so what are the rules now?

[didds]

aplogies of this is a FAQ - Im feeling like dogs doo dag and havent the energy bto wade through two years of posts

Sunday a friend ive been ina performance with last week announced he was +ve. My LFT -ve
Monday i had a mild sore throat. LFT -ve
Tuesday sore throat still around . LFT -ve
Today LFT +ve. Took a 2nd LFT - also +ve.

T&T advice is self isolate until Mar 3rd, unless two consecutive -ve LFTs from Feb 26th

But Govt policy changes tomorrow ... innit?

So does that mean that i DONT _have_ to self isolate from tomorrow at all?

[ I shall FWIW - Im just intrigued how this all works! ]

didds

[Arborbridge]

I won't be of any help. I'm confused too.

An right old Tory friend of mine, and defender of Johnson says there should be no confusion: it's all us people who want the nanny state to tell us what to do, and where is the confusion?

He says: "It's simple: all restrictions have ended, and now we just do what we think we ought to do and exercise personal judgement."

What the heck does that mean anyway? Don't we need information and technical advice before we can make a judgement?

So, I take it as the government isn't paying for tests anymore, we don't need them. And I can take off my Covid App since they there is no need to test and trace, which means no more being pinged. And I can dispense with wearing a mask....though I probably will do so in shops etc where there are older people wearing them.

Infection rates will drop dramatically because we aren't testing so much, and Johnson will hail a great victory

Confusion: what confusion? I might exagerrate for effect, but I expect a great deal of confusion, possibly, especially between employers and employees.
Arb,

[servodude]

Infection rates will drop dramatically because we aren't testing so much, and Johnson will hail a great victory

He must be praying that the Queen doesn't do a Betty White to ruin it for him

[dealtn]

So does that mean that i DONT _have_ to self isolate from tomorrow at all?

You never had to self-isolate, you just had to accept the potential consequences should you not do so. Now those potential legal consequences are much reduced, mostly eliminated. The moral (for want of a better word) consequences aren't much changed I would imagine than before this latest alteration.

[UncleEbenezer]

You should of course self-isolate so far as you can. If it were me, that would mean cancelling any in-person business, social or cultural engagements, but continuing with shopping (bare essentials, if not online then at non-busy times) and a daily walkies.

Which is kind-of how it should have been all along. And how it should be if you have a cold. If there had never been legal restrictions, none of us would blink at that.

Sadly we've been conditioned out of such commonsense by the big Nanny State and the expectation of byzantine rules. Good to see you still have that much sense, despite your lurgy which I imagine might (like a bad cold) fuddle the mind.

Hope you don't get worse. And talking of mild covid, the Queen will now surely have a disproportionate effect on public perception - if she's seen to make a good recovery from mild illness vs if she gets worse. Though at her age, recovery is surely going to take a while!

[UncleEbenezer]

You never had to self-isolate, you just had to accept the potential consequences should you not do so.

I find that a very strange use of "never had to". What level of compulsion, and from whom, would qualify for "had to" in your world?

[Arborbridge]

Johnson, the clever scoundrel that he is, tries to face two ways: he announces that all restrictions have been lifted: then in the same sentence tells us it's up to us to impose restrictions (without any technical advice, of course - just use your imagination).
So, the first part of his announcement is a typical politician's lie, because it is contradicted by the second part. There are continuing restrictions, but he just doesn't want to take responsibility for them .

Right old Tories take all this as being something to do with the Nanny state, but it isn't: it is simply a case of ensuring public health. If we do not need restictions, let's not have them. If we do need them, then Johnson should fulfill one of the first requirements of government in safeguarding public health.

To say it is all up to the public "doing the right thing" is quite ridiculous. People need to know quite clearly what the right thing is, otherwise it is a recipe for confusion - but then isn't that so typical of this unworthy PM who dispenses confusion whenever he speaks? Even when most of us thought we knew what the rules were, plenty of people decided they didn't apply - including members of the government. A forlorn hope if he expects better from the ordinary folk.

Arb.

[dealtn]

You never had to self-isolate, you just had to accept the potential consequences should you not do so.

I find that a very strange use of "never had to". What level of compulsion, and from whom, would qualify for "had to" in your world?

Maybe my world is more literal than that of others.

