I was about to post that too seosamh77. It's not too complicated. People just want to make it complicated.
Hotel posted on Facebook as though it were some complex piece of international trading law.
Nope you're a hotel with a restaurant think of it as part of your licence. Yes they knacker some of your ability to do your job and seem to be taking the brunt of it. A feeling shared by a lot of people.
Spoke to campsite we're at tomorrow in Oban, first question - Are you coming tomorrow ? Yes of course. Good, last thing we need is people cancelling because they think they should.
Nice that I got the 1888th post
Wonder who got 1690?
In the spirit of Boris and his 3 word catchphrases, nae public swally would have been a clearer message.
This. Why over-complicate it?
Has anyone checked to see which McDonald's Restaurants are still open in the Central Belt?
It’s not too complicated.
Well I for one do not find it straightforward. Since we’re meant to be following the science (are we still doing that?) - what are the different risks associated with cafes v restaurants? I presume if you’re the owner of a restaurant or an employee at risk of losing their job it must seem incredibly arbitrary and unjust. Sturgeon blethered on, but she didn’t clearly explain the distinction. Just that if people couldn’t see the difference then everything would need to shut.
I’m increasingly surprised at the lack of criticism the Scottish Government are receiving, personally I don’t see much difference between them and Johnson&co, apart from delivery of their message.
Wonder who got 1690
The equivalent would be 1872, don't be a bigot Gordi.....
😆
Gauss - she did explain the reasons - the definitions were poor tho. she would like to shut down all hospitality but recognises cafes are lifelines for some people so exempted cafes. also ( not stated) but pissed people are more likely to behave stupidly
Gauss – she did explain the reasons – the definitions were poor tho. she would like to shut down all hospitality but recognises cafes are lifelines for some people so exempted cafes.
Did she? Because I listened to her today and I do not recall hearing her explain the difference between people going to a cafe v going to a restaurant. It is not obvious to me which is riskier. I suspect that is why people cannot see the difference, rather than not knowing if somewhere is a cafe or a restaurant (although a lot of places seem to sit somewhere between the two). Surely restaurants are lifelines for a number of people too.
Aye you're right enough, point taken Nobeer
She explained the reasons for exempting cafes quite clearly - that they are a lifeline for many lonely folk.
Its not an absolute science here. All actions have downsides, there are no good answers. It has to be a judgment on how to achieve the best results for the least downsides and this is her judgement.
Its not about the absolute risks. Its about the balance of risks
Its obvious pubs are more risky but not hugely so
gauss1777
Free Member
Did she? Because I listened to her today and I do not recall hearing her explain the difference between people going to a cafe v going to a restaurant. It is not obvious to me which is riskier.
She did quite clearly, it's to do with numbers, they need to shut down a certain amount of activity, the balance to leave cafes open is to give some of the more isolated members of society a place where they can go.
Cafes aren't being left open cause they are less risky.
Aye you’re right enough, point taken Nobeer
Lol, nae worries Gordi, we're no aw tub thumping loon balls in the southside on any given saturday! 😃
Is it an image thing? Cafe for me is under an hour, sandwich/panini etc, coffee, cake, chat.
Restaurant is a couple of hours, 3 courses and usually a glass of wine or a beer. Huge drop in profits for them as big margins on alcohol. Confusion arose initially because some cafes sell bottles of beer occasionally, but not a big part of their turnover.
Scotroutes - Dunfermline McDonalds is as took the kids for their end of term ‘treat’ this afternoon. Although Fife isn’t central belt.....oops
Chapeau to my local. I was a bit busy today and couldn’t make it in for a few pints to help them empty the casks - so they dropped them off for me at 6:30 lovely people. I’ve set up a direct debit for them since the start of this shambles to try and help.
She did quite clearly, it’s to do with numbers, they need to shut down a certain amount of activity, the balance to leave cafes open is to give some of the more isolated members of society a place where they can go.
Cafes aren’t being left open cause they are less risky.
What is apparently clear to everyone else, is far from clear to me. If it’s to do with the numbers, I’d love to see the calculations. ‘A certain amount of activity’ - how much is that then? Clearly, they’ve made a balls of this since they reopened schools, numbers are rising quickly. It all feels a bit haphazard, with a large dose of wishful thinking.
Pretty clear to me, <1hr cafe for coffee n’ cake and a chat, minimal contact with each other and waiting staff, >1hr restaurants shut as meal + table service/increased close contact between each other and waiting staff. Pubs shut coz.......well......cause certain age groups of folk are dicks when drunk and social distancing is the last thing on their mind and much greater risk of taking home more than a hangover.
