Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

First English pubs to close in Covid scares DAYS after lockdown eased.

262 replies

HeIenaDove · 07/07/2020 01:35

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/first-english-pubs-close-coronavirus-22311408

First English pubs to close in coronavirus scares days after lockdown eased
The Lighthouse Kitchen & Carvery in Burnham-on-Sea, The Fox & Hounds, in Batley, West Yorkshire, and The Village Home Pub in Alverstoke, Hampshire, have all announced a customers has tested positive for coronavirus

OP posts:
Bol87 · 07/07/2020 09:56

Why are people surprised by this? It’s obviously going to happen. It’s happened in schools, it’s happened in offices, it’s happened in factories. Pubs be the same. It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t open these things, we just need to track & trace and hope people are compliant!

I actually see this as a positive that people have got tested & told the t&t people that they were at the pub!

MonkeyToesOfDoom · 07/07/2020 09:58

It's not an either /or. It's both together. They both go up or they both go down depending on what we - as a society - do to reduce covid infections.

Good point.. let's hope.reopening everything doesnt strain the local NHS authorities and cancer sufferers in those areas are impacted.

Soontobe60 · 07/07/2020 09:58

@Crosswithlifeatm

So the pubs opened Saturday,if you realised early next morning that you felt unwell even if you got a test Sunday it's unlikely that you'd get a result on Monday. Anyway,the pubs have all contacts names so track and trace can get busy.
I've had two tests. Both times I got the results back the same day.
labyrinthloafer · 07/07/2020 09:58

@TrustTheGeneGenie

I don't think we're really comparable to the US for a number of reasons.
We are appearing more and more as a half way between European and US models.

Our social security system for example is much weaker now than Europe's and this contributes to difficulties dealing with a pandemic.

Bollss · 07/07/2020 09:59

@MonkeyToesOfDoom

It's not an either /or. It's both together. They both go up or they both go down depending on what we - as a society - do to reduce covid infections.

Good point.. let's hope.reopening everything doesnt strain the local NHS authorities and cancer sufferers in those areas are impacted.

But were not just "opening everything" are we?
Soontobe60 · 07/07/2020 10:00

@Rebelwithallthecause

People who go to the pub with symptoms and then decide to get tested would be 100% idiots though

Anyone going to the pub Saturday, then has symptoms Sunday and decides to request a test would not receive one until Monday using the governments testing service

Not true. One of my tests was on a Sunday, booked at 8am, tested at 10 am, results back by 11pm.
MonkeyToesOfDoom · 07/07/2020 10:02

Bit the virus isn't being left to run on its own is it?

No it isn't you're right, well spotted..
Those controls in place are almost entirely reliant on people, people being responsible. People wearing masks, observing distancing, not gathering with people they don't know. Good job people are so dependable and no one ever breaks the rules to go to a pub when ill...

MarcelineMissouri · 07/07/2020 10:04

“As far as I know, if you're contacted by someone from track and trace and have been exposed then you, your family and everyone you've been in close contact with should isolate for 2 weeks. www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/testing-and-tracing/nhs-test-and-trace-if-youve-been-in-contact-with-a-person-who-has-coronavirus/“

@MonkeyToesOfDoom that is NOT what that page says. It says no one else needs to isolate except you UNLESS you start showing symptoms. In which case presumably you would get tested anyway. It does not say that just because you may have been exposed you and everyone you’ve been in contact with also needs to isolate for 14 days. That would be ridiculous and unmanageable.

Langbannedforsafeguardingkids · 07/07/2020 10:04

Some scientists say mandating wearing masks is as effective as lockdown.

You've got to wonder, given the wealth of evidence, why the government has only applied a mandate on public transport here.

Since masks reduce spread but allow opening up, you'd think more people would be pro-mask but I hardly see anyone wearing one.

MonkeyToesOfDoom · 07/07/2020 10:04

But were not just "opening everything" are we?

Well spotted again, you're getting good at this. So why not?
Is it because, perhaps, those places aren't safe? So people gathering in pubs, cafes, schools are fine but gathering in those other places aren't? The virus must.know which doors it's allows in and which it isn't...

Bollss · 07/07/2020 10:05

@MonkeyToesOfDoom

Bit the virus isn't being left to run on its own is it?

No it isn't you're right, well spotted..
Those controls in place are almost entirely reliant on people, people being responsible. People wearing masks, observing distancing, not gathering with people they don't know. Good job people are so dependable and no one ever breaks the rules to go to a pub when ill...

It's entirely possible the people at the pub weren't breaking the rules.....?

You do know the government account for a certain percentage of non compliance right? And you know that the public actually exceeded expectations in compliance don't you?

Bollss · 07/07/2020 10:05

@MonkeyToesOfDoom

But were not just "opening everything" are we?

Well spotted again, you're getting good at this. So why not?
Is it because, perhaps, those places aren't safe? So people gathering in pubs, cafes, schools are fine but gathering in those other places aren't? The virus must.know which doors it's allows in and which it isn't...

