Continuation Covid-19 and Politics pt 2

[jimbob]

Originally Posted by The Don

The supplier in question is Chartwells.

A Google search throws up some interesting tweets showing the kind of food they can deliver to private schools (for a pretty price I'm sure) contrasted to the miserable "hamper" that's generating the headlines.

The directors of Chartwells are doing very nicely (£1m+ renumeration) and I'm sure this contract will do a good job of making the bottom line look good.

I'm sure that they'll say that the £5.22 hamper is an aberration, glossing over the fact that usually they "only" stiff the client by 50% or so

Here's Jay Rayner retweeting a tweet which contrasts £30 of food vs the Chartwells £30 "Hamper"

https://twitter.com/jayrayner1/statu...20418984464385

See also Jack Munroe's tweets on the subject including this one in conversation with Chartwells, which was indeed claiming it an aberration

https://twitter.com/BootstrapCook/st...560065029?s=20 from this thread:

Quote:

#FreeSchoolMeals bag for 10 days:

2 days jacket potato with beans
8 single cheese sandwiches

2 days carrots
3 days apples
2 days soreen
3 days frubes

Spare pasta & tomato. Will need mayo for pasta salad.

Issued instead of £30 vouchers. I could do more with £30 to be honest.

Quote:

Chartwells
@Chartwells_UK
·
3h
Thank you for bringing this to our attention, this does not reflect the specification of one of our hampers. Please can you DM us the details of the school that your child attends and we will investigate immediately.

Quote:

Jack Monroe
@BootstrapCook
Replying to
@Chartwells_UK
and
@RoadsideMum
With all due respect, this isn’t the only photo in circulation. Perhaps you could clarify the situation by posting a pic of what your food parcels -should- look like? Because I’ve had hundreds of pics that look just like this one. Over to you.
10:56 PM · Jan 11, 2021·Twitter for iPhone
138
Retweets
8
Quote Tweets
1K
Likes
Jack Monroe
@BootstrapCook
·
30m
Replying to
@BootstrapCook

@Chartwells_UK
and
@RoadsideMum
And some of those pics have been sent by people saying they are your own employees, FYI. And no I’m not giving you their details. Some of them say they have been furloughed and are receiving these themselves so can vouch for the accuracy of this. Do you dispute this?

And her pinned tweet thread:

https://twitter.com/BootstrapCook/st...782444033?s=20

Quote:

Hi all. I’ve been sent LOTS of photos of the food parcels that have replaced the £30 vouchers and asked what I would do with them. I’m replying with advice privately because to do so publicly would look like justifying these ill thought through, offensively meagre scraps /1.

[GlennB]

And they have form:

Chartwells, the outsourced school meals supplier owned by Compass had previously been heavily criticised in March 2020 by head teachers and local members of the Parliament for "profiteering" by supplying school meals for £11 that consisted of little more than pre-packaged snacks.[10]

From the wiki article on Dominic Blakemore, CEO of Compass Group. This also makes the unverified claim that he's a Tory party donor.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Numerous press reports say they were drinking cups of peppermint tea, purchased from Starbucks, and that is one reason the police accused them of meeting "for a picnic."

It doesn't matter now - one of the women has received plenty of free publicity for her make-up business, and the police have officially apologized and refunded the fines. A clear message has been sent to everyone that it's perfectly fine to drive a few miles away from home to meet up with a friend at some "exercise spot", and it's okay to stop on the way at any take-away places that are still open to purchase some beverage to enjoy at the meeting.

None of which contradicts what the rules say. If you want to tighten the rules, fair enough, but being snarky about people who are keeping to the rules, not even bending them, seems unnecessary.

What we should be seeing in the press, of course, are examples of people keeping to the rules, and reports of any people who have really broken the rules being properly dealt with.

[Filippo Lippi]

CEO of Compass Group on this list of Tory party donors

[Aidoneus]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Numerous press reports say they were drinking cups of peppermint tea, purchased from Starbucks, and that is one reason the police accused them of meeting "for a picnic."

