If masks become compulsory in shops.
Poll: If masks become compulsory in shops.
Total Members Polled: 1248
Discussion
isaldiri said:
Complete BS as I pointed out on the other thread.
Denmark recommends facemasks when you might have
-tested positive for covid
-come into close contact with people who have tested positive
-are currently showing symptoms of covid and is unable to self isolate
Which is all very sensible and quite acceptable to everyone here who has posted that the masks as implemented here is idiocy.
What Denmark is doing is a lightyear away from what the morons in government have done mandating masks in shops (but not pubs and other known superspreading situations) under threat of a fine for non compliance.
All Denmark's rules are advice. That's my point. They don't need to pass laws to stop people dropping litter or keep their 2m distance. Denmark recommends facemasks when you might have
-tested positive for covid
-come into close contact with people who have tested positive
-are currently showing symptoms of covid and is unable to self isolate
Which is all very sensible and quite acceptable to everyone here who has posted that the masks as implemented here is idiocy.
What Denmark is doing is a lightyear away from what the morons in government have done mandating masks in shops (but not pubs and other known superspreading situations) under threat of a fine for non compliance.
https://www.sst.dk/en/english/corona-eng/faq
sambucket said:
isaldiri said:
Complete BS as I pointed out on the other thread.
Denmark recommends facemasks when you might have
-tested positive for covid
-come into close contact with people who have tested positive
-are currently showing symptoms of covid and is unable to self isolate
Which is all very sensible and quite acceptable to everyone here who has posted that the masks as implemented here is idiocy.
What Denmark is doing is a lightyear away from what the morons in government have done mandating masks in shops (but not pubs and other known superspreading situations) under threat of a fine for non compliance.
All Denmark's rules are advice. That's my point. They don't need to pass laws to stop people dropping litter or keep their 2m distance. Denmark recommends facemasks when you might have
-tested positive for covid
-come into close contact with people who have tested positive
-are currently showing symptoms of covid and is unable to self isolate
Which is all very sensible and quite acceptable to everyone here who has posted that the masks as implemented here is idiocy.
What Denmark is doing is a lightyear away from what the morons in government have done mandating masks in shops (but not pubs and other known superspreading situations) under threat of a fine for non compliance.
https://www.sst.dk/en/english/corona-eng/faq
If they wanted to mandate masks more generally they would but didn't.
And the danish have very clearly set out the circumstances of recommending masks which all entirely makes sense. And which is the opposite of what we are doing here which is just plainly bloody stupid.
Graveworm said:
Red 4 said:
"Experts" are ten a penny at the moment. Stick ten of them in a room, ask them a question and you'll get ten different answers.
Why do you think masks are beneficial ? Not the "experts" - you.
From a health perspective I can't see how they would do any harm, but from a consumer confidence perspective ?
I think they are beneficial as we are starting to move forwards, which means more contact, more shopping more moving around which is great -but will increase risk of transmission. Hopefully symptomatic people will still, in the main, self isolate but, the risk from asymptomatic people from talking has now been identified. Improvised masks have been shown to help in this. If we take the (Relatively) easy wins ,like masks in shopping then we can hopefully weather the harder to manage risks without having to reintroduce more extreme restrictions. .Why do you think masks are beneficial ? Not the "experts" - you.
From a health perspective I can't see how they would do any harm, but from a consumer confidence perspective ?
How (and why) do you think masks increase consumer confidence/ will get more people back into the shops ?
Edited by Red 4 on Tuesday 14th July 22:42
PositronicRay said:
survivalist said:
PositronicRay said:
dandarez said:
On the Lockdown thread someone commented that his wife had wore a mask for the first time today.
He said he thought it 'quite fetching actually.'
I replied saying that comment had me laughing out loud! FFS.
I followed it with this (it's relevant to this thread and copying it saves me typing it all again).
The PM says a decision will be made in the next few days re compulsory mask wearing in shops...
DON'T THEY F KNOW WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO ANNOUNCE THEN?
Jeezus, to think I voted Tory? I'd never vote Labour but they are starting to look utterly inept.
On another thread sambucket posted this pic of Japan
I thought to myself, f
k that!
If that's what is to come, I'm glad I'm old.