Of course you could then say that with the pubs shut folk will just meet up in houses and get drunk with even more risks leading to the spread of the virus, these folk will do whatever the **** they like no matter what the advice leading to consequences for society as a whole.
You can only do so much, i dunno how we will get on top of this as long as folk take the piss.
Somafunk speaks sense as usual.
Pretty clear to me, <1hr cafe for coffee n’ cake and a chat, minimal contact with each other and waiting staff, >1hr restaurants shut as meal + table service/increased close contact between each other and waiting staff
I would hazard that doubling the time does not double the risk. Whereas doubling the number of people you’re in contact with does. There are more people in and out of a cafe than a restaurant. ‘Airborne risk’ is greater than ‘physical contact’ risk as far as I’m aware; so lots of people coming and going in a poorly ventilated cafe, may well be riskier than fewer people spending longer in a more spacious restaurant. I don’t know any of this with any certainty, but I am surprised that so many others find it all so clear and cannot understand why restaurant owners are perplexed.
gauss1777
Free Member
‘A certain amount of activity’ – how much is that then?
Not shut down enough if you ask me, we should have had a 2 week "circuit break" 3 weeks ago.
The horse has bolted.
restaurant owners are perplexed. 😆
If you are calling yourself a restaurant, yer a restaurant. pretty blinking simple! 😆
🤣😃🤣
I'm not convinced by the complaints from the various business owners.The common thread is that no matter which particular sector they work in business owners think that their business should remain open and someone else's should be made to close. It's a natural thing theyre worried about their own livelihood and their staff. I don't think there is going to be any quick solution to this , vaccines can take several years to develop. So every individual needs to take responsibility for their own actions in order to restrict the spread of the virus, and countries need to start to co-operate with one another as do the big pharma companies so that research makes quicker and better co-ordinated progress
Clearly I am either talking pish or not explaining myself at all well. Hey ho, ‘twas ever thus. I hate eating out and whilst I usually enjoy visiting a cafe, I’ve only been once since February. However, I’d appreciate some rationale behind the Government’s decisions - I’m not convinced there’s much rigour to their decisions at the moment.
gauss1777
Free Member
‘A certain amount of activity’ – how much is that then?Not shut down enough if you ask me, we should have had a 2 week “circuit break” 3 weeks ago.
I’d be happier with this too. Lots of confusing, half-measures are more painful.
Gauss
I don't know how else we can explain it. the risks of keeping both cafes and pubs open are similar yes - but the FM has decide that the social role of cafes is important enough to accept the risk of them staying open given the reduction in total risk from the other measures
I and others have tried to explain this
its not a judgement based on hard science - its one based on social need
I don't think shutting pubs and restaurants will do much to even slow, let alone stop the number of folks catching this going up.
I do think they're losing folks' support as it seems like they're doing this so it looks like they're doing "something".
Don't really know what their end goal/target is
I don’t think shutting pubs and restaurants will do much to even slow, let alone stop the number of folks catching this going up.
Once it gets into a household everyone in the house is probably going to get it. So if one person brings it into a household of 4, boom, 4 cases. What the measures are designed to stop are the links between households and therefore reduce the opportunity for rapid growth household transmission provides.
That's the theory anyway, I think. How successful that will be is very much up in the air.
Aye, households may be where the transmission takes place, but it's got to come from somewhere, schools are fairly important, work ditto (and lots still wfh) pubs and restaurants are not a necessity. IMO cafes are only getting a stay of execution, if numbers don't show some form of regression or at least stagnation, they'll get the chop too.
I don't believe for a minute pubs will reopen in 16 days either.
I understand the theory. But does anyone think this will make the r number go down? Possibly slow the rate of increase a little but not going to turn it around.
Let's hope so. No one really knows, it's all part of a delicate balancing act.
I'm pleased to see the 2m rule being reinforced in supermarkets again, not before time. Too many folk, particularly oldies, think because they have a mask on they can push past to grab their stuff.
I do think they’re losing folks’ support
People will come back on message when the hospitals are overwhelmed.
It's pointless locking down the pubs etc. while the schools and universities are still open.
It’s pointless locking down the pubs etc. while the schools and universities are still open.
I disagree with this, shutting pubs etc removes a place where infection can and does occur. The fact that other places where infection can occur remain open does not negate that reduction in transmission.
Why is it pointless? Every restriction reduces transmission. We showed in March that shutting everything could reduce numbers quite quickly. Now we’re trying to find a level below that, which keeps levels roughly stable. So you don’t need to shut everything but do need to shut some things. In which case it’s just a matter of deciding what is more important; schools/universities or pubs/restaurants.
