341 posts
|
Post by adrianics on Oct 17, 2020 9:43:14 GMT
Sometimes I see a notification that seems to be saying something about being in contact, but when I click it it disappears, the app opens and there’s nothing there. It’s a fault because I’m staying away from absolutely everyone at the moment. Yes thats exactly what happened to me. I'll not panic then. Exact same thing happened to me last night and this morning, it said something like "someone you've been near has tested positive" then the second said "don't worry, we've assessed your risk", then when I clicked on the notifications they disappeared and it took me to the main landing screen |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2020 11:27:15 GMT
"Don't worry. We've assessed your risk. Just don't start any long books. Or meals."
|
|
4,995 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Oct 26, 2020 13:07:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by glossie on Oct 26, 2020 19:11:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2020 19:28:38 GMT
I'm kind of baffled why nobody bothered to ask the store staff — who would presumably have been aware of a break-in at their own store and would have been able to provide an explanation and possibly even fetch merchandise when requested — and chose instead to ask some low-paid head-office worker who won't have been told anything other than "If someone complains that they can't buy something just give them this stock response".
|
|
|
|
Post by glossie on Oct 27, 2020 10:59:40 GMT
Because that would mean they would get the products they wanted with an apology and explanation. Because that way they don’t get to whip up a twitter storm and get their five minutes of fame. Because it takes far less effort to take out your phone to complain to your ‘friends’ than to bother looking for a member of staff for help.
Not that I’m cynical or anything...
|
|
19,809 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Oct 28, 2020 19:29:11 GMT
Severe lockdowns in France and Germany.
|
|
2,413 posts
|
Post by theatreian on Oct 28, 2020 23:11:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2020 4:42:29 GMT
I wouldn't be surprised if we have another national lockdown for a few weeks. Yes, it'll be expensive, but nothing compared with the cost of letting this get more out of control than it already is.
I'm extremely disappointed that many people are still not taking this seriously. The members clubs loopholing their way out of the pub and restaurant restrictions are an example: they know full well why the restrictions exist but they've decided that because they aren't covered by those restrictions it's OK for them to go right ahead and put people at risk. But actual people are actually dying. This is not a game where knowing the right cheat codes will allow you to sidestep the rules for an easy win. You can't rules-lawyer a disease. It remains exactly as infectious and exactly as deadly no matter how clever you imagine you are.
|
|
|
|
Post by jojo on Oct 29, 2020 10:32:05 GMT
So true Matthew. I wish we could have a nuanced approach to risk reduction, but it seems there are too many people (and it doesn't need to be many) who try to push the boundaries and give themselves an exemption, so it may well be that we need something more draconian. And as much as I like to blame the government for their many failings, that should not be used to excuse the consistent rule flouters.
I think Wales got their knickers in a twist with the 'essential items only from Tesco' rule, but I think they were right to tie in a severe, time-limited form of lockdown with the October/half-term school break. A lot of parents like to take time off then anyway, so it's a naturally quieter time for many businesses.
I've seen us compared with frogs in hot water. Earlier in the year we were shocked to see numbers rising quickly, so we jumped out of the pan. Now we're back in and not paying attention, convincing ourselves everything is normal as it's getting warmer and warmer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2020 11:43:07 GMT
I think Wales got their knickers in a twist with the 'essential items only from Tesco' rule In my opinion this "essential items only" idea is completely the wrong approach. As I said during the first lockdown, far too many people in positions of authority were treating it as a type of house arrest where we'd all been confined for some imagined wrongdoing and needed to shut up and take our punishment like good little prisoners. I remember one police force inspecting people's shopping; an intolerable abuse of power. And then there was Derbyshire, publishing photographs of people alone in the countryside with a narrative of "Look at these idiots, putting everyone at risk by going ... nowhere ... near ... anyone ... else". They should be encouraging anything safe that helps people keep their spirits up.