Japan is not the UK, it has culturally for many reasons worn masks since the 1950s.
We haven't. Thank god!
One, as we were discussing this over the weekend (wearing muzzles) a mate reminded me if masks had been a thing back in the day, I'd have never have met my wife. He was right. How the fk would I know what she looked like apart from her figure and say her hair and eyes?
Ok, I may have met her, but my plan (in honesty not my plan, a mate suggested it) to get her to speak to me would not have been possible - he suggested I shave my beard off! The night in question I did so, it got her to ask me 'Where's your beard gone?'
Bingo! Never stopped chatting all evening. Still together 46 yrs later.
Just imagine the future? 'She's nice, look at those fantastic eyes! Wonder what her face looks like below the mask?'
'Fancy him, wonder what he really looks like?'
Muzzles? You can wear 'em. Just don't force me to.
Locally someone (no pic - pity!!) spotted a guy wearing a t-shirt as he was going into Sainsbury's which proclaimed:
I DON'T WEAR A MASK.
I DON'T MIND IF YOU DO.
on the back it read
I DON'T WEAR A TAG EITHER.
I'M NOT A PRISONER!
Sums it up nicely for me. Where can I get this t-shirt?
I've looked online, nothing.
Life if full of risks - always has been. Assess them and realise life is for living, not worrying. Worry can make you ill.
As said, you wear one, I've no problem with that. DON'T force me to.
The High Street is in enough trouble, forced mask wearing will finish it.
Been to the supermarket late this afternoon. Non-mask wearers still in the majority round here. Some of the mask wearers now appear to think they have an entitlement. I was about to pick up some Yogurt and mask-wearing woman leans across me to pick one up as I do. 'Excuse me! do you not understand the distancing?' Christ, her eyes said it all. I was the plague in her eyes, she had something across her face she stupidly thinks protects 'her'. This is the opposite of what I have been experiencing up to now ie: mask-wearers would jump back on seeing me a non-mask wearer. It can only get worse!
Still, it'll add a bit more to the one thing that is seriously rife today.
Even more Division.
You still don't get it do you? He said he thought it 'quite fetching actually.'
I replied saying that comment had me laughing out loud! FFS.
I followed it with this (it's relevant to this thread and copying it saves me typing it all again).
The PM says a decision will be made in the next few days re compulsory mask wearing in shops...
DON'T THEY F KNOW WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO ANNOUNCE THEN?
Jeezus, to think I voted Tory? I'd never vote Labour but they are starting to look utterly inept.
On another thread sambucket posted this pic of Japan
I thought to myself, f
k that! If that's what is to come, I'm glad I'm old.
Japan is not the UK, it has culturally for many reasons worn masks since the 1950s.
We haven't. Thank god!
One, as we were discussing this over the weekend (wearing muzzles) a mate reminded me if masks had been a thing back in the day, I'd have never have met my wife. He was right. How the f
k would I know what she looked like apart from her figure and say her hair and eyes? Ok, I may have met her, but my plan (in honesty not my plan, a mate suggested it) to get her to speak to me would not have been possible - he suggested I shave my beard off! The night in question I did so, it got her to ask me 'Where's your beard gone?'
Bingo! Never stopped chatting all evening. Still together 46 yrs later.
Just imagine the future? 'She's nice, look at those fantastic eyes! Wonder what her face looks like below the mask?'
'Fancy him, wonder what he really looks like?'
Muzzles? You can wear 'em. Just don't force me to.
Locally someone (no pic - pity!!) spotted a guy wearing a t-shirt as he was going into Sainsbury's which proclaimed:
I DON'T WEAR A MASK.
I DON'T MIND IF YOU DO.
on the back it read
I DON'T WEAR A TAG EITHER.
I'M NOT A PRISONER!
Sums it up nicely for me. Where can I get this t-shirt?
I've looked online, nothing. Life if full of risks - always has been. Assess them and realise life is for living, not worrying. Worry can make you ill.
As said, you wear one, I've no problem with that. DON'T force me to.
The High Street is in enough trouble, forced mask wearing will finish it.
