LondonBristolian

So, despite the fact that venues have said this has prevented them from claiming on the insurance, and industry bodies have said this has prevented them from claiming on the insurance, you have decided they are all wrong because you find it a tad inconvenient? The bottom line is you are welcome to your own opinion but not your own facts. And, on this one, you have your facts completely wrong.

Yes - but you are ignoring the fact @PHILINFRANCE, @Maesknoll Red and @wood_red all have the uncanny ability to glance at a business and automatically know their insurance policies better than the owners. There is literally no possibility any of them have decided to blunder in on a subject they know little about and made a load of assertions that anyone familiar with those industries would know to be fundamentally wrong.

You certainly aren’t letting the facts get in the way. You have made the weird and arrogant decision that you understand businesses’ insurance policies better than those businesses themselves. A lot of small theatres and music venues are small independent businesses - in many cases essentially doubling up as a town’s local pub. From what people do involved with them tell me, their insurance would be affected. Not just large events like Glastonbury. These people know their businesses. You very evidently do not know their businesses. I am really not clear why posters who have never seen their insurance policies feel they know best here but I can promise you don’t. Hardly a fringe point either. If you don’t know pubs, bars and venues’ insurance policies, maybe admit that rather than pretending you do for political convenience? So let’s not let the facts get in the way indeed.

Literally anyone who has read up on how lobbying works in the UK. Or who has access to Google. Or a newspaper.

We know they have a considerable lobbying influence.

Exactly. There would need to be an order for closure, which has not happened.

All I can say is that I have connections with people who work within some of those businesses and they believe they have the cover if the order is made to close. It goes without saying that I have not responded their policies and am going off what they tell me their insurance says.

It is political. Boris Johnson has chosen to protect the insurance industry over small businesses. That is literally a political decision. Telling someone not to make politics political is the daftest thing I have seen on this thread. And you would need to be utterly naive not to realise the decision is connected to the fact the insurance industry has more lobbying influence than small businesses

I would certainly hope not. Now is not the time to politicise things but to ensure each and every person has the basic support they need. France has gone much further but the list above is literally the least we can do.

I broadly agree but I do think it cynical and a bit cowardly to ask people not to go to pubs but refuse to close them outright. The government has a responsibility to play fair by everyone at a moment like this and that has to include ensuring small businesses are not out of pocket with no recourse to compensation or support. What he has effectively done is deny pubs business without allowing them to claim on their insurance, thus protecting insurance companies and destroying small businesses. That is not scientific advice but very nasty politics.

All basically common sense at the moment.

I think the other thing that strikes me is people talk about the fact we are following the science but I think, in many cases, they don’t quite understand what that science is and how it differs to the science other countries are following. I am both a layperson and trying to be simplistic but the key point that I am not sure is well understood is that we are following theoretical science based on models and predictions rather than evidential science based on experimentation and learning. Essentially the WHO are saying “this is what we know works based on what other countries have tried” whereas we are saying “this is what should be work, based on the assumptions and calculations we have made”. Our approach is based on behavioural economics and theoretical modelling. Both of those fascinate me and I actually believe there are many situations where both can produce better results than following tried and tested practice but a) they are both relatively new approaches and the evidence base for them is not by any means established, especially in the area of epidemics b) both are only as good as the assumptions that people feed into the system and these can contain human error. That is not necessarily a worse approach - there are situations where you might want to take a gamble based on a calculation in the hope it will provide better results than what is tried and tested - but it is a gamble and, in this case, the stakes are higher than in any decision the government has taken since World War Two. Get this wrong and we have an out of control epidemic, overcrowded hospitals and a lot of people will die who might otherwise have even saved. Anyone who says we are following the science is absolutely right but any one who says we should therefore trust the science needs to factor in that nobody yet knows if the science can be trusted and we are virtually the only country not following a WHO model with far more of an evidence base. Only time will tell if we will be seen as the country that stayed calm and acted smartly during a crisis or the country that went on a wild goose chase based on flawed science and thus failed to save lives.

Fair point!

Nobody should be politicising this but it nonetheless alarms me that people are starting to use requests not to policitise this as a way to shut down legitimate questions about why we are pursing a strategy that runs contrary to what other countries are doing, contrary to WHO advice and contrary to the actions taken by those countries that do appear to have the outbreak under control. We are being guided by science but nonetheless using different scientific advice to the scientific advice being followed by other countries, including countries with direct experience of containing pandemics that we lack. In particular, the decision to no longer track or test cases that can be treated at home means we no longer know how and where the virus is spreading and that means - if the government’s models are wrong - we will not have the days to change course. I have no desire to criticise the government on a political basis but people will die if the government get this wrong and it is vital that appropriate scientific scrutiny is not dismissed.

