Following the science

A phrase that gets muttered on here about the current Covid regulations. Especially as to why the pubs are closed.

As it has been pointed out more than once on this forum when it comes to the hospitality industry they have been given a short sharp shrift and hung out to dry as scapegoats for rising cases.

On Friday it was the day of reckoning in the high court between Sacha Lord V The Secretary of State and Health,

Sacha Lord and others have walked away victorious.

The case its self being brought is why the substantial meal is no longer in the current road map out of lockdown and will NEVER be reintroduced as it was political ******** by the Government.

The curfew of 10pm has gone.

Any future restrictions must be evidence based. Evidence that will stand up to scrutiny not the bloke in Vietnam on the piss on St Paddys day who may or may not have given someone a dose.

Any attempt to impose restrictions without sound evidential backing will be challenged immediately in court.

Next on the list to be challenged is the outdoors in April setting and to be allowed to reopen when non essential retail returns.

It might be rather trivial to some people but it has now set a precedent. All future interventions need to be evidence based or they'll be getting challenged.

I can see the bosses of Primark making a few calls in the morning. . .

 

You want evidence based policy? Well this time next week we can SIT on a bench outside with a friend, rather than STAND NEXT to a bench outside with a friend.
Science bitch!

 

I can't find a report of the outcome of this case, if indeed it has been concluded. But I'm a bit inclined to think that the case has been quietly dropped. It was based on the Tier system. That, as we know was superseded by the general lockdown which we are still living under. Johnson has indicated that a return to the Tier system is not on the cards. It follows therefore that any further restrictions on premises will apply to all premises. If that happens then it will require legislative provision endorsed by Parliament. The decision to put Manchester into Tier 3 was merely an administrative decision by the Secretary of State. So I don't think the outcome of Mr Lord's case can be said to affect any decision about the regime licensed premises will be required to operate under after 12 April. If it is a precedent at all it is one relating to administrative decisions - not to legislation voted upon by Parliament.

 

I follow Sacha Lord on Twitter and he’s been very vocal about the case. Nothing on his Twitter in recent days though?

I can’t see what the case is against opening to serve outdoors first? There’s plenty of evidence to show outdoors is safer than indoors? Unless it’s about being able to open at the same time as other settings? But if we followed that approach it would mean a big bang reopening of everything at the same time?

 

Not sure the OP understands precedence.

 

I would have thought the case would be that hospitality was shut and remains shut with no evidence it was driving infections in any way.

 

Agree why is it having to wait longer to re-open when everything else apart from bookies is too? I see a pattern emerging.

 

This Govt doesn’t follow Court rulings on case losses, or at least drags it’s heels with them. See Trade Union court victories on Pensions etc

 

i believe they only insisted on you having a substantial meal was to get everybody sat down , so you were not spraying saliva etc out of your mouth and passing the virus on. when seated your excrements do not spread as far. just saying it made sense

 

Other countries (looking at you, Ireland), had pubs open *only* for the sale of food and you could buy a maximum number of drinks with your meal and stay for a limited period (2 hours iirc). So you could go for a meal, and drink a couple of pints with it, but you couldn't just go for a couple of pints.

 

Unless you were talking verbal diarrhoea.

 

Next month when non essential retail opens pubs should be allowed to serve people inside at the same time. It's about time hospitality was treated properly.

 

This isn't rocket science...except to certain people on here. It's common sense that they didn't want people getting blind drunk, because there was then even less chance of them following social distancing and basic hygiene. The curfew and the meal requirement...however half baked they were devised...were all measures to try to mitigate that risk

 

What about the bookies?

 

I agree - it was a transparent attempt at bringing in a type of pious Puritanism through the back door with no scientific basis whatsoever, under the guise of ‘science’.

 

It's a bad idea to stay in any indoor public setting for a long time because of the aerosols...and that's what many betting shop customers habitually do. Bookies are thriving online anyway.

 

Once you let everyone else go back to normal but carry on sheeting on hospitality it's prohibition. Spot on

 

You've been reading too much George Orwell or Graham Masterton.

 

You’ve just agreed yourself it had no scientific basis!!

 

If indeed Boris is following the Science these sort of figures aren't going to justify at least another three and a half months before normality.