Been to the supermarket late this afternoon. Non-mask wearers still in the majority round here. Some of the mask wearers now appear to think they have an entitlement. I was about to pick up some Yogurt and mask-wearing woman leans across me to pick one up as I do. 'Excuse me! do you not understand the distancing?' Christ, her eyes said it all. I was the plague in her eyes, she had something across her face she stupidly thinks protects 'her'. This is the opposite of what I have been experiencing up to now ie: mask-wearers would jump back on seeing me a non-mask wearer. It can only get worse!
Still, it'll add a bit more to the one thing that is seriously rife today.
Even more Division.
As for your cheeky sod bit about not as good at washing my hands, I wouldn't have reached my age in life (way past retired!) without carbolic and hot water - it's harder to get these days (carbolic that is, not hot water).
You stick (bet I'm right) to your 'hand sanitisers' like lots of suckers out there. Some I've met actually 'believe' hand sanitisers are the 'same' as, some even think they are better than, soap and water. I see them daily. Getting their little bottles out or sprays and covering themselves with it. You can brainwash the masses today.
A retired friend who used to be a dermatologist says his dermatology profession will be in big business next year, some already are.
Why? Hand sanitiser overuse!
Me, I'll carry on 'living'. That's what life is for. Risk, as said. is all around us daily. As sadly too are the 'worried sick' and it seems the 'worried well' brigade.
isaldiri said:
No because they have explicitly mandated masks in airports to bring themselves in line with EASA rules.
If they wanted to mandate masks more generally they would but didn't.
And the danish have very clearly set out the circumstances of recommending masks which all entirely makes sense. And which is the opposite of what we are doing here which is just plainly bloody stupid.
If they wanted to recommend masks for generally, they wouldn't need to mandate them, they would just add it to the list of advice with everything else. And the danish would probably do it. If they wanted to mandate masks more generally they would but didn't.
And the danish have very clearly set out the circumstances of recommending masks which all entirely makes sense. And which is the opposite of what we are doing here which is just plainly bloody stupid.
There has been a ton of stuff in UK which has started as advice, but become mandated after a trial period.
Red 4 said:
Thanks for the reply Graveworm.
How (and why) do you think masks increase consumer confidence ?
Personally I think it's a wash, in the early stages, I suspect fewer people will go into shops, but there will be some offset by those who were nervous going forward, It appears to be supported by the public, so that might suggest some confidence. IF it is effective in mitigating spread then that will almost certainly help fiscally. How (and why) do you think masks increase consumer confidence ?
sambucket said:
If they wanted to recommend masks for generally, they wouldn't need to mandate them, they would just add it to the list of advice with everything else. And the danish would probably do it.
Well because the danes are asking for people to wear them when it is actually sensible (symptomatic or covid positive). So compliance is easy. We are bloody well are not with a blanket you must wear a mask in a shop (but not in any other known superspreading situation).PushedDover said:
Autumn and winter is coming. Standing and queuing outside of shops is soon to be untenable.
Get masks on everyone, let everyone in at the same time. No queues.
Shops have a chance of volumes.
Why are these things hard to comprehend by many ?
So the science hasn't changed and masks can still cause more problems than they solve ...Get masks on everyone, let everyone in at the same time. No queues.
Shops have a chance of volumes.
Why are these things hard to comprehend by many ?
The government is hoping for the placebo effect of masks.
I'm not sure the psychological aspect of seeing everyone looking like the have just performed open heart surgery will have people flooding back to the shops.
Masks send the signal that the virus is still among us. I don't think many people think that wearing a mask makes them immune from Covid19.
Graveworm said:
RSTurboPaul said:
And what would they say about the fact that under the new legislation, an 'authorised person' can forcibly enter your house if they 'suspect' you may have an infection, transport you without notice or right of refusal to a detention centre for up to 48 hours for testing, and then rule that you cannot leave for 14 days or more?
No they can't.Or transport and detain you for an extended period of time?
I am certain I read that 'health officials' could enter one's home if there was a suspected infected person in it, but I can't find anything on it now.
The part about being detained seems to be correct, though:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/7/schedul...
My TL;DR of it is as follows (with the quoted original text afterwards):
Schedule 21
Part 2
Paragraph 6
(1)
If a Public Health Officer has 'reasonable grounds to suspect' an infection...
