Are off-licences to close ?

Morrigan_2020

jfinnie said:

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?

It doesn't have to be, but registry offices were closed too, no weddings at all happened in the first lockdown.  Registry offices, churches, hospital and hospice chapels, these place are all well geared up to do weddings, and licenced, if someone is very ill and wants to get married I don't see why they can't have a very very basic legal ceremony (no guests etc) in one of those places. 

MattMattMattUK

jimi_man said:
 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. 

Storage only becomes an issue if you are trying to store fresh, it is actually amazing how small a week's food can be if dried, tinned and packets. I agree money might be an issue for some, but a UC advance, being that they would then not be buying food for the following three weeks should cover that if needed. 

jimi_man said:
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. 

I am reasonably aware, quite a lot of that I was planning on shutting down, transport would be very limited due to a lot of people having to stay indoors, the balance could be managed by special provision with the army or agreements with a taxi firm for regulated vehicles, strict PPE requirements etc. but the majority of those who were required to move about could do so using company or personal vehicles. Rubbish collections could take place, but that does not take a huge amount of people in any one area. Pharmacies, again people would be provided with stock of prescriptions ahead and then only a very few would need additional medication, perhaps supplied centrally from hospitals. Delivery services would not be happening because everything would be shut down.

jimi_man said:
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.

Incubation is now thought to be only around 3-5 days, rather than the original 14+. People do not need to get over the illness, they just need to be no longer infectious, with the rule that any household showing symptoms would not leave the house at the end until symptoms had cleared, it would not be reduced to zero, but to very close to that. 

jimi_man said:
Like you I'm not a fan though I adhere to them since that's what living in a democracy is all about. 

Well they can be, they worked very well for China, New Zealand, Australia etc. with the highest levels of compliance leading to the quickest drop in infection, in the case of New Zealand the drop has been to zero. As for democracy, I am not really a fan, we let people who know very little elect narcissists who act in their self interest to make decisions about our lives. I comply with the rules because otherwise society breaks down, if I refuse to comply with a rule because I do not like it then someone else can use the same rationale to to refuse to comply with a rule I do like, such as not being stabbed for my car. However democracy is fundamentally flawed as a system of governance, precisely because everyone gets a vote, regardless of if they have earned it.

MattMattMattUK

Morrigan_2020 said:

jfinnie said:

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?

It doesn't have to be, but registry offices were closed too, no weddings at all happened in the first lockdown.  Registry offices, churches, hospital and hospice chapels, these place are all well geared up to do weddings, and licenced, if someone is very ill and wants to get married I don't see why they can't have a very very basic legal ceremony (no guests etc) in one of those places. 

If the person is that critical then marriages are allowed in hospital. 

Jeremy535897

MattMattMattUK said:

jimi_man said:
 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. 

Storage only becomes an issue if you are trying to store fresh, it is actually amazing how small a week's food can be if dried, tinned and packets. I agree money might be an issue for some, but a UC advance, being that they would then not be buying food for the following three weeks should cover that if needed. 

jimi_man said:
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. 

I am reasonably aware, quite a lot of that I was planning on shutting down, transport would be very limited due to a lot of people having to stay indoors, the balance could be managed by special provision with the army or agreements with a taxi firm for regulated vehicles, strict PPE requirements etc. but the majority of those who were required to move about could do so using company or personal vehicles. Rubbish collections could take place, but that does not take a huge amount of people in any one area. Pharmacies, again people would be provided with stock of prescriptions ahead and then only a very few would need additional medication, perhaps supplied centrally from hospitals. Delivery services would not be happening because everything would be shut down.

jimi_man said:
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.

Incubation is now thought to be only around 3-5 days, rather than the original 14+. People do not need to get over the illness, they just need to be no longer infectious, with the rule that any household showing symptoms would not leave the house at the end until symptoms had cleared, it would not be reduced to zero, but to very close to that. 

jimi_man said:
Like you I'm not a fan though I adhere to them since that's what living in a democracy is all about. 

