| Is signing in really such a hardship? 23:33 - Apr 1 with 5037 views | Coastalblue |
People seem to be getting really upset about giving their details over in order to go to the pub, but is it really such a big deal in the current situation?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56608632 |  |
| |  |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 08:57 - Apr 2 with 1283 views | blueblueburleymcgrew |
I have wrestled with this tbh.
I don’t really want a society where I have to “show my papers” to move around on the other hand it is inevitable for overseas travel (which in normal times I do a lot with my job) and if I can live with that I accept it can just as easily be used for pubs etc. Despite the burden that that will cause the pubs in terms of policing it.
For me it must be a simple traffic light basis so those with for example health reasons who can’t be vaccinated are not discriminated against and it can’t be used to prevent people accessing supermarkets and GP’s surgery’s etc . Even those anti vaxxer numpties have to be able to buy food.
Is it going to be temporary or permanent? Unrolling a lot of the measures put in place to deal with the pandemic will be hard even if we have moved to a position of simply learning to live with the virus as we do flu. |  | | |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 08:58 - Apr 2 with 1266 views | Guthrum |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 05:12 - Apr 2 by SpruceMoose |
Yes, but my freedoms Stokie. |
I'm quite intrigued as to what people think the government is going to do with all that data, if they collected it.
A vast and unwieldy record of anybody and everybody who has been for a beer or a bite to eat. One which proves very little - after all, people who sign in close together aren't necessarily even sitting at the same table. Those who are associating won't always log in together. No agency (e.g. the police) is going to start randomly trawling such a database for networks and patterns. Running searches like that would take weeks, if they could get them to function at all. Not really practical. |  |
| |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 08:58 - Apr 2 with 1265 views | StokieBlue |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 08:53 - Apr 2 by chicoazul |
Private establishments can do what they want, of course. I’m not surprised nobody here thinks the slow gradual erosions of our hard won freedoms of movement and socialising over many centuries is a big deal. Like I said I knew vaccine passports would be very popular here on TWTD. I think it’s a ridiculous sham myself. Remember when loads of you were crying about people gathering on beaches last summer but we then found out there was no evidence of any viral transmission because of it? |
There is a huge difference between meeting indoors in pubs or in covered concourses like at a stadium and meeting outside in an exposed beach or park.
The two things shouldn't be lumped together because the science is clear on this.
In the end I think this will be driven by the establishments not the government. If the option is reduced capacity or vaccine/test checks and full capacity (which has been mooted by Boris) it's hard to see many going with the former when they have a year of missed revenue to make up.
SB |  | | |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 08:59 - Apr 2 with 1265 views | factual_blue |
Covid passports will be discriminatory.
Mainly against the stupid.
(I assume those who can't be vaccinated for legitimate medical reasons will get some sort of certificate to that effect) |  |
| |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 09:02 - Apr 2 with 1253 views | chicoazul |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 08:58 - Apr 2 by Guthrum |
I'm quite intrigued as to what people think the government is going to do with all that data, if they collected it.
A vast and unwieldy record of anybody and everybody who has been for a beer or a bite to eat. One which proves very little - after all, people who sign in close together aren't necessarily even sitting at the same table. Those who are associating won't always log in together. No agency (e.g. the police) is going to start randomly trawling such a database for networks and patterns. Running searches like that would take weeks, if they could get them to function at all. Not really practical. |
Well if you say so that’s alright then. It’s not like the police of the Govt have demonstrable history of being incredibly untrustworthy or anything. I think you’re amazingly naive. |  |
| |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 09:04 - Apr 2 with 1251 views | chicoazul |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 08:58 - Apr 2 by StokieBlue |
There is a huge difference between meeting indoors in pubs or in covered concourses like at a stadium and meeting outside in an exposed beach or park.
The two things shouldn't be lumped together because the science is clear on this.
In the end I think this will be driven by the establishments not the government. If the option is reduced capacity or vaccine/test checks and full capacity (which has been mooted by Boris) it's hard to see many going with the former when they have a year of missed revenue to make up.