There are multitudes of laws, regulation and guidelines across all walks of life. They might range from those concerning killing people or stealing, down to lesser offences such as speeding, not wearing a seatbelt, or crossing a road. Across that full range, though, there are people that choose not to follow those "rules", but in doing so expose themselves to living with the consequences, both legal and moral, through that choice.

Covid is/was no different. Indeed many people, ranging from well known to anonymous, made precisely such choices and decided "not to". The majority may have got away with it even, and even among the minority, the consequences of discovery were limited in practice in a legal sense.

So what world is yours, and what do you mean by "had to" or its near opposite "never had to"?

[didds]

To say it is all up to the public "doing the right thing" is quite ridiculous. People need to know quite clearly what the right thing is, otherwise it is a recipe for confusion - but then isn't that so typical of this unworthy PM who dispenses confusion whenever he speaks?

Arb.

its his MO.

Witness "substantial meal" - no guidance as to what a SM meant in 2020 although there was a vague allusion to some court case from the 50s that suggested a scotch egg was sufficient, which then different government ministers contradicted. So case law wasn't acceptable by some, yet no more guidance was offered. Wet led pubs either didn't open, or ended up providing cheese ploughman's to remain open, as they didn't have a qualified kitchen. Or just offered (as we were once) bread and olive oil for £3 for two people as a SM. Or minimal SMs being ordered and then ignored and just left on the plate going cold.

its just a way to shift the onus away from governmental responsibility so the blame can be apportioned elsewhere if it goes wrong, whilst claiming kudos if it doesn't.

Others' MMV naturally.

didds

[dealtn]

Johnson, the clever scoundrel that he is, tries to face two ways: he announces that all restrictions have been lifted: then in the same sentence tells us it's up to us to impose restrictions (without any technical advice, of course - just use your imagination).
So, the first part of his announcement is a typical politician's lie, because it is contradicted by the second part. There are continuing restrictions, but he just doesn't want to take responsibility for them .

Right old Tories take all this as being something to do with the Nanny state, but it isn't: it is simply a case of ensuring public health. If we do not need restictions, let's not have them. If we do need them, then Johnson should fulfill one of the first requirements of government in safeguarding public health.

To say it is all up to the public "doing the right thing" is quite ridiculous. People need to know quite clearly what the right thing is, otherwise it is a recipe for confusion - but then isn't that so typical of this unworthy PM who dispenses confusion whenever he speaks? Even when most of us thought we knew what the rules were, plenty of people decided they didn't apply - including members of the government. A forlorn hope if he expects better from the ordinary folk.

Arb.

So what are the "restrictions" for measles, and why are they different to Covid (or flu or other causes of death be they contagious or otherwise)? Is it not possible that this is "complicated" and one outcome is a justifiable level of restriction that is actually zero (just as with other areas of life) and that members of the public decide how to act, albeit with the result that "society" also lives with those consequences?

[Lootman]

You never had to self-isolate, you just had to accept the potential consequences should you not do so.

I find that a very strange use of "never had to". What level of compulsion, and from whom, would qualify for "had to" in your world?

what do you mean by "had to" or its near opposite "never had to"?

The phrase is ambiguous which is the root of the confusion here.

If there is a law against doing X then there is a sense that you "have to" avoid doing X or else possibly face some kind of consequence or punishment.

But laws do not literally prevent anyone from doing anything. The law is merely an input into your decision-making process. You may elect to ignore a law for a variety of reasons and, at some time or another, we all do.

When a government wants to manipulation the behaviour of its subjects it really only has two options - the stick and the carrot. But the final choice whether to do what the government wants you to do is always yours. Millions of people flouted the Covid restrictions because presumably, in their judgement, there were compelling personal reasons to do so.

[bungeejumper]

I have to go to a family funeral next week. Whoopeedoo, a hundred people in church, most of them strangers, and all of them singing at full throttle without a mask requirement. Followed by a reception (ditto, except with loud talking instead of singing, and food.)

Would dearly love to give it a miss, especially now that confirmed covid cases are now free to turn up (without masks if they feel so inclined) - but yeah, that would cause too much hurt to my family, and I wouldn't want to do that. This is going to take a bit of finessing. Thanks, Boris. Anybody know where I can borrow a diving helmet?

