UK rules for Christmas could be reviewed as coronavirus cases surge

[Northerner]

Rules allowing families to meet over Christmas could be reviewed after stark warnings from hospitals and experts about the risk to the NHS from a surge in coronavirus cases.

The Cabinet Office minister, Michael Gove, is to meet representatives from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to discuss the UK-wide approach that was agreed a fortnight ago, which would allow three households to meet indoors over five days.

A government source said the meeting had been convened to discuss “the current circumstances” around the Christmas rules, but said nothing had yet been agreed. “We keep all policies under review, this one is no different, it would be irresponsible not to assess where things are given the circumstances,” one source said.

Options under consideration are understood to include reducing period the rules are relaxed from five days to three days, as well as reducing the number of households permitted to mix from three to two, although nothing has been finalised.

Christmas plans in the balance as UK leaders re-examine Covid rules

Heads of four nations to meet to discuss tighter restrictions in break, but Johnson likely to push back

www.theguardian.com

 

[Pine Marten]

I'm not surprised. Mr Marten and I don't go anywhere much at the moment, but were planning to go to my daughter & son-in-law for Boxing Day.

Looking at pictures of the hordes in Regent St on the news recently I think it highly unlikely that people's 'common sense' could be relied upon (as some have said), and I tend to agree with Sadiq Khan (a first for me!) that it's bizarre to be in tier 3, then tier 0 for 5 days, then back to tier 3... I just hope they won't leave making a decision until the last minute.

 

[Pine Marten]

The people I feel sorry for are the pubs, cafes, restaurants and theatres who have spent money making their premises Covid-secure in line with Government guidelines but now have to close, which means that the guidelines are worthless. Meanwhile 1000s of people are mingling in shops.

I quite agree - the local theatre where I'm an usher had only just announced booking for January when now they have to cancel performances again. It's heartbreaking seeing so many people being out of work yet again.

 

[grovesy]

I personally think the term Covid secure is not the right term, it should be risk minimising!

 

[Bruce Stephens]

I personally think the term Covid secure is not the right term, it should be risk minimising!

Yes, it feels quite wrong. Schools, theatres, shops, etc., aren't "safe". They can be more or less safe, and safe enough (or not) to justify keeping them open given their value (or the cost of closing them).

(So that's why you can have a business meeting but not a birthday party in a restaurant: because the government decided the value of a business meeting is sufficient but birthday parties aren't. It's not that business meetings are somehow safer healthwise than birthday parties. It's a value judgement, not a health one.)

 

[nonethewiser]

Govn in right pickle now, shouldn't have relaxed rule & accepted that Christmas isn't that important in grand scheme of things.

Those that want to mark occasion religiously can so in own way, shame for people on own missing family but end is in sight, just need to accept that there's no normal for now & persevere with restrictions.

 

[Docb]

Two thoughts about what is really oversimplified and muddled thinking.

First, as @Bruce Stephens says, safety is relative, not absolute. Something is safer than something else it is not safe or unsafe in its own right.

Second, you can make schools, pubs, restaurants, theatres quite a lot safer than they otherwise would be. You can make homes safer than they otherwise would be. It's the getting from one to the other which is the tricky bit.

 

[mikeyB]

It should be blindingly obvious, given the current spread of the virus among younger people, that schools are the hotbed of virus spread. Yesterday the government insisted they should stay open, but in tier 3 pubs should stay closed.

Some joined up thinking needed if all you want to do is control the spread. The government is in a bit of a bind over this, because even they know that distance learning disadvantages the less well off. Mind you, so does dying.

 

[Bruce Stephens]

It should be blindingly obvious, given the current spread of the virus among younger people, that schools are the hotbed of virus spread. Yesterday the government insisted they should stay open, but in tier 3 pubs should stay closed.

Seems quite plausible, but even if they're sure that schools are much more significant than pubs, it's still consistent to have schools open and pubs closed. Schools matter more than pubs.

(Though I'm less convinced by worrying about the last week or two of term. If some schools feel they should close a week early, it seems obvious that letting them go ahead's pretty harmless. The threatened legal action seems silly to me.)

 

[trophywench]

Err, I'd say downright ridiculous meself. Either do nothing or go completely OTT. Andy Burham's not the only local leader being cross about it - just gets more publicity is all. Andy Street a bit further south from him OTOH has had an Arbitration hat firmly welded to his head since prior to the day he first stood for election - yet still speaks the truth, but just not in such abrupt and cross sounding soundbites to make headlines. Have to say I wasn't impressed by the latter at first, thought he sounded a bit, well, wet TBH - but have changed my mind.