|
|
1,863 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Oct 29, 2020 12:04:05 GMT
The ‘essentials items’ protocol was put in place to support the smaller retailers who were forced to close. The major supermarkets with no caveats would be able to sell items such as T-Shirts, Toasters.... that could have or would have been bought in the shops forced to close and these sales would have been lost forever and maybe would be bought in these smaller shops when allowed to open again. With internet shopping it’s value is almost non-existent but at least there was an attempt to protect the smaller retailers. inews.co.uk/news/uk/wales-supermarket-restrictions-explained-essential-items-list-firebreak-covid-lockdown-736105 |
|
1,351 posts
|
Post by CG on the loose on Oct 29, 2020 12:20:29 GMT
The ‘essentials items’ protocol was put in place to support the smaller retailers who were forced to close. The major supermarkets with no caveats would be able to sell items such as T-Shirts, Toasters.... that could have or would have been bought in the shops forced to close and these sales would have been lost forever and maybe would be bought in these smaller shops when allowed to open again. With internet shopping it’s value is almost non-existent but at least there was an attempt to protect the smaller retailers. I hadn't seen that explanation and as you say, with online shopping, it's of almost no value. The reason I'd seen was that it was intended to limit time in store, which does at least seem vaguely sensible, if poorly executed. |
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Oct 29, 2020 16:35:27 GMT
The ‘essentials items’ protocol was put in place to support the smaller retailers who were forced to close. The major supermarkets with no caveats would be able to sell items such as T-Shirts, Toasters.... that could have or would have been bought in the shops forced to close and these sales would have been lost forever and maybe would be bought in these smaller shops when allowed to open again. With internet shopping it’s value is almost non-existent but at least there was an attempt to protect the smaller retailers. I hadn't seen that explanation and as you say, with online shopping, it's of almost no value. The reason I'd seen was that it was intended to limit time in store, which does at least seem vaguely sensible, if poorly executed. I did read both explanations and neither really make sense ‘on the ground’. If you need a kettle during a pandemic you probably get it on the one shop you have to do, that is the food shop and hey, did you know supermarkets sell such things? If you are the sort of person who reads the ingredient list on every item of food, then are you going to stop doing this now? No. So in the real world it is a good thing that Tesco sells kettles. And daft to stop them. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2020 20:38:19 GMT
I've just been sat outside freezing to enjoy a glass of wine with a colleague to put the world to rights about our stressful work situation and it was intensely annoying watching the number of groups sat indoors (in London) who quite evidently were not from the same household (or bubble given how many were at each table).
No wonder so many people are getting fed up and wondering why they should bother when so many others are carrying on as usual and enjoying life far more.
|
|
2,413 posts
|
Post by theatreian on Oct 29, 2020 22:46:57 GMT
No wonder so many people are getting fed up and wondering why they should bother when so many others are carrying on as usual and enjoying life far more. It is annoying when you see that. It is also the venues themselves who should take some responsibility as they should be acting more responsibly.The more this sort of thing happens the longer this is going to go on . |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2020 5:41:08 GMT
No wonder so many people are getting fed up and wondering why they should bother when so many others are carrying on as usual and enjoying life far more. It is annoying when you see that. It is also the venues themselves who should take some responsibility as they should be acting more responsibly.The more this sort of thing happens the longer this is going to go on . I think the fines need to be increased. Back in March there was justification for being lenient with people coming to terms with having to do everything in a new way but after 7½ months there are no excuses.
I've heard of stories of venues that have put a six-person limit on groups so a customer thinks they'll outwit the system by booking a table for six and then turning up with nine people and asking for three extra chairs at the table. Under the best of circumstances that would make the staff hate you with a passion, and it's amazing how angry people get when their toddler-level ploy doesn't get them what they want.
|
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Oct 30, 2020 8:25:21 GMT
It is annoying when you see that. It is also the venues themselves who should take some responsibility as they should be acting more responsibly.The more this sort of thing happens the longer this is going to go on . I think the fines need to be increased. Back in March there was justification for being lenient with people coming to terms with having to do everything in a new way but after 7½ months there are no excuses.
I've heard of stories of venues that have put a six-person limit on groups so a customer thinks they'll outwit the system by booking a table for six and then turning up with nine people and asking for three extra chairs at the table. Under the best of circumstances that would make the staff hate you with a passion, and it's amazing how angry people get when their toddler-level ploy doesn't get them what they want.
