Are off-licences to close ?

Barny1979

mattyprice4004 said:

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 

Pringles, nuts and pork scratchings?

[Deleted User]

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 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. 

Who’s paying? I couldn’t afford a months supply in one go. 

[Deleted User]

Barny1979 said:

mattyprice4004 said:

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 

Pringles, nuts and pork scratchings?

Bread, rice, pasta, tinned food, frozen food, milk, condiments, etc. 

Barny1979

MarkN88 said:

Barny1979 said:

mattyprice4004 said:

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 

Pringles, nuts and pork scratchings?

Bread, rice, pasta, tinned food, frozen food, milk, condiments, etc. 

Whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh

Morrigan_2020

Barny1979 said:

MarkN88 said:

Barny1979 said:

mattyprice4004 said:

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 

Pringles, nuts and pork scratchings?

Bread, rice, pasta, tinned food, frozen food, milk, condiments, etc. 

Whoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh

Oh, that was a joke?  

Grumpy_chap

Morrigan_2020 said:

places of worship though, should only be allowed to open for funerals and 'emergency' weddings. 

If I recall correctly, places of worship were closed in the March lockdown.  Not sure why that would be different now.

Morrigan_2020

Grumpy_chap said:

Morrigan_2020 said:

places of worship though, should only be allowed to open for funerals and 'emergency' weddings. 

If I recall correctly, places of worship were closed in the March lockdown.  Not sure why that would be different now.

It caused some issues, people with terminal diagnoses couldn't get married to secure their partner's status/financial support etc.  I think they were always able to hold funerals, weren't they?

jfinnie

Morrigan_2020 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Morrigan_2020 said:

places of worship though, should only be allowed to open for funerals and 'emergency' weddings. 

If I recall correctly, places of worship were closed in the March lockdown.  Not sure why that would be different now.

It caused some issues, people with terminal diagnoses couldn't get married to secure their partner's status/financial support etc.  I think they were always able to hold funerals, weren't they?

If the wedding is such an emergency, and for purely status / financial reasons, why does it need to be dealt with in a church?

Torry_Quine

Grumpy_chap said:

Morrigan_2020 said:

places of worship though, should only be allowed to open for funerals and 'emergency' weddings. 

If I recall correctly, places of worship were closed in the March lockdown.  Not sure why that would be different now.

Churches in Scotland are closed for services. Weddings can have 5 people and of course funerals can happen.

Grumpy_chap

Torry_Quine said:

Churches in Scotland are closed for services. Weddings can have 5 people and of course funerals can happen.

Someone else told me it was 5 people for a wedding, which seemed a very odd number to select.
The rules in England allow for one more:
"Weddings and civil partnership ceremonies must only take place with up to 6 people. Anyone working is not included."
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-lockdown-stay-at-home?priority-taxon=774cee22-d896-44c1-a611-e3109cce8eae#weddings-civil-partnerships-religious-services-and-funerals

Six people at a wedding seems logical:

• Bride
• Groom
• Bride's parents
• Groom's parents

Plus the administrating official (who is working)

Five people means the bride & groom need to pick out one of their collective quota of parents to stay at home which is bound to be the source of future comment.

It is also permitted in England to attend a place of worship for a service, but no mingling, socially distanced and COVID-secure (all of which is open to some interpretation) - what is a wedding if not a service?  Can a wedding in church have more people?  I very much doubt it.