SB |
So in other words it is being driven by the Govt in your example, yes? | |
| |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 09:05 - Apr 2 with 1253 views | Guthrum |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 08:53 - Apr 2 by chicoazul |
Private establishments can do what they want, of course. I’m not surprised nobody here thinks the slow gradual erosions of our hard won freedoms of movement and socialising over many centuries is a big deal. Like I said I knew vaccine passports would be very popular here on TWTD. I think it’s a ridiculous sham myself. Remember when loads of you were crying about people gathering on beaches last summer but we then found out there was no evidence of any viral transmission because of it? |
But is signing in to a pub a restriction on freedom of movement and association? Doesn't stop anyone actually doing it.
As I said below, not really useful (insofar as it is) for anything other than the purpose designed - aiding in the containment of spreader events. Indeed, proposals such as this indicate they're looking for ways to expedite the restoration of the right to socialise. A purely epidemiological approach would suggest we ought to stay strictly locked down until everyone's vaccinated. | |
| |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 09:08 - Apr 2 with 1244 views | StokieBlue |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 09:04 - Apr 2 by chicoazul |
So in other words it is being driven by the Govt in your example, yes? |
No, as I said, it will be an option for the establishment to decide.
SB | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 09:09 - Apr 2 with 1239 views | chicoazul |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 09:05 - Apr 2 by Guthrum |
But is signing in to a pub a restriction on freedom of movement and association? Doesn't stop anyone actually doing it.
As I said below, not really useful (insofar as it is) for anything other than the purpose designed - aiding in the containment of spreader events. Indeed, proposals such as this indicate they're looking for ways to expedite the restoration of the right to socialise. A purely epidemiological approach would suggest we ought to stay strictly locked down until everyone's vaccinated. |
If you can’t go in a pub without giving your details then yes of course it is. | |
| |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 09:10 - Apr 2 with 1233 views | chicoazul |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 09:08 - Apr 2 by StokieBlue |
No, as I said, it will be an option for the establishment to decide.
SB |
Literally not though, as according to your example “Boris” is advocating for something specific. | |
| |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 09:13 - Apr 2 with 1228 views | StokieBlue |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 09:10 - Apr 2 by chicoazul |
Literally not though, as according to your example “Boris” is advocating for something specific. |
If it's implemented as per that soundbite (which is by no means certain) then it will be up to the establishment to make the decision depending on what capacity they want. They won't be forced to do anything but will be allowed more capacity if they make the venue safer.
A restriction, by definition, is compulsory.
SB [Post edited 2 Apr 2021 9:14]
| | | |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 09:14 - Apr 2 with 1225 views | Guthrum |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 09:02 - Apr 2 by chicoazul |
Well if you say so that’s alright then. It’s not like the police of the Govt have demonstrable history of being incredibly untrustworthy or anything. I think you’re amazingly naive. |
But there's a difference between trustworthiness and what they could practically achieve.
At best (and after a vast amount of work) you could say that person A was in the vicinity of person B for a certain timeframe. Doesn't prove they interacted, or what the substance of any exchange was. Huge deployment of resources for very little information. And could be challenged without other verification (e.g. witnesses).
If they really wanted to do that, they could almost certainly use phone data, which already exists. | |
| |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 09:17 - Apr 2 with 1218 views | chicoazul |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 09:13 - Apr 2 by StokieBlue |
If it's implemented as per that soundbite (which is by no means certain) then it will be up to the establishment to make the decision depending on what capacity they want. They won't be forced to do anything but will be allowed more capacity if they make the venue safer.
A restriction, by definition, is compulsory.
SB [Post edited 2 Apr 2021 9:14]
|
Hopeless. If the Govt are saying “well you could be full capacity if you take everyone’s details” then how is that NOT the Govt imposing their will, given as you rightly say that pubs for eg have a year of money to make up? Hardly any landlord is going to say in that case I won’t do that.
I think this attitude is emblematic of what I see here a lot; a naive trust in the authorities who have let us down so badly before and continue to do so. People love Big Brother after all I suppose. | |
| |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 09:19 - Apr 2 with 1216 views | chicoazul |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 09:14 - Apr 2 by Guthrum |
But there's a difference between trustworthiness and what they could practically achieve.