It’s pointless locking down the pubs etc. while the schools and universities are still open.
This is how I feel too. Lots of people moving randomly in a Brownian type motion, in a confined, poorly ventilated space taking little precautions against spreading the virus.
Why is it pointless?
Because to my mind, the amount of transmission in schools and universities is enough to ensure R remains above 1.
In which case it’s just a matter of deciding what is more important; schools/universities or pubs/restaurants.
Of course schools and universities are "more important" than pubs.
However, a lot more individuals attend school and university than go to pubs and kids spend all day at school.
If closing pubs reduces infection rates by 20%, then the R value is still going increase and the virus will spread.
Unless you think we should close the schools again?
We just need to live with this virus.
We just need to live with this virus.
trouble is for a lot of people that means dying with it
We can't "live with this virus" unless we accept the high number of deaths, the ongoing illness associated with it, overwhelming the NHS and the delayed/cancelled treatment of almost every other type of hospital intervention.
All decisions like this are ‘political’.
Let’s not forget, the schools never really closed in March, they just closed for the majority of pupils.
If we leave things too late we have to go back to lockdown, if we avert it, it’s the Y2K syndrome, see it was all a dud why did we have to go through that...
Whether you like it or not schools are vital for getting our economy back up and running. Schools are also designed to be adequately ventilated (some even have IAQ in room monitoring facilities!) and kids are a lot less susceptible to picking it up/getting ill. So pretty much the exact opposite of pubs then.
We ****ed the timing up the last time, can we really afford to do it again?
We can’t “live with this virus” unless we accept the high number of deaths, the ongoing illness associated with it, overwhelming the NHS and the delayed/cancelled treatment of almost every other type of hospital intervention.
So we need to fully lockdown again until we have vaccine?
The virus has already delayed and cancelled a huge number of treatments and delayed huge numbers of diagnosis.
Yes but it will spread more slowly. The idea is to slow the spread so that not everyone gets it at once thus not overwhelming the NHS , and fewer people end up getting it by the time a vaccine (hopefully) arrives. An R of 1.5 is better than a R of 3.
Schools are also designed to be adequately ventilated (some even have IAQ in room monitoring facilities!)
This is interesting. There is very poor air circulation in my school as far as I can tell. I’ve not heard of IAQ in room monitoring- how many classrooms in Scotland have this?
I’ve not heard of IAQ in room monitoring- how many classrooms in Scotland have this?
Literally no idea. It’s covered under the UK education Building Bulletin design guidance (101) and was first published early 2000’s I think. The two schools I’ve designed/engineered the mech services on in that period both have them...
It covers maintaining the CO2 concentration to <1500ppm as above this is deemed detrimental to children’s educational environment (ie their ability to pay attention/stay awake).
There is also clear guidance for avoidance of summertime overheating. Iirc this is included in Part L in England, but not Section 6 in Scotland.
BB101 (the above) is neither mandatory nor retrospective so sometimes doesn’t get fully implemented and can be difficult to rectify retrospectively. Gas regulations however are both so only really Science & CDT areas tend to get done.
There is very poor air circulation in my school as far as I can tell.
The mechanism provided to alleviate this issue is called a window. In my experience there is a high degree of user error or resistance to opening them...
Obviously this can prove problematic for achieving desired levels of thermal comfort, which is why the BB was significantly revised and update in 2018. Schools designed under the revision probably haven’t started on site yet, so will take a while to filter through on the ground.
There has been chatter about the BB being made mandatory in the next round of Building Reg updates, but lack of budget will make it just one more competing interest when the dreaded ‘VE’ hammer strikes...
Some good news on the horizon though, the change in SFT funding mechanism is pushing school design down the Passivhaus route which has MVHR at its core in order to achieve an annual energy consumption of 67kWh/m2/annum for core.
Remember that universities might be back but face to face teaching has been significantly reduced, so students are not sitting next to each other in packed lecture halls for hours at a time anymore.
That's the point though. We are all (in all sectors) trying to find a level of activity that allows things to carry on as much as possible while keeping the virus under control.
Are the current measures the right ones? Of course not. They are just the current best guess and will be refined based on what happens over the next few weeks. If numbers go down we can relax some things. If they go up we have to tighten some more. But which activities you decide to restrict will depend on how important you think they are. Both for society and in terms of transmission. Evidence on the latter is not great at the moment, but is getting a bit better all the time.