It doesn't matter now - one of the women has received plenty of free publicity for her make-up business, and the police have officially apologized and refunded the fines. A clear message has been sent to everyone that it's perfectly fine to drive a few miles away from home to meet up with a friend at some "exercise spot", and it's okay to stop on the way at any take-away places that are still open to purchase some beverage to enjoy at the meeting.

Another blow to the "stay at home" message, and one that will undoubtedly cost more lives.

The fines were rescinded because the two women didn't break the law, it's as simple as that. The police are not there to enforce government guidelines.

[Captain_Swoop]

Why don't people stay at home? It's not a game.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Aidoneus

The fines were rescinded because the two women didn't break the law, it's as simple as that. The police are not there to enforce government guidelines.

As far as I can see, they didn't even go against government guidelines. They met to exercise in a public place, which is specifically permitted. Regulations specify not to travel 'outside your local area' but give not the slightest guidance as to what constitutes a local area. Since they were said to be both within five minutes' drive from home, at worst they didn't flagrantly violate the spirit of the regulation; I know that five minutes' drive from where I live will barely get me to the edge of town. The police's argument that, because they'd both brought a hot drink, they were having a picnic, is absurd; a picnic is an outdoor meal, and the government has already specifically stated, in another context, that anything less than a Scotch egg does not constitute a meal. The problem is not that two people were trying to game the system; it was that the police were over-zealous and fined them for doing one of the few things the regulations permitted them to. And, if they were keeping their distance, they were actually behaving sensibly. People need exercise, fresh air and sunshine, and shouldn't be fined for making an honest effort to get them within both the letter and the spirit of the regulations in force.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Why don't people stay at home? It's not a game.

Because people aren't robots. There's a reason why incarceration is a punishment; people suffer mentally when confined to a small area. There has to be a balance between mental and physical health, and the regulations are intended to strike a sensible one.

Dave

[Captain_Swoop]

So walk round the block. People still aren't taking things seriously

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

So walk round the block. People still aren't taking things seriously

I'm more likely to pass close to several people while walking round the block than if I drive to the edge of town and walk on the heath. While I'm in my car I'm not breathing on anyone outside my car. If a lot of other people are doing the same thing I can turn round and go home. Which is more sensible?

And in any case, the idea of fining someone for infringing regulations that they haven't even infringed is completely unacceptable even if they aren't being sensible. Punishments need to be specific and related to actual offenses, rather than based on a subjective judgement as to the precise meaning of words like 'local' and 'picnic'. That's been a problem all along with coronavirus regulations; it's impossible sometimes to work out what they actually are, so people trying in good faith to observe them are getting into trouble.

And I'm not a mask shunning Covid-denier; I've been taking the regulations as a minimum standard and being more careful throughout. I've still found myself in one or two situations where I simply couldn't find out, even by asking people in authority, whether it was legally acceptable to do something that I nevertheless needed to do.

The problem is not that people trying to game the system are being prosecuted. It's that people trying to observe the letter and spirit of the regulations are still being prosecuted. That, I suspect, is why the fines were overruled.

Dave

[ceptimus]

Exercise can be taken solitarily, or with another member of your own household. Driving to meet someone at a park/reservoir seems more like socializing than exercising. It's meeting up with people from other households that spreads the virus - leading to more deaths.

The regulations should be changed. No meeting up with members of other households except for the following reasons.... and exercise shouldn't be one of the allowed reasons.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

The regulations should be changed. No meeting up with members of other households except for the following reasons.... and exercise shouldn't be one of the allowed reasons.

Maybe so, and if they are, then people can be fined for breaking them. But at the moment they very clearly and specifically say that people are allowed to do what these two women were fined for doing.

Dave

[ceptimus]

No. They're not clear and specific enough. That's why there was argument and confusion about whether the two women broke the regulations, and whether Boris's bike ride did. The confusion hinges on the ambiguous word 'local', and where socializing ends and exercise begins.

The socializing/exercising distinction is tricky, because it depends on the age and fitness of the people - a gentle walk while drinking a cup of peppermint tea and chatting to a friend might be good exercise for an eighty-year-old - but not for a young adult.