BJ

[Lootman]

I have to go to a family funeral next week. Whoopeedoo, a hundred people in church, most of them strangers, and all of them singing at full throttle without a mask requirement. Followed by a reception (ditto, except with loud talking instead of singing, and food.)

Would dearly love to give it a miss, especially now that confirmed covid cases are now free to turn up (without masks if they feel so inclined) - but yeah, that would cause too much hurt to my family, and I wouldn't want to do that. This is going to take a bit of finessing.

The approach I adopted (for a wedding, not a funeral, but it's the same problem) was to skip the service but show up for a while at the reception. Nobody noticed that I was not at the service although, if they had, I would have made up some excuse about train delay or car problem.

By showing up at only the reception you will ensure that you are seen, and can easily limit the time you are there, which is less easy at a service.

In general I dislike weddings and funerals, not least because I have to get dressed up which I otherwise never do. Those are the only times I wear a tie. Yuk.

I use a N99 mask for crowded situations that I cannot avoid.

[Charlottesquare]

Johnson, the clever scoundrel that he is, tries to face two ways: he announces that all restrictions have been lifted: then in the same sentence tells us it's up to us to impose restrictions (without any technical advice, of course - just use your imagination).
So, the first part of his announcement is a typical politician's lie, because it is contradicted by the second part. There are continuing restrictions, but he just doesn't want to take responsibility for them .

Right old Tories take all this as being something to do with the Nanny state, but it isn't: it is simply a case of ensuring public health. If we do not need restictions, let's not have them. If we do need them, then Johnson should fulfill one of the first requirements of government in safeguarding public health.

To say it is all up to the public "doing the right thing" is quite ridiculous. People need to know quite clearly what the right thing is, otherwise it is a recipe for confusion - but then isn't that so typical of this unworthy PM who dispenses confusion whenever he speaks? Even when most of us thought we knew what the rules were, plenty of people decided they didn't apply - including members of the government. A forlorn hope if he expects better from the ordinary folk.

Arb.

It also, for employers, becomes trickier. An employer requires to provide a safe working environment for employees and ought to assess risks, HMG policy, whilst not a get out of jail card, at least gave a defence of acting reasonably, now there is no policy to use as such a metric.

So when an employee now turns up with all the symptoms of Covid insisting they want to work can an employer force them to not come to work and if he/she insists they leave then is there a legal liability for the employer to pay them in full?

Effectively the buck got passed.

[Hallucigenia]

It also, for employers, becomes trickier. An employer requires to provide a safe working environment for employees and ought to assess risks, HMG policy, whilst not a get out of jail card, at least gave a defence of acting reasonably, now there is no policy to use as such a metric.

So when an employee now turns up with all the symptoms of Covid insisting they want to work can an employer force them to not come to work and if he/she insists they leave then is there a legal liability for the employer to pay them in full?

Effectively the buck got passed.

Except HMG is our biggest employer, so the buck does not have far to go. IANAL but I imagine it would be interesting to test HMG's duties under H&S legislation given advice in the public domain such as this from SPI-B and who knows what juiciness might be obtained with some FOI requests.

[Charlottesquare]

It also, for employers, becomes trickier. An employer requires to provide a safe working environment for employees and ought to assess risks, HMG policy, whilst not a get out of jail card, at least gave a defence of acting reasonably, now there is no policy to use as such a metric.

So when an employee now turns up with all the symptoms of Covid insisting they want to work can an employer force them to not come to work and if he/she insists they leave then is there a legal liability for the employer to pay them in full?

Effectively the buck got passed.

Except HMG is our biggest employer, so the buck does not have far to go. IANAL but I imagine it would be interesting to test HMG's duties under H&S legislation given advice in the public domain such as this from SPI-B and who knows what juiciness might be obtained with some FOI requests.

At least they have vast HR teams to steer things , smaller private sector employers have no such luxury, they often end up doing all this sort of work on the hoof with very little HR background/experience. The catch is you need to risk assess and create policies if you have 2 or 200,000 employees.

[ReformedCharacter]

It seems to me to be inevitable that everyone is going to get C19 or at least get exposed to it. Given that Omicron is relatively mild for most (but not all) people, is it time to accept that inevitababilty because it seems unlikely that it will be possible to avoid it while living a relatively normal life?