(2)
... the PHO can direct the person or have them removed to a screening and assessment location
(4)
It is an offence to fail to go to this location, and to abscond from it.
Paragraph 9
(1)
The PHO can 'require' the person to remain at the location 'for a period not exceeding 48 hours'.
(2)
It is an offence to 'fail to comply' with this 'requirement'.
(3)
The 'requirement' can be 'enforced' by a PHO or constable 'keeping' the person at the location.
Paragraph 10
(1)
The PHO can 'require' the person to be screened and assessed.
(2)
The 'requirements' of this assessment can include 'biological samples' and to answer questions about health, travel history, the friends and family they've had contact with.
Paragraph 11
(1)
The PHO can direct the person or have them removed from the screening and assessment location to another screening and assessment location.
(2)
It is an offence to fail to go to this new location, and to abscond from it.
Paragraph 12
Where powers are exercised under Paragraph 11, paragraphs 9-11 apply 'afresh' in that new location.
Paragraph 14
(1)
Where:
- a person has been screened and confirmed as having Coronavirus;
OR
- the screening was inconclusive;
OR
- the PHO has 'reasonable grounds to suspect' an infection...
(3)
... a person can be 'required':
- to go to a 'specified place' for further assessment;
- to remain at that place for a 'specified period';
- to remain at that place in isolation for a 'specified period'.
(5)
It is an offence to fail to comply with these 'requirements'.
(7) A PHO can extend the 'specified period' in accordance with Paragraph 15.
Paragraph 15
(1)
The 'specified period' referred to in 14(3) can be up to 14 days.
(2)
The PHO must reassess the person within 48 hours of imposing a 'requirement' and reconsider if the requirement is 'necessary and proportionate'.
(4)
If the PHO has revoked or substituted the 'requirement' under Paragraph 15(3), the Secretary of State can reimpose the original 'requirement'.
(5)
If a PHO 'reasonably suspects' the person will be 'potentially infectious' at the end of the 'specified period', the PHO can extend the period with a further 'specified period'.
(6)
A 'specified period' extension under (5) can be up to 14 days - unless it is a period of isolation, which has no set limit.
(7)
A 'specified period' extension under (5) must be reviewed by a PHO at least every 24 hours.
Paragraph 16
Persons sent on to a new 'specified place' after assessment at an initial 'specified place' must 'remain' at the new 'specified place' or risk enforcement against them by a PHO or constable, which can include by arresting and returning them.
Paragraph 17
A person subject to a 'requirement' or any extension of it can appeal against it to a Magistrates' Court (only).
So, unless I'm reading it totally wrong...:
Paragraph 6 and Paragraph 9 = clock starts on up to 48hrs detention.
Paragraph 11 and Paragraph 12 = clock restarts on up to 48hrs detention.
Paragraph 14((3)(d) and (3)(e) and (7) and Paragraph 15(1) = clock starts on up to 14 days detention.
Paragraph 15(4) = clock restarts on up to 14 days detention?
Paragraph 15(5) and 15(6) = detention period extended by up to an additional 14 days - unless it is a period of isolation, which has no set limit.
Original text with my added highlights:
Coronavirus Act 2020 - SCHEDULE 21 - Powers relating to potentially infectious persons - PART 1 - Overview and Interpretation said:
Potentially infectious persons
2(1) For the purposes of this Schedule, a person is “potentially infectious” at any time if—
(a) the person is, or may be, infected or contaminated with coronavirus, and there is a risk that the person might infect or contaminate others with coronavirus, or
(b) the person has been in an infected area within the 14 days preceding that time.
2(1) For the purposes of this Schedule, a person is “potentially infectious” at any time if—
(a) the person is, or may be, infected or contaminated with coronavirus, and there is a risk that the person might infect or contaminate others with coronavirus, or
(b) the person has been in an infected area within the 14 days preceding that time.
Coronavirus Act 2020 - SCHEDULE 21 - PART 2 - Powers relating to potentially infectious persons in England said:
Powers to direct or remove persons to a place suitable for screening and assessment
6
(1) This paragraph applies if, during a transmission control period, a public health officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person in England is potentially infectious.
