Are off-licences to close ?

mattyprice4004

Our local off license sells basic food items, it's also the only shop in quite a radius to do so.

Shutting it would mean a fair few people have to travel for their food and thus have to mingle with more people - the opposite of what needs to happen in a pandemic.

booneruk

MattMattMattUK said:

Barny1979 said:

Who knows what the tipping point of the NHS will be?

Around late January if the data is anything to go by and the new lockdown does not reduce the reproduction rate below 1.0 almost immediately, although by many measures it has already tipped. With non-essential treatments already being cancelled and cancer treatments and heart operations already being cancelled the prediction is that deaths from those diseases will rise significantly over the next few years.

Interestingly the data shows that the entire hospitality sector combined with the entire retail sector when open was responsible for around 4% of transmission, sports stadiums were responsible for zero cases, total cases from gyms were estimated at being at most a few hundred, where as educational settings are responsible for around 38% of transmission, with an additional 20% of transmission being in the home by someone that they lived with, from people who were infected in educational settings. 

*Note that it is not the principle of closing or not closing retail that I disagree with in relation to off licenses and places of communal worship, it is the contradiction of the exceptions, either allow essential places with low transmission to open, or do not, but it can not be argued that off-licenses and places of communal worship are essential, especially when pubs and restaurants are banned from selling takeaway alcohol and sports stadia are closed.

Interesting. How do you think they gained certainty that 20% of home transmissions were down to educational settings rather than, say, the supermarket?

MattMattMattUK

booneruk said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Barny1979 said:

Who knows what the tipping point of the NHS will be?

Around late January if the data is anything to go by and the new lockdown does not reduce the reproduction rate below 1.0 almost immediately, although by many measures it has already tipped. With non-essential treatments already being cancelled and cancer treatments and heart operations already being cancelled the prediction is that deaths from those diseases will rise significantly over the next few years.

Interestingly the data shows that the entire hospitality sector combined with the entire retail sector when open was responsible for around 4% of transmission, sports stadiums were responsible for zero cases, total cases from gyms were estimated at being at most a few hundred, where as educational settings are responsible for around 38% of transmission, with an additional 20% of transmission being in the home by someone that they lived with, from people who were infected in educational settings. 

*Note that it is not the principle of closing or not closing retail that I disagree with in relation to off licenses and places of communal worship, it is the contradiction of the exceptions, either allow essential places with low transmission to open, or do not, but it can not be argued that off-licenses and places of communal worship are essential, especially when pubs and restaurants are banned from selling takeaway alcohol and sports stadia are closed.

Interesting. How do you think they gained certainty that 20% of home transmissions were down to educational settings rather than, say, the supermarket?

Probably because there was a positive in the child's year group, then the child, then the child's siblings and parents at home. For quite a few households the only source of infection was their children, either through following very strict procedures when going out themselves, or in the cases of some not going out apart from taking their children to and from school. Whilst the methodology can never trace the source with 100% accuracy, they can be accurate enough to show solid trends. 

Grumpy_chap

The rules now seem to be slightly looser than the rules in March.
Partly, the rules are genuinely more open in some places, e.g. children's play areas, religious venues.
Partly, the rules are now better understood so places that initially closed in March will now stay open, e.g. take-aways, construction sites.
I wonder whether there will be a further tightening of rules in a couple of weeks to bring reality back much closer to what it was in March?  Both directly, control of spread of COVID but also, as managing NHS capacity is a factor, removing 'high-risk' activities that can impose a burden on emergency care might also become a consideration.

MattMattMattUK

Grumpy_chap said:

I wonder whether there will be a further tightening of rules in a couple of weeks to bring reality back much closer to what it was in March? 