Well they can be, they worked very well for China, New Zealand, Australia etc. with the highest levels of compliance leading to the quickest drop in infection, in the case of New Zealand the drop has been to zero. As for democracy, I am not really a fan, we let people who know very little elect narcissists who act in their self interest to make decisions about our lives. I comply with the rules because otherwise society breaks down, if I refuse to comply with a rule because I do not like it then someone else can use the same rationale to to refuse to comply with a rule I do like, such as not being stabbed for my car. However democracy is fundamentally flawed as a system of governance, precisely because everyone gets a vote, regardless of if they have earned it.

‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’

Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947

Andy_L

jfinnie said:

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?

Where else would you hold it that would be safer? 

jimi_man

MattMattMattUK said:

jimi_man said:
 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. 

Storage only becomes an issue if you are trying to store fresh, it is actually amazing how small a week's food can be if dried, tinned and packets. I agree money might be an issue for some, but a UC advance, being that they would then not be buying food for the following three weeks should cover that if needed. 

jimi_man said:
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. 

I am reasonably aware, quite a lot of that I was planning on shutting down, transport would be very limited due to a lot of people having to stay indoors, the balance could be managed by special provision with the army or agreements with a taxi firm for regulated vehicles, strict PPE requirements etc. but the majority of those who were required to move about could do so using company or personal vehicles. Rubbish collections could take place, but that does not take a huge amount of people in any one area. Pharmacies, again people would be provided with stock of prescriptions ahead and then only a very few would need additional medication, perhaps supplied centrally from hospitals. Delivery services would not be happening because everything would be shut down.

jimi_man said:
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.

Incubation is now thought to be only around 3-5 days, rather than the original 14+. People do not need to get over the illness, they just need to be no longer infectious, with the rule that any household showing symptoms would not leave the house at the end until symptoms had cleared, it would not be reduced to zero, but to very close to that. 

jimi_man said:
Like you I'm not a fan though I adhere to them since that's what living in a democracy is all about. 

Well they can be, they worked very well for China, New Zealand, Australia etc. with the highest levels of compliance leading to the quickest drop in infection, in the case of New Zealand the drop has been to zero. As for democracy, I am not really a fan, we let people who know very little elect narcissists who act in their self interest to make decisions about our lives. I comply with the rules because otherwise society breaks down, if I refuse to comply with a rule because I do not like it then someone else can use the same rationale to to refuse to comply with a rule I do like, such as not being stabbed for my car. However democracy is fundamentally flawed as a system of governance, precisely because everyone gets a vote, regardless of if they have earned it.

I think it's probably worth leaving the discussion about democracy! . But comparisons with New Zealand are completely irrelevant. Similar size country, miles from anywhere else in the world, different climate, with 6% percent of our population, a tiny proportion of global traffic - beating Covid was never going to be that hard.

Far more relevant comparisons should be done with countries similar to us - Northern Europe, with similar geography, climates, population size and density and numbers of international visitors. And there you find that - unsurprisingly, because its a respiratory illness in winter - we are all in a remarkably similar position. 

Nebulous2

Grumpy_chap said:

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.

My understanding is 5 is based on the legal minimum needed. It wouldn’t allow for parents. 

Bride and Groom 
two witnesses
minister

There is also an allowance for an interpreter if needed. 

Morrigan_2020

jimi_man said:

MattMattMattUK said:

jimi_man said:
 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. 

Storage only becomes an issue if you are trying to store fresh, it is actually amazing how small a week's food can be if dried, tinned and packets. I agree money might be an issue for some, but a UC advance, being that they would then not be buying food for the following three weeks should cover that if needed. 

jimi_man said:
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. 

I am reasonably aware, quite a lot of that I was planning on shutting down, transport would be very limited due to a lot of people having to stay indoors, the balance could be managed by special provision with the army or agreements with a taxi firm for regulated vehicles, strict PPE requirements etc. but the majority of those who were required to move about could do so using company or personal vehicles. Rubbish collections could take place, but that does not take a huge amount of people in any one area. Pharmacies, again people would be provided with stock of prescriptions ahead and then only a very few would need additional medication, perhaps supplied centrally from hospitals. Delivery services would not be happening because everything would be shut down.

jimi_man said:
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.