(2) The public health officer may, subject to sub-paragraph (3)—
(a) direct the person to go immediately to a place specified in the direction which is suitable for screening and assessment,
(b) remove the person to a place suitable for screening and assessment, or
(c) request a constable to remove the person to a place suitable for screening and assessment (and the constable may then do so).
...
(4) Where a public health officer exercises the powers conferred by this paragraph, the officer must inform that person—
(a) of the reason for directing or removing them, and
(b) that it is an offence—
(i) in a case where a person is directed, to fail without reasonable excuse to comply with the direction, or
(ii) in a case where a person is removed (by the officer or by a constable), to abscond.
...
Powers exercisable at a screening and assessment place: public health officers
8
(1) Paragraphs 9 to 11 apply where, during a transmission control period—
(a) a person is (whether or not pursuant to the exercise of powers under this Part of this Schedule) at a place in England which is suitable for screening and assessment, and
(b) a public health officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is potentially infectious.
...
9
(1) A public health officer may require the person referred to in paragraph 8 to remain at the place for screening and assessment purposes for a period not exceeding 48 hours.
(2) Where a public health officer requires a person to remain at a place under this paragraph, the officer must inform that person—
(a) of the reason for imposing the requirement,
(b) of the maximum period the person may be required to remain there, and
(c) that it is an offence to fail to comply with the requirement.
(3) A requirement imposed on a person under this paragraph may be enforced by a public health officer or a constable keeping the person at the place.
10
(1) A public health officer may—
(a) require the person referred to in paragraph 8 to be screened and assessed, and
(b) impose other requirements on the person in connection with their screening and assessment.
(2) Requirements under sub-paragraph (1)(a) may in particular include requirements on a person—
(a) at such times as the public health officer may specify—
(i) to provide a biological sample, or
(ii) to allow a healthcare professional to take a biological sample by appropriate means;
(b) to answer questions and provide information about their health or other relevant matters (including their travel history and other individuals with whom they may have had contact).
...
11
(1) If a public health officer considers it appropriate for the purposes of screening or assessing the person, the officer may—
(a) direct the person referred to in paragraph 8 to go immediately to another place which is specified in the direction and is suitable for those purposes,
(b) remove the person to another place suitable for those purposes, or
(c) request a constable to remove the person to another place suitable for those purposes (and the constable may then do so).
(2) Where a public health officer exercises the powers conferred by this paragraph, the officer must inform that person—
(a) of the reason for directing or removing them, and
(b) that it is an offence—
(i) in a case where a person is directed, to fail without reasonable excuse to comply with the direction, or
(ii) in a case where a person is removed (by the officer or by a constable), to abscond.
12
Where the powers in paragraph 6, 7 or 11 are exercised in relation to a person in a place so as to direct them to go to, or remove them to, another place, paragraphs 9 to 11 apply in relation to that person afresh in that other place.
...
Powers exercisable after assessment
14
(1) This paragraph applies where, during a transmission control period—
(a) a person in England has been screened and assessed by a public health officer (under paragraph 10 or otherwise) and—
(i) the screening confirmed that the person is infected or contaminated with coronavirus, or
(ii) the screening was inconclusive, or
(b) a person in England has been assessed by a public health officer (under paragraph 10 or otherwise) and the officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is potentially infectious.
...
(3) Requirements under this paragraph may include requirements—
(a) to provide information to the public health officer or any specified person;
(b) to provide details by which the person may be contacted during a specified period;
(c) to go for the purposes of further screening and assessment to a specified place suitable for those purposes and do anything that may be required under paragraph 10(1);
(d) to remain at a specified place (which may be a place suitable for screening and assessment) for a specified period;
(e) to remain at a specified place in isolation from others for a specified period.
(4) Restrictions on a person under this paragraph may include restrictions, for a specified period, on—
(a) the person's movements or travel (within or outside the United Kingdom);
(b) the person's activities (including their work or business activities);
(c) the person's contact with other persons or with other specified persons.
(5) Where a public health officer imposes a requirement or restriction on a person under this paragraph, the officer must inform the person—
(a) of the reason for doing so, and
(b) that it is an offence to fail to comply with the requirement or restriction.