Can you define safe please?
MonkeyToesOfDoom · 07/07/2020 10:08

It's entirely possible the people at the pub weren't breaking the rules.....?

You're on a roll... Well spotted....

So some innocent pensioner pops out for the first pint in 3 months, someone else unknowingly ill passes the virus to them, they die. He wasn't breaking the rules yet he's paid for it with his life. Fair? Unfortunate? Expected? Well he could have been hit by bus?

MonkeyToesOfDoom · 07/07/2020 10:08

Can you define safe please?

Yes. Can you?

Bollss · 07/07/2020 10:09

@MonkeyToesOfDoom

It's entirely possible the people at the pub weren't breaking the rules.....?

You're on a roll... Well spotted....

So some innocent pensioner pops out for the first pint in 3 months, someone else unknowingly ill passes the virus to them, they die. He wasn't breaking the rules yet he's paid for it with his life. Fair? Unfortunate? Expected? Well he could have been hit by bus?

Life's not fair. If you're worried about dying my advice would be stay in.

What's your solution? Close everything just in case....forever?

Bollss · 07/07/2020 10:11

@MonkeyToesOfDoom

Can you define safe please?

Yes. Can you?

Go on then?

There's no such thing as completely safe in normal life imo.

Pelleas · 07/07/2020 10:13

I braved the idea of doing some non-essential shopping at the weekend (for the first time since March). I won't be doing it again because very few people seemed to give a shit about social distancing. I wore a mask - I only saw two other mask wearers. In one shop a woman was letting her children run round, oblivious to me trying to dodge out of their way.

Having got out of the shop as quickly as possible, I picked a quiet spot outside to put my purchases inside my bag - two women strolled up and stood right next to me, texting on their phones - I moved away - they 'drifted' in my direction again.

I live in an area where cases are still going up. I'm not surprised.

MonkeyToesOfDoom · 07/07/2020 10:14

What's your solution? Close everything just in case....forever?

Nope.
My solution would have been early.lpck down, tighter lockdown, shorter lockdown. Phased opening of public places and businessess based on their ability to adhere to strict guidelines and manageability of cleaning and number of patrons and by an area to area basis. Those areas with fewer cases would have lockdown eased sooner and see more places open quicker. Places with high cases would stay in lockdown until daily infection numbers fall. That way the economy in some places would be able to get some semblance of normality and begin a return. Some of this is happening with local authorities stepping in.
But I'm not in control. The Tories are. The Tories who delayed lockdown, who had a weak lockdown and who could be releasing it too soon.

Bollss · 07/07/2020 10:15

But you can't time travel so what's your solution NOW?

BlueBrian · 07/07/2020 10:17

It's obvious only a small selfish minority are interested in using pubs, they should be shut again immediately.

AlecTrevelyan006 · 07/07/2020 10:20

Thousands of pubs and other licensed establishments opened at the weekend - probably several million people visited them.

Apparently three pubs have now closed again due to Covid related issues.

Big fat hairy deal.

Jrobhatch29 · 07/07/2020 10:20

@BlueBrian

It's obvious only a small selfish minority are interested in using pubs, they should be shut again immediately.
Yes! We must also shut the food factories because of the actual outbreaks. Oh no wait.... Funny what we deem acceptable workplaces and ones we don't. Seems if it directly benefits you it's okay.
ICouldBeTheOne · 07/07/2020 10:21

@MonkeyToesOfDoom

Again, you're still thinking CV deaths are the only deaths that matter.

Why do you think that? You keep saying do we want our loved ones to die of CV or not care about others who do die of it?

But let's take your approach - Do you not care about people dying now and who will die of treatable illnesses that can't access treatment? Or the people dying now and who will die due to the socioeconomic effects of the CV response?

If you're going to pluck numbers out of the air, what if we look back in 5 years and 100,000 died of CV and 300,000 died because of the response?

Would that have been justified to you?

Do you want someone you love to die of cancer in a year because they weren't diagnosed early enough? Do you want someone you love to kill themselves in 2 years because mental health services have been even more decimated than previously? Do you want someone you love to starve to death in a hostel because of further cuts to housing and unemployment benefits (happened under austerity measures and what we're facing now is going to be far worse). Someone you love dying of diabetes in 10 years when they started to become obese during lockdown? Someone you loved who was depressed by lockdown, lost their job and started drinking too much which becomes an addiction and a threat to health and a million other reasons...

No-one wants anyone to die. But people are dying every day as a result of the CV response and most, not from CV itself. And there will be deaths for many years far after CV has become another illness we live alongside.

How much 'tighter and longer' do you want lockdown to be?

AlecTrevelyan006 · 07/07/2020 10:25

The virus - as the doom mongers constantly remind us - has not gone away. We now need to learn to live with it. The overwhelming vast majority of people who went out at the weekend did not have coronavirus and the number of people who will have contracted it is virtually nil. And even if you have or even if you get there is a very high chance that you won’t suffer any symptoms.

Chill out.

ICouldBeTheOne · 07/07/2020 10:25

@Pelleas

Some people stood near you outside? I hope you 'phoned the Police.