The trouble is they can increase fines all they want, but the question remains how do you prove you're from the same household? Utility bill? It can't realistically be done and relies on people sticking to the rules. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2020 12:09:04 GMT
While pondering the fact that I'll soon need to buy another pack of toilet rolls I got to wondering: How many of the people who stripped the shop shelves bare of toilet paper back at the start of the year are still working their way through their dust-cloaked stock?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2020 13:07:18 GMT
While pondering the fact that I'll soon need to buy another pack of toilet rolls I got to wondering: How many of the people who stripped the shop shelves bare of toilet paper back at the start of the year are still working their way through their dust-cloaked stock? Dust-cloaked? Why each of my precious rolls is warmly ensconced in its own silk bag lined with fleece in anticipation of these cooler times ahead. Each bag hangs gracefully on its own wall peg. When viewed from afar it is enough to almost make you think you're at the Tate Modern peering at an installation that no doubt is destined for the permanent collection. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Oct 30, 2020 13:19:44 GMT
I've just been sat outside freezing to enjoy a glass of wine with a colleague to put the world to rights about our stressful work situation and it was intensely annoying watching the number of groups sat indoors (in London) who quite evidently were not from the same household (or bubble given how many were at each table). I was at an expensive restaurant in the heart of London's glittering Theatreland yesterday, indoors it was almost full and I made the same observation. However, there is a legal loophole you may not be aware of - work colleagues from any number of households can book a table in groups of up to 6 as long as the meal is "work-related". Several restaurants are advertising this. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2020 13:54:42 GMT
I've just been sat outside freezing to enjoy a glass of wine with a colleague to put the world to rights about our stressful work situation and it was intensely annoying watching the number of groups sat indoors (in London) who quite evidently were not from the same household (or bubble given how many were at each table). I was at an expensive restaurant in the heart of London's glittering Theatreland yesterday, indoors it was almost full and I made the same observation. However, there is a legal loophole you may not be aware of - work colleagues from any number of households can book a table in groups of up to 6 as long as the meal is "work-related". Several restaurants are advertising this. Oh I'm well aware of that loophole - there was no sign of any work purpose for those gatherings! Plus neither my colleague nor I felt comfortable exploiting what is clearly a ridiculous loophole that renders the restriction almost a nullity when coupled with the number of people I see on social media who are clearly willingly breaking the rules... |
|
|
|
Post by sfsusan on Oct 30, 2020 14:41:49 GMT
No wonder so many people are getting fed up and wondering why they should bother when so many others are carrying on as usual and enjoying life far more. Yes, I find it annoying, too, and wonder why that's not me. Then I have to remind myself it's not worth dying over. There is a Samuel Pepys quote going around which is apparently fake, but *should* be true: "The taverns are fair full of gadabouts making merry this eve. And though I may press my face against the window like an urchin at a confectioner’s, I am tempted not by the sweetmeats within. A dram in exchange for the pox is an ill bargain indeed." |
|
|
|
Post by sph on Oct 30, 2020 17:44:46 GMT
While I understand people's frustrations it has to be said that every inch of this country is covered in pubs and restaurants. That's a LOT of people who depend on them for a living. If a pub or restaurant has to close at 10pm and is only allowed to have customers from the same household... how are they going to survive?
It's all very well for those with a secure wage to criticise, but as long as these places are open they have bills and staff to pay. They can't afford to police people and turn them away at the door.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2020 18:08:36 GMT
It's all very well for those with a secure wage to criticise, but as long as these places are open they have bills and staff to pay. They can't afford to police people and turn them away at the door. All the pubs I go to are managing perfectly well with restrictions in place and are enforcing them. It's probably different for town-centre drinking establishments but many of the dining pubs are rarely at full capacity for most of the week, so apart from Saturday evening and Sunday lunch they're generally handling nearly as many people now as they would have been at the same time last year. There's some loss of business but it's certainly not a case of half the capacity meaning half the income.
That's obviously not the case for establishments that cater to the serious-drinking crowd, but given how much a risk those represent we can't really afford to keep them open. I don't think there are that many of them around these days anyway. Pub culture has changed a lot over the last couple of decades and it's become much more of a family environment with an emphasis on food and relaxation.
|
|