But the 'local' thing could easily be defined: no more than five miles from home, or whatever. And as I said, the socializing thing could be easily defined by banning meetings with people from different households, merely for exercise.

[Segnosaur]

Here is a question...

I live in Ontario, Canada. My province is under lock down... restaurants/gyms/theaters closed, curb-side pickups used for non-essential stores, limits on size of gatherings. Which all makes sense... we're in the middle of a pretty significant spike in Covid cases.

But there is also talk in reducing the number of hours that stores can be open.

How is that supposed to help? To me it would seem to be counter-productive.... People are shopping for groceries because they are essential items. If you limit the number of hours a store can be open, you will increase the number of shoppers who need to be in the store at any one time, increasing the risk of spreading the disease if anyone is sick when shopping (instead of spreading out the shoppers over a wider time frame).

Are they expecting that with reduced hours people will shop less (and buy more during each trip)? Or is there some other reasoning I am missing?

[Carrot Flower King]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

So walk round the block. People still aren't taking things seriously

Fine if you have a block to walk around: we don't. The footpaths accesible directly from the house have been ferked up by Farmer Palmer who refuses to sort out drainage, repair stiles and stop keeping a herd of bullocks in a field the path runs through. Thus, in order to do some exercise and get some fresh air, we need to drive 4-6 miles from our house (this is still local to my mind) to somewhere we can walk without either being up to our waists in mud and excrement or charged by excitable young male bovines...

[ceptimus]

People go shopping as an excuse to get out of their house. A good guideline would be that for most households where an adult can leave the house alone (they have childcare etc.) and they have a car, then one shopping trip per week should suffice.

On my less than once-per-week shops, I often see two or more adults from the same house walking around the supermarket together - and very often with kids in tow. I'm sure that, in most instances, one person could enter the supermarket alone, with the others remaining at home, or in their car.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by Carrot Flower King

Fine if you have a block to walk around: we don't. The footpaths accesible directly from the house have been ferked up by Farmer Palmer who refuses to sort out drainage, repair stiles and stop keeping a herd of bullocks in a field the path runs through. Thus, in order to do some exercise and get some fresh air, we need to drive 4-6 miles from our house (this is still local to my mind) to somewhere we can walk without either being up to our waists in mud and excrement or charged by excitable young male bovines...

No roads? What are you driving on?

Why does everyone seem to think they should be given special consideration?

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Quote:

Why don't people stay at home? It's not a game.

Quote:

Because people aren't robots. There's a reason why incarceration is a punishment; people suffer mentally when confined to a small area. There has to be a balance between mental and physical health, and the regulations are intended to strike a sensible one.

So walk round the block. People still aren't taking things seriously

I think people need more than just access to the outside; people need some sort of social interaction.

I live alone and work from home. I do go shopping (generally once or twice a week, depending on the perishables I have), but I haven't gone to any restaurants or the gym (even when they were open). I exercise regularly and make sure I leave the house at least once a day (for a short walk, alone, or bike ride, alone). So, for the most part, I play it pretty safe.

I do communicate with friends/family via phone/text/etc. But, I do think having SOME direct social interaction is needed. So, I visit a friend. They work at home too. So I am technically interacting with someone outside my home, but my home only had myself in it to begin with. Does that increase the risk? Yes, very slightly (although that is mitigated by the fact that I often do shopping for both of us, so they don't have to go to the store and interact with others.) But the alternative is never having real social contact with others. And I'm already crazy enough as it is.

[Captain_Swoop]

Social interaction in person is the problem

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Social interaction in person is the problem

Yes, social interaction in person is a problem. But, not all of it carries the same risk.

Social interaction with a large group of people and/or interaction with strangers, or interaction in a restaurant is inherently more risky than an interaction with one or 2 people in a 'bubble' where everyone takes significant steps to prevent transmission (such as working from home, mask wearing, and not extending interactions to any other people).

I'm not saying "people should go out and party". I'm saying if you live alone and already have limited your risk factors, interacting with one or 2 other people (who also limit their risk factors) shouldn't be a problem.