At best (and after a vast amount of work) you could say that person A was in the vicinity of person B for a certain timeframe. Doesn't prove they interacted, or what the substance of any exchange was. Huge deployment of resources for very little information. And could be challenged without other verification (e.g. witnesses).
If they really wanted to do that, they could almost certainly use phone data, which already exists. |
So why not do that, then? If it’s as easy as you say? Or could there perhaps be another reason...? | |
| |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 09:21 - Apr 2 with 1219 views | Guthrum |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 09:09 - Apr 2 by chicoazul |
If you can’t go in a pub without giving your details then yes of course it is. |
But you are the one making the decision not to hand over your details, not the government. You are excluding yourself over your beliefs.
The government is arguably trying to facilitate the ability to socialise during a pandemic.
My disagreements with it are largely practical. The expense of setting up such a system and the fact it is unlikely to actually work properly (if past record is anything to go by). Plus many people will simply ignore it, with little chance of strict enforcement. | |
| |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 09:24 - Apr 2 with 1210 views | StokieBlue |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 09:17 - Apr 2 by chicoazul |
Hopeless. If the Govt are saying “well you could be full capacity if you take everyone’s details” then how is that NOT the Govt imposing their will, given as you rightly say that pubs for eg have a year of money to make up? Hardly any landlord is going to say in that case I won’t do that.
I think this attitude is emblematic of what I see here a lot; a naive trust in the authorities who have let us down so badly before and continue to do so. People love Big Brother after all I suppose. |
That is harsh, most have been hugely critical of the government and of the authorities.
It's all about practicalities though.
What do you want to happen? Everyone rammed into pubs with standing room only regardless of whether they are infectious? Why don't you tell us what should happen since we are all so naïve.
SB | | | |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 09:25 - Apr 2 with 1213 views | chicoazul |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 09:21 - Apr 2 by Guthrum |
But you are the one making the decision not to hand over your details, not the government. You are excluding yourself over your beliefs.
The government is arguably trying to facilitate the ability to socialise during a pandemic.
My disagreements with it are largely practical. The expense of setting up such a system and the fact it is unlikely to actually work properly (if past record is anything to go by). Plus many people will simply ignore it, with little chance of strict enforcement. |
If the Govt mandates people handing their name and address over to go to the pub then that is a restriction on movement. I could have any number of reasons not to want to do it but that’s irrelevant. It’s the Govt imposing itself on me. This is where you and I will always fundamentally disagree. | |
| |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 09:26 - Apr 2 with 1204 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 09:02 - Apr 2 by chicoazul |
Well if you say so that’s alright then. It’s not like the police of the Govt have demonstrable history of being incredibly untrustworthy or anything. I think you’re amazingly naive. |
Hospitality outlets are legally obliged to destroy any collected data after 21 days. The only time a government agency will require them is if somebody has been in close contact with somebody who has tested positive.
I had a customer contact me to say they had tested positive back in September. I contacted Public Health Scotland asking if they needed any track and trace data that I’d collected and they said that they’d get back to me. They never did.
There aren’t vast armies of spooks sitting around in offices pouring through this data. |  |
| |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 09:27 - Apr 2 with 1207 views | Guthrum |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 09:19 - Apr 2 by chicoazul |
So why not do that, then? If it’s as easy as you say? Or could there perhaps be another reason...? |
Because a scheme involving voluntary participation is much more palatable to the general public than one which uses phone records without the owners' permission. There have been enough rows about the latter already, even in strictly law enforcement/anti-terror situations. Heck, many people rejected the previous, app-based scheme.
This is voluntary. People can choose not to go to the pub if they really don't want to hand over their details. Less of an intrusion into civil liberties than ripping your phone data. | |
| |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 09:28 - Apr 2 with 1212 views | blueblueburleymcgrew |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 09:21 - Apr 2 by Guthrum |
But you are the one making the decision not to hand over your details, not the government. You are excluding yourself over your beliefs.
