Further Lockdown Rules (Now In Law) To Start Nation-Wide

[bednobs]

By nation I mean England. Further lockdown rules meaning gatherings of 》6 people to be banned inside or outside from Monday. My first thought was how can they give a weeks notice for this but so little notice for quarantine?

[Old_Geezer]

They can't police large gatherings. How are they likely to fair with small ones ? They make this nonsense up as they go along. Detected cases are bound to rise. They need to stop panicking and expecting to shield everyone.

[bednobs]

I would be interested to know how the police feel about it

[Mamyalynne]

I should think the Police are dreading it again.

[bednobs]

Although they do have powers now

[Cloverjo]

The police won’t do anything. Even if the new rule was sensible. Which it obviously isn’t. How did we get this useless government?

[jno]

yes, I'm agnostic on the usefulness and enforceability of banning big or small groups, but I do think reasonable notice of it should be given. The ultimatum to get back from France in a day and a half or go into quarantine and have your kids miss school was just inept. It would be nice to think they were actually learning from experience, but I'm not confident.

[THECORBYLOON]

If too much notice is given to those on holiday, would that not

a) Encourage more who might be infected to rush home in time to avoid the quarantine?

b) Allow time for more folk to become infected prior to returning home?

[jno]

it would, TCL. If there were sudden imminent danger, like an overnight doubling of the R number, or a nuclear plant leak or something of the sort, then the government would be justified in telling everyone to come home at once. But as far as I can see, the "science" they were following was just a small, incremental rise in infections: the recall didn't make the country significantly safer, it just ticked a box that said a given R rate was intolerable.

I do appreciate that there have to be cut-off points sometimes, that what's legal at 23:59 may become illegal a minute later. But the government could always have given more warning by announcing the recall an extra day or two in advance (and telling people still at home to stay there and cancel next week's holiday). The suddenness of the recall seemed to cause unnecessary chaos.

[jim360]

I'm sure plenty of people will break the law in a very specific and limited way, which won't be a problem.

[fiction-factory]

It's more of a signal /nudge with some backing in law. The law takes a few days to enact. The idea is that the majority of people will comply because they want to keep safe, keep others safe and/or to be seen to be complying. The law is there to deal with those who repeatedly do not comply despite warnings/reminders or who blatantly don't comply- e.g. hold a huge house party or barbecue for 30. The police hopefully should not need to get involved but police and councils should have the power to do something for blatant breaches, especially in areas with other restrictions such as Bolton, Glasgow, Bradford. Some will bend the rules- maybe have 8 or 9- but I don't think that is seen as something the police will normally get involved in.
For quarantine England wanted to give more notice but SCotland insisted it be made more immediate so England followed suit. The who quarantine issue is an unnecessary mess to me and I hope it gets slowly dropped. So criticism should be levelled at our devolved governments too.
Behind all this though there is a genuine worry that a big spike in hospital cases and then deaths are coming our way soon- just as is happening now in places like France and Spain now following similar spikes in infections (mainly among younger people) a month or so ago

[fiction-factory]

For quarantine the measures are announced as having almost immediate effect, otherwise you get travel chaos and you get people in a resort with high rates saying- "why is it okay to come back next Thursday but not Friday if a resort has high rates".
Anyone booking holidays abroad in the last month or so must know by now there is a real risk they may have to quarantine on their return. It should be factored in to any decisions about whether to go abroad or not.

[david small]

I was about to provide a buffet at my sons house for a wake. His wife’s relatives were meeting after the funeral.
About 12 people on the 29th September. I assume this has now got to be cancelled. I know there exemptions for a funeral, but for a wake? Opinions please.

[fiction-factory]

Do two groups of 6? I don't think a wake counts as a funeral.
I doubt the police will be interested. But you may find some don't want to attend now. If you do go ahead despite the rule you might want to do a risk assessment and put in place measures similar to that a pub would do (spaced out tables, social distancing, hand gels) - or you could hold it at the pub instead.

[youngmafbog]

Makes a mockery of 'Get back to Work (place)' then doesn't it.

Useless fat slob and his smirking sidekick need to go.

[fiction-factory]

Not really, youngmafbog. Getting back to work has economic benefits in teh risk/benefit assessment is thought to be worthwhile. I'm sure you wouldn't want pubs, hotels, restaurants and gyms closing or train services going out of business. Should we also close schools again and close down universities?
We need to restrict interactions somewhere and this one (stopping house gatherings) has least impact on the economy. An the public heath 'experts' do say most infections are incurring within people's homes rather than in pubs, workplaces, shops- although how they know that I've no idea.

[dannyk13]

YMB, the 6 rule limit applies to social gatherings not places of work.

[fiction-factory]

>Useless fat slob and his smirking sidekick need to go.

Maybe, they are certainly not inspiring confidence but I doubt that would make any difference. You'd have to get rid of Nicola and the Welsh/NI ones too. Keir wouldn't do much differently and I don't see any Tories with a different view either. We are doing what every major country is doing so maybe they are all wrong?

[aelmpvw]

seems bizarre to me that you can commute to work with thousands of strangers but you can't have six friends round for drinks

[youngmafbog]

"YMB, the 6 rule limit applies to social gatherings not places of work."

Oh, that's OK then we have a very clever virus that recognises the economy needs to get straight and will allow us to mix with loads of strangers. But the minute we go for a pint with people we know BANG it hits.

[fiction-factory]

Will you require all friends to sit 1 metre apart and not touch, and wear a mask?
And one is deemed essential to keep the economy going, the other isn't.
There will always be apparent contradictions (can sit in pub or in work with 10 people but not have 10 friends in your house) but it doesn't mean we should have no restrictions or completely shut down