Perhaps one might argue that it is better to postpone the inevitable until the hospitals are less crowded or there are more treatments.

RC

[servodude]

You never had to self-isolate, you just had to accept the potential consequences should you not do so.

I find that a very strange use of "never had to". What level of compulsion, and from whom, would qualify for "had to" in your world?

Maybe my world is more literal than that of others.

There are multitudes of laws, regulation and guidelines across all walks of life. They might range from those concerning killing people or stealing, down to lesser offences such as speeding, not wearing a seatbelt, or crossing a road. Across that full range, though, there are people that choose not to follow those "rules", but in doing so expose themselves to living with the consequences, both legal and moral, through that choice.

Covid is/was no different. Indeed many people, ranging from well known to anonymous, made precisely such choices and decided "not to". The majority may have got away with it even, and even among the minority, the consequences of discovery were limited in practice in a legal sense.

So what world is yours, and what do you mean by "had to" or its near opposite "never had to"?

Now this stuff is fun for a pedantic bit of linguistic juggling
- no one "has to" do very much in a literal sense if we discount "consequences"
- you don't "have to" eat, or drink.. you can choose to stop breathing - so you don't "have to" do that either

but it seems like a bit of a diversion off topic though in a thread called "so what are the rules now?"

It would be a bit like me pointing out that "you just had to accept the potential consequences should you not do so" is true IFF you ignore that other people had to accept them also - like the victims in the case of the killing people example
why be selective with our literal pedantry?

Anyhow...
Do we know if COVID 19 is being taken off the list of "nofifyable diseases" as part of these changes?

- sd

[pje16]

The rules....???
just forget them
After 2 years we ought to know what is the right thing to do by now
use your commom sense
as UK Gov doesn't have any

[Julian]

aplogies of this is a FAQ - Im feeling like dogs doo dag and havent the energy bto wade through two years of posts

Sunday a friend ive been ina performance with last week announced he was +ve. My LFT -ve
Monday i had a mild sore throat. LFT -ve
Tuesday sore throat still around . LFT -ve
Today LFT +ve. Took a 2nd LFT - also +ve.

T&T advice is self isolate until Mar 3rd, unless two consecutive -ve LFTs from Feb 26th

But Govt policy changes tomorrow ... innit?

So does that mean that i DONT _have_ to self isolate from tomorrow at all?

[ I shall FWIW - Im just intrigued how this all works! ]

didds

I don’t know the answer I’m afraid, after 23 months of the pandemic I finally managed to flee the UK for a couple of months of heat and sunshine, but I do seem to remember that we might have seen a similar situation before, at least for a while, that if repeated might connect the dots in the above.

At one point when the legally required isolation period was reduced wasn’t there the slightly crazy situation where after the implementation date if you tested positive you only needed to isolate for the reduced number of days but if you were already in isolation on the implementation date you still had to isolate for the full length according to the previous rules? Essentially on rule change day those already in isolation were given no recognition for “time already served”.

If my recollection is correct and if a similar thing is happening now then it could be that because you incurred a legal obligation to isolate prior to the rule change you might still have to serve out the mandated isolation period even if that keeps you isolated beyond Thursday.

I am not a lawyer but in typing the above I am wondering whether there is some legal subtlety that requires the above despite it perhaps seeming counter-intuitive to many people. Might it be the fact that because the legal obligation was considered imposed at the start of the isolation period it is considered immutable from then on? I realise there are examples people could throw at me where that is not the case e.g. parole although presumably the possibility of parole is a carefully drafted provision(s?) expressly written into the appropriate law(s). Maybe in the absence of any early release provision for isolation explicitly describing what happens in the event of an on-the-fly change in government policy these previously legally mandated isolation periods need to run their course? If anyone is legally trained I would be interested to know whether my musings might have any credibility or whether the above is all pure sophistry.

- Julian

Edit: Original reply missed the “in a performance with” bit so I initially thought didds was doing a slightly joking “asking for a friend” phrasing when it was actually him who was positive. Sorry for the misunderstanding due to not reading the original post carefully enough. I have attempted to correct the bits of my post that were thus inapplicable.