The government is arguably trying to facilitate the ability to socialise during a pandemic.
My disagreements with it are largely practical. The expense of setting up such a system and the fact it is unlikely to actually work properly (if past record is anything to go by). Plus many people will simply ignore it, with little chance of strict enforcement. |
I don’t disagree with most of that but your “during a pandemic” statement is interesting. Do you expect all these measures to be lifted once the pandemic is over?
What does “ over”look like? | | | |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 09:29 - Apr 2 with 1208 views | Mookamoo |
Is 'you don't have to sign in to the supermarket' becoming the new 'its just the flu' argument?
In practical terms, it is going to allow venues to open to more people at a quicker rate than without. The venue I work with has a capacity of 200 and will be opening with a max of 30 seating. They need 75 people to break even. They've been told, assuming rates don't rise significantly they can expect to open to 100 in Sept/Oct. All they can do in the meantime is do their bit to help reduce transmission.
The discussions they have had with the powers that be is that they will do anything necessary to avoid a new variant circumventing the vaccination program. 4000 new cases per day is still a significant number.
The current thinking is the venue will have Test and Trace, plus require evidence of a negative test with the last 24 hours. No exceptions. Until vaccine passports are a thing, they are not considering them. |  | | |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 09:32 - Apr 2 with 1204 views | StokieBlue |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 09:28 - Apr 2 by blueblueburleymcgrew |
I don’t disagree with most of that but your “during a pandemic” statement is interesting. Do you expect all these measures to be lifted once the pandemic is over?
What does “ over”look like? |
Why wouldn't they be lifted when the pandemic is declared as being over? Can you cite some evidence to show they won't be? If not then it's just baseless speculation which isn't that helpful and feeds into the conspiratorial mindset which many seemed to have developed.
SB | | | |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 09:34 - Apr 2 with 1201 views | Guthrum |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 09:28 - Apr 2 by blueblueburleymcgrew |
I don’t disagree with most of that but your “during a pandemic” statement is interesting. Do you expect all these measures to be lifted once the pandemic is over?
What does “ over”look like? |
'Over' is probably a scenario whereby the virus is at a low level (similar to last summer and now) and the majority of the population have been vaccinated. So conceivably towards the latter part of this year.
Bear in mind the longer this goes on, the more money it's costing the government and the more damage it's doing to the economy. For no return other than preventing mass illness and death. They are not going to want this prolonged for a moment more than necessary. Indeed, they've already been guilty of jumping the gun. | |
| |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 09:36 - Apr 2 with 1196 views | Parky |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 08:42 - Apr 2 by StokieBlue |
I'm amazed to be honest that nobody you know has it. It's the standard NHS track and trace app.
Places were literally turning people away without the app over the summer where I work.
No app sign-in, no entry. That wasn't the norm everywhere and many still had sign-ins but I don't see why it can't be.
Why are these things so hard for people to do? It's for the safety of themselves or others. Are we just a selfish nation?
SB |
For the record, I have absolutely no problem with signing in to a pub, but surely it needs signing out as well? - Say I go in the pub from midday and leave at 3, but someone comes in for the evening and later tests positive, why should I have to self-isolate?
This happened to my partner last year after a 5 minute visit to Dobbies, it later transpired the person who tested positive didn’t visit until 4 hours later. This is why we no longer have the app, although it may have upgraded since. |  | | |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 09:37 - Apr 2 with 1202 views | blueblueburleymcgrew |
| Is signing in really such a hardship? on 09:32 - Apr 2 by StokieBlue |
Why wouldn't they be lifted when the pandemic is declared as being over? Can you cite some evidence to show they won't be? If not then it's just baseless speculation which isn't that helpful and feeds into the conspiratorial mindset which many seemed to have developed.
SB |
Woah, steady tiger. I’m no conspiracy theorist but it’s valid to ask if this is going to be permanent or temporary.
Either way I will live with it but we can and should scrutinise the impact of this on society, and the long term implications. Have you seen anything from the Govt yet that says if they expect this to be short term , long term or permanent application? It may no matter but no harm to establish the thinking. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