(6) In deciding whether to impose a requirement referred to in sub-paragraph (3)(d) or (e) the public health officer must have regard to a person's wellbeing and personal circumstances.
(7) A public health officer may vary or revoke a requirement or restriction imposed on a person (but may only extend the period to which a requirement referred to in sub-paragraph (3)(d) or (e) or a restriction relates in accordance with paragraph 15).
15
(1) The period specified in relation to a requirement referred to in paragraph 14(3)(d) or (e) (a “requirement to remain”), or in relation to any restriction under paragraph 14, may not exceed 14 days.
(2) After the imposition of a requirement to remain or a restriction under paragraph 14, a public health officer must—
(a) assess the person within 48 hours, and
(b) in the light of that assessment reconsider which requirements or restrictions it is necessary and proportionate to impose on that person under paragraph 14 for the purposes referred to in paragraph 14(2).
(3) The public health officer may, following reconsideration under sub-paragraph (2)—
(a) revoke the requirement to remain or the restriction or specify a different period not exceeding 14 days in relation to it;
(b) substitute a different requirement or restriction under paragraph 14.
(4) If under sub-paragraph (3) the public health officer revokes the requirement to remain or the restriction, the Secretary of State may, if satisfied that the person is potentially infectious, re-impose the requirement or restriction (for the period originally specified).
(5) If before the end of the period specified in relation to a requirement to remain or restriction (under paragraph 14(3) or sub-paragraph (3)(a))—
(a) a public health officer reasonably suspects that the person will be potentially infectious at the end of that period, and
(b) the officer considers that the requirement or restriction is still necessary and proportionate for the purposes referred to in paragraph 14(2),
the officer may extend the period for a further specified period.
(6) Except in the case of a requirement referred to in paragraph 14(3)(e) (requirement to remain in isolation), the further period specified under sub-paragraph (5) may not exceed 14 days.
(7) Where the period to which a requirement to remain or restriction under paragraph 14 relates is extended under sub-paragraph (5), a public health officer must review the requirement or restriction at least once in every period of 24 hours.
(8) If on a review under sub-paragraph (7) the public health officer considers that the person is no longer potentially infectious, the officer must revoke the requirement to remain or the restriction.
(9) If on a review under sub-paragraph (7)—
(a) sub-paragraph (8) does not apply, but
(b) the public health officer considers that the requirement to remain or the restriction is no longer necessary and proportionate for the purposes referred to in paragraph 14(2),
the public health officer may substitute a different requirement or restriction under paragraph 14 (which may not apply beyond the end of the further period specified under sub-paragraph (5)).
16
Where a person is required to remain at a place under paragraph 14(3)(d) or (e) the requirement may be enforced—
(a) by a constable or public health officer removing the person to the place;
(b) by a constable or public health officer keeping the person at the place;
(c) if the person absconds, by a constable taking the person into custody and returning them to that place or another place a public health officer may specify.
17
(1) A person on whom a requirement or restriction is imposed under paragraph 14 may appeal against it (or against any variation of it or any extension of the period to which it relates) to a magistrates' court.
(2) On an appeal under this paragraph the court may—
(a) confirm the requirement or restriction (or variation or extension), with or without modification, or
(b) quash the requirement or restriction (or variation or extension).
6
(1) This paragraph applies if, during a transmission control period, a public health officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person in England is potentially infectious.
(2) The public health officer may, subject to sub-paragraph (3)—
(a) direct the person to go immediately to a place specified in the direction which is suitable for screening and assessment,
(b) remove the person to a place suitable for screening and assessment, or
(c) request a constable to remove the person to a place suitable for screening and assessment (and the constable may then do so).
...
(4) Where a public health officer exercises the powers conferred by this paragraph, the officer must inform that person—
(a) of the reason for directing or removing them, and
(b) that it is an offence—
(i) in a case where a person is directed, to fail without reasonable excuse to comply with the direction, or
(ii) in a case where a person is removed (by the officer or by a constable), to abscond.
...
Powers exercisable at a screening and assessment place: public health officers
8
(1) Paragraphs 9 to 11 apply where, during a transmission control period—
(a) a person is (whether or not pursuant to the exercise of powers under this Part of this Schedule) at a place in England which is suitable for screening and assessment, and
(b) a public health officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is potentially infectious.