I think all the high-risk areas of transmission are covered by the rules, the issue however is compliance, after schools, the next highest area of transmission between households was between different households, mixing indoors, against the rules. Unless there is a rise in compliance and enforcement then that will continue to spread the virus between households (within a household is very difficult to stop). With the current rules, if compliance was at 100%, when accounting for incomplete efficacy the transmission rate between households should be reduced by more than 99%. The theoretical maximum effective rate for lockdown 1 should have brought R to around 0.03-0.06, based on 100% compliance, but not all measures being fully effective. The issue is that many people are not compliant in multiple ways as well as ignoring even the basics (mixing between multiple households, in people's homes on a regular basis, failing to hand wash, failing to wear masks where required etc. 

I am not a fan of the restrictions, I have had enough of them, but I am still compliant. In many ways I would favour an almost complete lockdown, say three weeks of not being allowed to leave your house unless you work in extremely essential services and by that I mean healthcare, social care, water and power supplies etc., with everyone told to stock up with a months food before being locked down, reduce the R to pretty much zero and then let us get back to normal afterwards. 

Barny1979

MattMattMattUK said:

with everyone told to stock up with a months food before being locked down, reduce the R to pretty much zero and then let us get back to normal afterwards. 

Can't wait for the civil unrest in the supermarkets when two people fight over a packet of crisps.

MattMattMattUK

Barny1979 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

with everyone told to stock up with a months food before being locked down, reduce the R to pretty much zero and then let us get back to normal afterwards. 

Can't wait for the civil unrest in the supermarkets when two people fight over a packet of crisps.

Well we need some form of entertainment.

jimi_man

MattMattMattUK said:

Grumpy_chap said:

I wonder whether there will be a further tightening of rules in a couple of weeks to bring reality back much closer to what it was in March? 

I am not a fan of the restrictions, I have had enough of them, but I am still compliant. In many ways I would favour an almost complete lockdown, say three weeks of not being allowed to leave your house unless you work in extremely essential services and by that I mean healthcare, social care, water and power supplies etc., with everyone told to stock up with a months food before being locked down, reduce the R to pretty much zero and then let us get back to normal afterwards. 

There was someone on here a few weeks back who suggested something similar, unfortunately it's just not practical. A lot of people do not have the ability (in terms of storage, money to purchase them etc etc) to be able to stock up for a month. Also there are an awful lot more people required to run the country than you might think - as well as those above you've listed, you have to allow for transport (so they can get around), pharmacies, rubbish collections, delivery services .... the list is endless. Also three weeks just isn't enough, taking into account incubation, getting over the illness, passing it to your household members one by one - you are potentially lookig at three months or more. Lockdowns are just not as effective as people seem to think. Like you I'm not a fan though I adhere to them since that's what living in a democracy is all about. 

Andy_L

MattMattMattUK said:

It means that pubs and restaurants can no longer sell alcohol, even for takeaway.

It does seem ridiculous that off-licenses are allowed to stay home, the same with places of worship. Either we are trying to contain the virus with a proper lockdown, or we are pandering to alcoholic worshipers. The transmission risk for 2,000 at a football or rugby ground, standing outside, masked and socially distanced is considerably lower than the risk of transmission in an off-license, church or mosque. I fully agree with the need to reduce transmission and that necessitating a national lockdown, however the exceptions applied to restrictions do largely seem to be irrational and pandering to specific groups. 

IIRC from the previous lockdown there was a problem in that some small shops were registered as "shops" but had a licence to sell booze as well and could stay open but other small shops, that sold the same stuff, were registered as "off-licences" but sold loads of other stuff as well but had to shut 

Morrigan_2020

MattMattMattUK said:

Barny1979 said:

Who knows what the tipping point of the NHS will be?

but it can not be argued that off-licenses and places of communal worship are essential, especially when pubs and restaurants are banned from selling takeaway alcohol and sports stadia are closed.

Off license are usually convenience stores these days, selling lots of other items too, and for lots of people the only ship within walking distance is an off licence, so I would class them as essential.  Agree with you on places of worship though, should only be allowed to open for funerals and 'emergency' weddings.