Incubation is now thought to be only around 3-5 days, rather than the original 14+. People do not need to get over the illness, they just need to be no longer infectious, with the rule that any household showing symptoms would not leave the house at the end until symptoms had cleared, it would not be reduced to zero, but to very close to that. 

jimi_man said:
Like you I'm not a fan though I adhere to them since that's what living in a democracy is all about. 

Well they can be, they worked very well for China, New Zealand, Australia etc. with the highest levels of compliance leading to the quickest drop in infection, in the case of New Zealand the drop has been to zero. As for democracy, I am not really a fan, we let people who know very little elect narcissists who act in their self interest to make decisions about our lives. I comply with the rules because otherwise society breaks down, if I refuse to comply with a rule because I do not like it then someone else can use the same rationale to to refuse to comply with a rule I do like, such as not being stabbed for my car. However democracy is fundamentally flawed as a system of governance, precisely because everyone gets a vote, regardless of if they have earned it.

I think it's probably worth leaving the discussion about democracy! . But comparisons with New Zealand are completely irrelevant. Similar size country, miles from anywhere else in the world, different climate, with 6% percent of our population, a tiny proportion of global traffic - beating Covid was never going to be that hard.

Far more relevant comparisons should be done with countries similar to us - Northern Europe, with similar geography, climates, population size and density and numbers of international visitors. And there you find that - unsurprisingly, because its a respiratory illness in winter - we are all in a remarkably similar position. 

Ah, but we are also an island, we had that advantage over most of the rest of Europe and in common with New Zealand. 

People always go on about population density in New Zealand and Australia as though the people are evenly spaced across the vast amount of land.  No, they live in clusters, in cities and towns where the virus can spread the same way it does in cities and towns anywhere. 

Nebulous2

jimi_man said:

MattMattMattUK said:

jimi_man said:
 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. 

Storage only becomes an issue if you are trying to store fresh, it is actually amazing how small a week's food can be if dried, tinned and packets. I agree money might be an issue for some, but a UC advance, being that they would then not be buying food for the following three weeks should cover that if needed. 

jimi_man said:
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. 

I am reasonably aware, quite a lot of that I was planning on shutting down, transport would be very limited due to a lot of people having to stay indoors, the balance could be managed by special provision with the army or agreements with a taxi firm for regulated vehicles, strict PPE requirements etc. but the majority of those who were required to move about could do so using company or personal vehicles. Rubbish collections could take place, but that does not take a huge amount of people in any one area. Pharmacies, again people would be provided with stock of prescriptions ahead and then only a very few would need additional medication, perhaps supplied centrally from hospitals. Delivery services would not be happening because everything would be shut down.

jimi_man said:
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.

Incubation is now thought to be only around 3-5 days, rather than the original 14+. People do not need to get over the illness, they just need to be no longer infectious, with the rule that any household showing symptoms would not leave the house at the end until symptoms had cleared, it would not be reduced to zero, but to very close to that. 

jimi_man said:
Like you I'm not a fan though I adhere to them since that's what living in a democracy is all about. 

Well they can be, they worked very well for China, New Zealand, Australia etc. with the highest levels of compliance leading to the quickest drop in infection, in the case of New Zealand the drop has been to zero. As for democracy, I am not really a fan, we let people who know very little elect narcissists who act in their self interest to make decisions about our lives. I comply with the rules because otherwise society breaks down, if I refuse to comply with a rule because I do not like it then someone else can use the same rationale to to refuse to comply with a rule I do like, such as not being stabbed for my car. However democracy is fundamentally flawed as a system of governance, precisely because everyone gets a vote, regardless of if they have earned it.

I think it's probably worth leaving the discussion about democracy! . But comparisons with New Zealand are completely irrelevant. Similar size country, miles from anywhere else in the world, different climate, with 6% percent of our population, a tiny proportion of global traffic - beating Covid was never going to be that hard.

Far more relevant comparisons should be done with countries similar to us - Northern Europe, with similar geography, climates, population size and density and numbers of international visitors. And there you find that - unsurprisingly, because its a respiratory illness in winter - we are all in a remarkably similar position. 

