Hadn't even thought about all the plastic waste. Added to all the masks it's not been a good 12 months on that front at all has it.
Not done one myself yet but my son has. First one he gagged and said it was horrible but subsequent ones he's got on with with no complaint. Only need to report a positive case .
Tests made with plastic that come wrapped in plastic. Trying to end WFH so we get way more cars back on the road pumping out rubbish in to the atmosphere. But then the government who still allow shops to offer customers plastic bags still want us to believe they are green and trying to help save the planet.
We simp!y HAVE to make this a permanent thing now too. There can be no justification for allowing an influenza positive person to come into contact with another human ever again not when they can enforce tests for human interaction.
I’m talking about last February/March when Boris was adamant we wouldn’t lock down and they wanted people infected for herd immunity.
That isn't true though Spain and Italy had already been hit before us and we were braced for it. He was just following advice from scientists at no point in Feb and March did he say he wanted everyone to be infected to get immunity.
So....... Lord and Osmond win today's hearing, which it turns out was an application to have their High Court case expedited. Hearing now to commence on 19 April. That will be two days after non-essential retail opens generally, and just four weeks before pubs are due to reopen in any event. Make of that what you will!
Surely the point of your post is to tell us what you make of it? What I take from it is that the government, for the second time now, have been held accountable for not using data to make decisions. Every day that hospitality opens earlier than 17th May, and in line with other retail environments that pose a greater risk, is a win for the sector and will save jobs and livelihoods. Let's not pretend that the ask is for hospitality to be allowed to open without restrictions in place. They're not fighting for a free for all. Far more Covid secure environments than the ones both of us have likely visited in the last two weeks.
No, or I would have said so! I think that is the point of the substantive case, which is due to commence now on 19 April. Today's hearing was apparently about whether the case should be expedited. To be fair, if it hadn't been there would have been little point in permitting it to continue. But I doubt the point about whether data was being used to make the decisions was litigated today. I haven't seen the particulars of claim, so I can't comment on this. But I do agree there is a difference.
He doesnt really appear to have a point other than the slightly condscending retorts. He also seems to be missing the point of why the Government have been taken to task. Althought the aim of getting sat inside a pub before May is commendable and would be a strategic victory the entire aim of Sacha Lords campaign is to get thhe Government to be transparent with their reasonings as to why certain industrial areas are being targeted for sanction and others are not. Both the claimaints involved in this matter have long been involved within the hospitality industry and know their onions. All they want is the government to either provide the evidence that going to the pub is more dangerous than a scrum around primark. Something that they have failed to produce. It speaks volumes that (as per bbc news) Handcock was throwing his considerable weight about trying to obstruct the case from proceeding. The Government doesnt have any evidence. It doesnt exist. The entire industry has been made a scape goat and the victim of the ruling juntas deflection tactics. In this thread it is suggested that nightclubs and areas of people in close proximity talking loudly may be a cause of viral transmission. Given that the vast majority of nightclubs have been closed for the last 12 months. It is illegal to play music over 65 decibels. Illegal to dance. If i recall correctly its even illegal to sing along to Sweet Carolibe oh oh oh... The entire industry was bolted down for the intial first wave. The overwhelming majoirty re bolted down since October a long time prior to the massive spike at new year. Its a virus that is in terms of fatalities disproportionately targeting those in the mid 80s. In terms of hospitalisations its median age is still the lower 60s. There is in terms of proportionality a massive issue within care homes both residents and staff dying with Covid related complications. Youd have thought that at some point youd stop trying to blame an industry shut and or under massive restrictions for infections spikes and start asking different questions. Youd think it would be common sense.
Leaving aside the rant for a moment, the point I would agree with you on is that the government likely do not have evidence about the effect of hospitality venues remaining open upon the rate of transmission of Covid. That's fairly obvious when you think about it because just about everything was closed down from 23 March last year. So what the government's decision has to be based upon is scientific opinion about what would have happened had venues been left open. Mr Lord and Mr Osmond have to demonstrate that the Health Secretary's decision was a decision which he could not reasonably have reached on the basis of the available information. Different people could interpret the scientific opinion in a different way, but to prove Mr Hancock's decision was one which could not possibly have been made in the circumstances he faced is a tall order. One would imagine that he would have a fair amount of leeway when deciding upon important matters of public health, and you would expect him to err on the side of caution. One might also consider the practicalities of the case. The hearing is now set down for 19 April. It is hard to know how long the case will take to argue, although the High Court will have a time estimate. But if the case is of any length, and if the Judge takes time out to consider the arguments we will be even closer to the date on which hospitality venues are in any event due to reopen. So you do wonder what is the point of bringing this challenge when things are due to soon reopen in any event. There is another point, although some more learned friends than me on here (Mansfield, Darfield, Bar Tyke?) may have a better view on this. I would imagine that if Mr Hancock's decision is set aside it is probably likely that it will be on the basis that he goes back and reconsiders his original decision on what the Judge deems to be the proper considerations. So a 'victory' may not in any event lead to an immediate re-opening ahead of 17 May. But as I say, others may have better insight than me on this. Finally, the idea that people come into closer proximity in shops than in the busier hospitality venues is not one which makes much sense to me. And to ask the authorities to differentiate which category of risk individual venues fall into is, to say the least, impractical in the midst of a pandemic.