...
9
(1) A public health officer may require the person referred to in paragraph 8 to remain at the place for screening and assessment purposes for a period not exceeding 48 hours.
(2) Where a public health officer requires a person to remain at a place under this paragraph, the officer must inform that person—
(a) of the reason for imposing the requirement,
(b) of the maximum period the person may be required to remain there, and
(c) that it is an offence to fail to comply with the requirement.
(3) A requirement imposed on a person under this paragraph may be enforced by a public health officer or a constable keeping the person at the place.
10
(1) A public health officer may—
(a) require the person referred to in paragraph 8 to be screened and assessed, and
(b) impose other requirements on the person in connection with their screening and assessment.
(2) Requirements under sub-paragraph (1)(a) may in particular include requirements on a person—
(a) at such times as the public health officer may specify—
(i) to provide a biological sample, or
(ii) to allow a healthcare professional to take a biological sample by appropriate means;
(b) to answer questions and provide information about their health or other relevant matters (including their travel history and other individuals with whom they may have had contact).
...
11
(1) If a public health officer considers it appropriate for the purposes of screening or assessing the person, the officer may—
(a) direct the person referred to in paragraph 8 to go immediately to another place which is specified in the direction and is suitable for those purposes,
(b) remove the person to another place suitable for those purposes, or
(c) request a constable to remove the person to another place suitable for those purposes (and the constable may then do so).
(2) Where a public health officer exercises the powers conferred by this paragraph, the officer must inform that person—
(a) of the reason for directing or removing them, and
(b) that it is an offence—
(i) in a case where a person is directed, to fail without reasonable excuse to comply with the direction, or
(ii) in a case where a person is removed (by the officer or by a constable), to abscond.
12
Where the powers in paragraph 6, 7 or 11 are exercised in relation to a person in a place so as to direct them to go to, or remove them to, another place, paragraphs 9 to 11 apply in relation to that person afresh in that other place.
...
Powers exercisable after assessment
14
(1) This paragraph applies where, during a transmission control period—
(a) a person in England has been screened and assessed by a public health officer (under paragraph 10 or otherwise) and—
(i) the screening confirmed that the person is infected or contaminated with coronavirus, or
(ii) the screening was inconclusive, or
(b) a person in England has been assessed by a public health officer (under paragraph 10 or otherwise) and the officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is potentially infectious.
...
(3) Requirements under this paragraph may include requirements—
(a) to provide information to the public health officer or any specified person;
(b) to provide details by which the person may be contacted during a specified period;
(c) to go for the purposes of further screening and assessment to a specified place suitable for those purposes and do anything that may be required under paragraph 10(1);
(d) to remain at a specified place (which may be a place suitable for screening and assessment) for a specified period;
(e) to remain at a specified place in isolation from others for a specified period.
(4) Restrictions on a person under this paragraph may include restrictions, for a specified period, on—
(a) the person's movements or travel (within or outside the United Kingdom);
(b) the person's activities (including their work or business activities);
(c) the person's contact with other persons or with other specified persons.
(5) Where a public health officer imposes a requirement or restriction on a person under this paragraph, the officer must inform the person—
(a) of the reason for doing so, and
(b) that it is an offence to fail to comply with the requirement or restriction.
(6) In deciding whether to impose a requirement referred to in sub-paragraph (3)(d) or (e) the public health officer must have regard to a person's wellbeing and personal circumstances.
(7) A public health officer may vary or revoke a requirement or restriction imposed on a person (but may only extend the period to which a requirement referred to in sub-paragraph (3)(d) or (e) or a restriction relates in accordance with paragraph 15).
15
(1) The period specified in relation to a requirement referred to in paragraph 14(3)(d) or (e) (a “requirement to remain”), or in relation to any restriction under paragraph 14, may not exceed 14 days.
(2) After the imposition of a requirement to remain or a restriction under paragraph 14, a public health officer must—
(a) assess the person within 48 hours, and
(b) in the light of that assessment reconsider which requirements or restrictions it is necessary and proportionate to impose on that person under paragraph 14 for the purposes referred to in paragraph 14(2).