[Vixen]

Did anyone see this tweet from David Lammy? 18,700 likes already.

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/statu...657675776?s=20

Quote:

David Lammy
@DavidLammy
·
7h
Meal bag given to school kids in Kuhmo, Finland Vs the UK

I have to say I am pretty shocked at the flagrant mean-spiritedness and poor quality of the UK food box. At least choose bananas and apples that look nice.

What has the UK become?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Why don't people stay at home? It's not a game.

But it could be, looking at it from that way America is #1! Best high score since the great leap forward

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Originally Posted by The Don

The supplier in question is Chartwells.

A Google search throws up some interesting tweets showing the kind of food they can deliver to private schools (for a pretty price I'm sure) contrasted to the miserable "hamper" that's generating the headlines.

The directors of Chartwells are doing very nicely (£1m+ renumeration) and I'm sure this contract will do a good job of making the bottom line look good.

I'm sure that they'll say that the £5.22 hamper is an aberration, glossing over the fact that usually they "only" stiff the client by 50% or so

Here's Jay Rayner retweeting a tweet which contrasts £30 of food vs the Chartwells £30 "Hamper"

https://twitter.com/jayrayner1/statu...20418984464385

Bit of sympathy for Chartwell on this one as they are comparing apples and oranges. The hamper of £30 worth of food on the left has not had to be purchased, packed and delivered by paid employees. (I am assuming they are delivered? Or do they collect at the school?)

If I gave Jay Rayner a budget of £30 and asked him to deliver me a hamper of food including all the cost of putting it together and his time I think it might look significantly different.

Of course parents could probably buy a week's worth of sandwich ingredients and a bag of fruit for about a fiver instead of employing companies to provide boxes of crap but that would seem too much like charity for the Tories and that is reserved only for their rich mates.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Social interaction in person is the problem

The risk involved in spending time with one other person, in the outdoors, keeping 2m away at all times, is, I suggest, negligible. The benefits, of fresh air, exercise and social interaction, will outweigh the miniscule risk of transmitting the virus. Going to the shops would be a greater risk.

As soon as you add more people, and other risk factors, such as being indoors, or alcohol, the risk goes up quickly, sure. But what these two women were doing is a) very low risk and b) in accordance with the rules.

I don't know how extroverts are coping in the current situation. Apart from my partner, and my kids (who I cycle to see once a week, and don't get closer to than 2m), and one friend I've met in the street by accident a couple of times, the person I've spent the most time with face to face in the last few months is the vet who put our dog to sleep on Sunday.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

No roads? What are you driving on?

From the available information, I would guess country roads with no pavements, which may be dangerous to walk on.

Quote:

Why does everyone seem to think they should be given special consideration?

What special consideration? You seem to be making up your own rules, and expecting other people to know and follow them.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national...ome#exercising

Quote:

Exercising
You should minimise time spent outside your home, but you can leave your home to exercise. This should be limited to once per day, and you should not travel outside your local area.

You can exercise in a public outdoor place:

• by yourself
• with the people you live with
• with your support bubble (if you are legally permitted to form one)
• in a childcare bubble where providing childcare
• or, when on your own, with 1 person from another household

This includes but is not limited to running, cycling, walking, and swimming. Personal training can continue one-on-one unless everyone is within the same household or support bubble.

Public outdoor places include:

• parks, beaches, countryside accessible to the public, forests
• public gardens (whether or not you pay to enter them)
• the grounds of a heritage site
• playgrounds

...

[zooterkin]

English Covid rules have changed 64 times since March, says barrister

Quote:

Adam Wagner, of Doughty Street Chambers, said that new national regulations, local regulations, regulations on face coverings, or rules on travel quarantine have passed into law on average every four-and-a-half days since the first restrictions were introduced in the spring.

As a result, the rules have become increasingly cumbersome, with the police, lawyers and ministers unable to distinguish between laws and advice. The guidance given to the public often does not reflect the law, Wagner said.