Completely irrelevant is quite a stretch. They had some things in their favour - the geographic isolation being the main one, but they got an awful lot right. 

They locked down fast and hard. They traced people very well. There were clear guidelines. There was a huge amount of compliance. There was implementation of the guidelines (occasionally over-zealous) by the police.  Finally and possibly most importantly,  they closed the border. 

I flew to New Zealand early March. In Charles de Gaulle on the way out I was quizzed about where I had been and if I had any symptoms. In Singapore we had to walk through temperature scanners and fill out questionnaires. In Christchurch I wasn’t allowed out of the airport until we were seen by a nurse, asked again about symptoms and given a leaflet with contact numbers. 

We returned home a month later, got off a plane at Heathrow, through an automatic passport machine and released into London / the underground without a single question, check or instruction. 

In short they made made a lot of the right moves, decisively, where we delayed, gave mixed messages and didn’t follow through. 

jimi_man

Morrigan_2020 said:

jimi_man said:

MattMattMattUK said:

jimi_man said:
 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. 

Storage only becomes an issue if you are trying to store fresh, it is actually amazing how small a week's food can be if dried, tinned and packets. I agree money might be an issue for some, but a UC advance, being that they would then not be buying food for the following three weeks should cover that if needed. 

jimi_man said:
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. 

I am reasonably aware, quite a lot of that I was planning on shutting down, transport would be very limited due to a lot of people having to stay indoors, the balance could be managed by special provision with the army or agreements with a taxi firm for regulated vehicles, strict PPE requirements etc. but the majority of those who were required to move about could do so using company or personal vehicles. Rubbish collections could take place, but that does not take a huge amount of people in any one area. Pharmacies, again people would be provided with stock of prescriptions ahead and then only a very few would need additional medication, perhaps supplied centrally from hospitals. Delivery services would not be happening because everything would be shut down.

jimi_man said:
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.

Incubation is now thought to be only around 3-5 days, rather than the original 14+. People do not need to get over the illness, they just need to be no longer infectious, with the rule that any household showing symptoms would not leave the house at the end until symptoms had cleared, it would not be reduced to zero, but to very close to that. 

jimi_man said:
Like you I'm not a fan though I adhere to them since that's what living in a democracy is all about. 

Well they can be, they worked very well for China, New Zealand, Australia etc. with the highest levels of compliance leading to the quickest drop in infection, in the case of New Zealand the drop has been to zero. As for democracy, I am not really a fan, we let people who know very little elect narcissists who act in their self interest to make decisions about our lives. I comply with the rules because otherwise society breaks down, if I refuse to comply with a rule because I do not like it then someone else can use the same rationale to to refuse to comply with a rule I do like, such as not being stabbed for my car. However democracy is fundamentally flawed as a system of governance, precisely because everyone gets a vote, regardless of if they have earned it.

I think it's probably worth leaving the discussion about democracy! . But comparisons with New Zealand are completely irrelevant. Similar size country, miles from anywhere else in the world, different climate, with 6% percent of our population, a tiny proportion of global traffic - beating Covid was never going to be that hard.

Far more relevant comparisons should be done with countries similar to us - Northern Europe, with similar geography, climates, population size and density and numbers of international visitors. And there you find that - unsurprisingly, because its a respiratory illness in winter - we are all in a remarkably similar position. 

Ah, but we are also an island, we had that advantage over most of the rest of Europe and in common with New Zealand. 

People always go on about population density in New Zealand and Australia as though the people are evenly spaced across the vast amount of land.  No, they live in clusters, in cities and towns where the virus can spread the same way it does in cities and towns anywhere. 

Yes we live in an island - extremely close to a highly populated continent, connected to it by numerous air and sea connections and a land connection, and we are in the top ten of countries who have the highest international visitor rates. NZ have none of that.

As for the population density - again they live in clusters agreed. However the most densely populated place in NZ is Hamilton with 1278 people per Km2, the other cities are far less. Compare that with central London - over 10 times that. Even Portsmouth is over 5000 people per Km2. 

I'm sorry, the comparison is ridiculous. Not saying we have done well because clearly we haven't. But pretty much the same as most of Northern Europe.