The problem is applying conventional solutions to unconventional problems. I would utterly agree in the vast majority of situations you do your best to manage the flow of information to avoid panic and manage public reactions. But that does not work when: 1) there is a crisis occurring in multiple countries at once and it is utterly unrealistic that people will not find out what other countries are doing and what is going on in the countries where this hit before it hit us. 2) it is information every single member of the public has a life or death stake in. It is easy to blame the leaker but, in this case, it was utter and staggering naivety to assume the information would not be leaked because anyone who saw it would want people they cared about to know. 3) you have already lost control of the narrative to a point where panic has set in 4) the public are inevitably going to find out the reality sooner or later. Ordinarily, I would not disagree at all on the need to control information but they ceases to apply in cases where information cannot be controlled. I sincerely hope your contacts in the civil service and military and their superiors realise pronto that this is not an ordinary situation and will not be contained by treating it as such. These sorts of mistakes will cost lives.

Not getting into Brexit because this is neither time or place but your last thoughts were undoubtedly shared by the Roman Empire before its collapse, the great nations of Europe as tensions escalated in 1914, the citizens of Weimar Republic when the Nazis got voted in, Nicholas Ceausecu as he stepped on the balcony to deliver his speech and the Russian Monarchy in 2017. Every civilisation in history is usually fine until it suddenly no longer is.

Things are already descending into chaos. And there was no way on Earth this report would be suppressed. You cannot control chaos by trying to hide things that are bound to come out very quickly indeed.

Another example of what I mean about poor communication leading to worrying news announcements: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/15/uk-coronavirus-crisis-to-last-until-spring-2021-and-could-see-79m-hospitalised?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other What on Earth is the point of secret briefings to Senior NHS managers that contradict what we have been told publicly? Inevitably things like this are going to leak out and erode confidence as it creates a sense that we are not being told the truth. We urgently need to be trusted with the truth about how bad this will get and what we should expect. There is nothing to be gained by any other approach.

Same here. I am 37, have an underlying heart condition since birth, a stent and low level hypertension but all are pretty asymptomatic. I run five to ten km on a semi-regular basis, had childhood asthma and can feel my chest a bit when running in cold weather but otherwise I would say my health is pretty good. I have the flu jab but, even before I got that, colds and flus have rarely hit me hard and I think I have only once had a chest infection. I really could do with more clarity on who and who is not vulnerable as I genuinely don’t have a clue if I am supposed to follow advice for vulnerable people or not. I really would like to know how worried I ought to be.

Not necessarily - the symptoms are very similar to cold or flu. Surely better to be on the safe side? Especially as a lot of those were before we knew it had taken hold in the UK. It would also include people in quarantine or who had come into contact with infected people and where infection needed to be ruled out.

Apologies - I stand corrected. But still Matt Hancock is saying the opposite: https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/matt-hancock-on-herd-immunity-and-coronavirus-1-6562302 Clarity is needed urgently.

I think a lot of the problem is the lack of clarity. For example, there is a strong belief that the government's policy is to push for "herd immunity" and everyone is treating that as fact but, as far as I can tell, nobody has ever said that is the government strategy and the government have now explicitly said that it is not their strategy at all. It is far from clear whether this was ever their strategy or simply some journalists' interpretation of the society. Similarly, earlier Matt Hancock said that over-70s - and possibly those with underlying health conditions - would need to self-isolate for up to four months but now it appears he may have meant minimise social contact, not self-isolate completely, and it is unclear whether or not those under 70 with underlying health conditions are included. My worry is not necessarily the government approach - I am not wholly clear on the government approach and I am not an epidemiologist, or even someone who was quite certain what an epidemiologist was until about three weeks ago - but the fact the government is losing control of the narrative and not being clear enough on what they are trying to do so people can understand the plan and the reasons for it. I think the only way to get things back on track is for them to treat us like adults and be transparent and explicit about what the steps are over the next few months and who is going to be asked to do what and in what order. The reality is people cannot trust the government's plan if they don't tell us what that plan is and I think a lot of the lack of clarity and frustration is not necessarily because the government is doing the wrong things but because we don't really know exactly what they are doing and what the reasoning is. As it stands, the uncertainty is making us fear there is an inadequate or flawed response and I can't see a way around that beyond clear information.

I honestly think the best thing to do is be honest and give him the choice. If he is healthy and has the ability to make an informed decision then it should be his decision. Explain you are concerned, be honest about what you think the risks are and let him decide what he wants you to do.

I like this idea.

It is an interesting idea but presumably it would need to then be set back on track at some point? Would we need the 2022/2023 season to run half a season and everyone play each other once in a randomly allocated manner in order to get back on track?