Many rules, including those demanding that people have a reasonable excuse before travelling, are effectively unenforceable, Wagner said.

Referring to enforcement:

Quote:

“The problem is that the police rely upon the same media reports we see. They are not going to read all of this legislation. But they are out and about and make decisions on the fly. They have to make decisions while on patrol. No wonder mistakes are made,” Wagner said.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

None of which contradicts what the rules say. If you want to tighten the rules, fair enough, but being snarky about people who are keeping to the rules, not even bending them, seems unnecessary.

What we should be seeing in the press, of course, are examples of people keeping to the rules, and reports of any people who have really broken the rules being properly dealt with.

I agree. Certaily the law in Scotland permits driving for a short distance (no more than five miles) to find somewhere that isn't busy so you can take a walk in safety, and you are allowed to meet with one other person outside your household so long as you keep your distance. So far as I know it's the same in England. If a takeaway coffee/tea outlet is open, then you are allowed to buy their product, otherwise why are they allowed to be open?

This is police harrassing people behaving safely just because they can. They're out of doors, so they can be seen. Much easier than finding the indoor gatherings that are actually spreading the virus and breaking them up. Or indeed preventing them in the first place.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Why don't people stay at home? It's not a game.

You stay indoors if you want to, that's your prerogative. But going outside for a walk in the open air with one other person is allowed.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

As far as I can see, they didn't even go against government guidelines. They met to exercise in a public place, which is specifically permitted. Regulations specify not to travel 'outside your local area' but give not the slightest guidance as to what constitutes a local area. Since they were said to be both within five minutes' drive from home, at worst they didn't flagrantly violate the spirit of the regulation; I know that five minutes' drive from where I live will barely get me to the edge of town. The police's argument that, because they'd both brought a hot drink, they were having a picnic, is absurd; a picnic is an outdoor meal, and the government has already specifically stated, in another context, that anything less than a Scotch egg does not constitute a meal. The problem is not that two people were trying to game the system; it was that the police were over-zealous and fined them for doing one of the few things the regulations permitted them to. And, if they were keeping their distance, they were actually behaving sensibly. People need exercise, fresh air and sunshine, and shouldn't be fined for making an honest effort to get them within both the letter and the spirit of the regulations in force.

Exactly.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Yes, social interaction in person is a problem. But, not all of it carries the same risk.

Social interaction with a large group of people and/or interaction with strangers, or interaction in a restaurant is inherently more risky than an interaction with one or 2 people in a 'bubble' where everyone takes significant steps to prevent transmission (such as working from home, mask wearing, and not extending interactions to any other people).

I'm not saying "people should go out and party". I'm saying if you live alone and already have limited your risk factors, interacting with one or 2 other people (who also limit their risk factors) shouldn't be a problem.

What you are describing is an extended household, and it's absolutely legal. I did it over Christmas and New Year with a friend who also lives alone. Anyone who lives alone is allowed to attach themselves to another household and behave as if they were part of that household.

The only stipulation is, pick one and stick with it. Even there, certainly in Scotland, you are allowed to switch so long as you leave a 14-day period of isolation between households. I did that too, because I was in an extended household with a neighbouring couple in November/early December, but we broke it off on 10th December so that I could meet my friend on 24th December.

But, and here's the rub, you have to be careful who you pick. We discussed me going back with the neighbouring couple once the two weeks had passed from my friend's New Year visit, but Mrs vetoed it, saying she didn't trust her husband to stay out of the village shop and with the new variant around now she thought it wasn't safe. That's genuine friendship.

[Wudang]

There is discussion of the shocking quality of the food parcels in another thread. This has a link to an article in the Metro which has more examples. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1#post13358011

[Wudang]

In one of the poorest areas in the UK they don’t outsource and this is what they manage. Link to tweet
https://twitter.com/anthony91788627/...089969664?s=12

[Carrot Flower King]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

No roads? What are you driving on?

Why does everyone seem to think they should be given special consideration?

Roads, yes, but not much in the way of footpaths along those roads.

It isn't special consideration, just the reality of where I live.

