggested that the limit of 6 was chosen by Boris Johnson for fear he might have to meet all of his children!
But more seriously, some of the comments under the article in The Telegraph last week were very telling. One that stood out for me was ‘This government have turned me from a mild mannered, middle class, middle aged family man to someone who would happily now start a riot’

 

[mmh]

You have given two examples where the rules will be broken by a very small amount and reckon that means the rules are pointless.
Its a bit like saying the 30 limit on a road is pointless because a few people did 34mph.
if most people follow the rules most of the time and/or don’t break it by much then that will have a positive effect on reducing transmission rates.

But you clearly know what happens in the real world else you would have said 31mph not 34mph.

 

[Bikeman78]

Wrong, it’s on you to prove that the enormous drop in cases/deaths/hospitalisations wasn’t due to lockdown.
i won’t accept Sweden because it is one, very small, outlier.
If one friend touches the third rail and survives with almost no effect do you decide that touching the third rail is safe for everybody?

I've been to Stockholm. It seemed very similar to UK cities. Lots of pedestrians, pubs, cafes, restaurants, cars, buses etc. Difficult to see how the virus would behave any differently in Stockholm compared with Birmingham.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So why the £10k fines at the last Trafalgar Square protests?

Because it wasn't exempt from the previous "rule of 30" - rather than changing 30 to 6 as some expected, they've totally rewritten it, and there are a lot of exemptions, rather more than Boris suggested.

 

[yorkie]

I am also not convinced in the policy in general - it is going to do further economic and social damage and for what?

Quite! The problem is that those of us who look at the bigger picture are not listened to; the hysterical brigade of authoritarians are very vocal, so are listened to.

....urrent ideas include a game of cricket (since sport is allowed, although we would have to find a cricket bat from somewhere as none of us has played for years)....

Technically it is supposed to be an "organised" game.

I play organised games of recreational football, which is OK. I am looking to organise more (in the unlikely event anyone in the York area is reading this and interested, drop me a message!)

 

[talldave]

But Sweden seems to be holding infections roughly constant without limiting people to 6 in a house.

It would be very useful to know why what seems to work there doesn't seem to work here.

They didn't mandate masks, leading to a total breakdown of antisocial distancing.

 

[AdamWW]

They didn't mandate masks, leading to a total breakdown of antisocial distancing.

If it's as simple as that, Wales would have followed Sweden's trajectory up to yesterday.

 

[talldave]

If it's as simple as that, Wales would have followed Sweden's trajectory up to yesterday.

Wales had a lockdown, Sweden didn't. So you can't compare the two.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

Because it wasn't exempt from the previous "rule of 30" - rather than changing 30 to 6 as some expected, they've totally rewritten it, and there are a lot of exemptions, rather more than Boris suggested.

Organisers of a similar gathering taking place at the same time, nearby, did not get fined., despite numbers being small but certainly over 30.
So it would seem that only Particular Protests Matter when it comes to enforcing the law

 

[Meerkat]

Quite! The problem is that those of us who look at the bigger picture are not listened to; the hysterical brigade of authoritarians are very vocal, so are listened to.

Who are this mythical brigade of authoritarians? It certainly isn’t a Tory government run by a libertarian and with a pack of wailing anti-restrictions MPs howling at them!

 

[bramling]

Who are this mythical brigade of authoritarians? It certainly isn’t a Tory government run by a libertarian and with a pack of wailing anti-restrictions MPs howling at them!

I don’t think they’re authoritarian, however I’m certainly getting a feeling that having run up a bill stretching into the hundreds of billions it is politically difficult to retreat, especially having scared elements of the population senseless in the process.

Likewise Boris knows the first part of the year was a mess. Ironically people would likely forgive that to at least some extent on the basis that it was a novel situation, if only some humility was shown, but that doesn’t seem to be in Boris’s nature.

Then there’s a subset of the population who don’t mind this at all. They can work at home, go to the beach whenever the weather is fine, afford a nice holiday cottage for their summer break, enjoy a spot of discount dining over August, what’s not to like?

 

[Scrotnig]

a Tory government run by a libertarian

Is this the same 'libertarian' who ordered not one, not two, but THREE water cannons expressly to use against his own citizens?

 

[stevetay3]

Probably be something much worse soon by the way we are going, troops in jackboots maybe.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

I wonder if the number "6" comes from H.R 6666 from across the pond...

Text - H.R.6666 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): COVID–19 Testing, Reaching, And Contacting Everyone (TRACE) Act

Text for H.R.6666 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): COVID–19 Testing, Reaching, And Contacting Everyone (TRACE) Act

www.congress.gov

To authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to award grants to eligible entities to conduct diagnostic testing for COVID–19, and related activities such as contact tracing, through mobile health units and, as necessary, at individuals’ residences, and for other purposes.

Really for one of the other threads though...