How local do you want local to be? Food shopping would require us to travel at least 6-8 miles and back to get much more than a tin of beans and some dodgy white sliced bread.

And we've been staying in anyway, I merely used our area as an example of what some places are like.

[Tolls]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

Bit of sympathy for Chartwell on this one as they are comparing apples and oranges. The hamper of £30 worth of food on the left has not had to be purchased, packed and delivered by paid employees. (I am assuming they are delivered? Or do they collect at the school?)

Not entirely, as part of the argument is that these food parcels were supposed to ensure the amount and quality of food supplied as compared to a £30 voucher, which the manipulative bastards in the Tory party and elements of the press liked to claim (with no evidence whatsoever) would be spent on hookers and blow.

That's part of the reason for highlighting as they have done.

It also shows, quite nicely, that the government decision to hand over this money to a company to deliver the goods is not in the slightest bit efficient or effective.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Did anyone see this tweet from David Lammy? 18,700 likes already.

https://twitter.com/DavidLammy/statu...657675776?s=20




I have to say I am pretty shocked at the flagrant mean-spiritedness and poor quality of the UK food box. At least choose bananas and apples that look nice.

What has the UK become?

The UK has been like this since Margaret Thatcher's day (with arguably a slight softening of views during the Blair years). We're beset by the undeserving poor who, if you feed them properly, will breed like rats.

edited to add.....

Looked at the comments to David Lammy's tweet and there was the predictable "Well go to Finland then".

Brexiteers are proud of their mean-spirited country

[The Don]

I've mentioned upthread that a close friend is a retired midwife who volunteered back in November to help with the vaccination process and hadn't heard anything.

Well, good news, she was asked to report to one of the vaccination centres - Ashton Gate in Bristol - for training last week.

Bad news, she has just tested positive for Covid which is a worry because although both she and her husband are in generally good health, he's in his early 60's and a recent ex-smoker who is overweight and she's in her late 50's.

They had been shielding pretty well so it looks like she caught Covid during her training . So far she's asymptomatic.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal

Bit of sympathy for Chartwell on this one as they are comparing apples and oranges. The hamper of £30 worth of food on the left has not had to be purchased, packed and delivered by paid employees. (I am assuming they are delivered? Or do they collect at the school?)

IIRC they were collected from the school.

Chartwells should however be buying their supplier wholesale rather than retail so what I can buy in the shops for £30 should be a fair comparison to what they can supply.

Wudang's post shows what can be supplied if the supply contract is not outsourced. That's an example relatively close to me and I'm pleased that they're doing so well.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Carrot Flower King

Roads, yes, but not much in the way of footpaths along those roads.

It isn't special consideration, just the reality of where I live.

How local do you want local to be? Food shopping would require us to travel at least 6-8 miles and back to get much more than a tin of beans and some dodgy white sliced bread.

And we've been staying in anyway, I merely used our area as an example of what some places are like.

The rules and guidance for shopping for essentials are different to those for exercise. It's apparently fine to drive a considerable distance to shop for essentials (in part to reflect the challenges faced by rural communities), less so to go for exercise.

Mrs Don and I are spoiled rotten here. There are perhaps a dozen walks from 5km to 15km right out of our front door. If the fields and woods are too wet and/or full of excrement, then there are comparatively quiet single track lanes and forestry tracks which are passable in all but the wettest conditions.

Sure it would be nice to drive a little way to try some different routes but that's just carping.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Wudang

There is discussion of the shocking quality of the food parcels in another thread. This has a link to an article in the Metro which has more examples. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1#post13358011

Whoops, sometimes hard to see where brexit ends and covid19 starts.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by The Don

The UK has been like this since Margaret Thatcher's day (with arguably a slight softening of views during the Blair years). We're beset by the undeserving poor who, if you feed them properly, will breed like rats.

edited to add.....

Looked at the comments to David Lammy's tweet and there was the predictable "Well go to Finland then".

Brexiteers are proud of their mean-spirited country

Did you see the Welsh food package? It goes to show that this was probably due to a few individuals trying to spread themselves too thinly.