(3) The public health officer may, following reconsideration under sub-paragraph (2)—
(a) revoke the requirement to remain or the restriction or specify a different period not exceeding 14 days in relation to it;
(b) substitute a different requirement or restriction under paragraph 14.
(4) If under sub-paragraph (3) the public health officer revokes the requirement to remain or the restriction, the Secretary of State may, if satisfied that the person is potentially infectious, re-impose the requirement or restriction (for the period originally specified).
(5) If before the end of the period specified in relation to a requirement to remain or restriction (under paragraph 14(3) or sub-paragraph (3)(a))—
(a) a public health officer reasonably suspects that the person will be potentially infectious at the end of that period, and
(b) the officer considers that the requirement or restriction is still necessary and proportionate for the purposes referred to in paragraph 14(2),
the officer may extend the period for a further specified period.
(6) Except in the case of a requirement referred to in paragraph 14(3)(e) (requirement to remain in isolation), the further period specified under sub-paragraph (5) may not exceed 14 days.
(7) Where the period to which a requirement to remain or restriction under paragraph 14 relates is extended under sub-paragraph (5), a public health officer must review the requirement or restriction at least once in every period of 24 hours.
(8) If on a review under sub-paragraph (7) the public health officer considers that the person is no longer potentially infectious, the officer must revoke the requirement to remain or the restriction.
(9) If on a review under sub-paragraph (7)—
(a) sub-paragraph (8) does not apply, but
(b) the public health officer considers that the requirement to remain or the restriction is no longer necessary and proportionate for the purposes referred to in paragraph 14(2),
the public health officer may substitute a different requirement or restriction under paragraph 14 (which may not apply beyond the end of the further period specified under sub-paragraph (5)).
16
Where a person is required to remain at a place under paragraph 14(3)(d) or (e) the requirement may be enforced—
(a) by a constable or public health officer removing the person to the place;
(b) by a constable or public health officer keeping the person at the place;
(c) if the person absconds, by a constable taking the person into custody and returning them to that place or another place a public health officer may specify.
17
(1) A person on whom a requirement or restriction is imposed under paragraph 14 may appeal against it (or against any variation of it or any extension of the period to which it relates) to a magistrates' court.
(2) On an appeal under this paragraph the court may—
(a) confirm the requirement or restriction (or variation or extension), with or without modification, or
(b) quash the requirement or restriction (or variation or extension).
PushedDover said:
Autumn and winter is coming. Standing and queuing outside of shops is soon to be untenable.
Get masks on everyone, let everyone in at the same time. No queues.
Shops have a chance of volumes.
Why are these things hard to comprehend by many ?
Because thats not what will happen. It will discourage people from going shopping etc. One of us is right, and i know who it is.Get masks on everyone, let everyone in at the same time. No queues.
Shops have a chance of volumes.
Why are these things hard to comprehend by many ?
Graveworm said:
Red 4 said:
Thanks for the reply Graveworm.
How (and why) do you think masks increase consumer confidence ?
Personally I think it's a wash, in the early stages, I suspect fewer people will go into shops, but there will be some offset by those who were nervous going forward, It appears to be supported by the public, so that might suggest some confidence. IF it is effective in mitigating spread then that will almost certainly help fiscally. How (and why) do you think masks increase consumer confidence ?
monkfish1 said:
PushedDover said:
Autumn and winter is coming. Standing and queuing outside of shops is soon to be untenable.
Get masks on everyone, let everyone in at the same time. No queues.
Shops have a chance of volumes.
Why are these things hard to comprehend by many ?
Because thats not what will happen. It will discourage people from going shopping etc. One of us is right, and i know who it is.Get masks on everyone, let everyone in at the same time. No queues.
Shops have a chance of volumes.
Why are these things hard to comprehend by many ?
monkfish1 said:
Graveworm said:
Red 4 said:
Thanks for the reply Graveworm.
How (and why) do you think masks increase consumer confidence ?
Personally I think it's a wash, in the early stages, I suspect fewer people will go into shops, but there will be some offset by those who were nervous going forward, It appears to be supported by the public, so that might suggest some confidence. IF it is effective in mitigating spread then that will almost certainly help fiscally. How (and why) do you think masks increase consumer confidence ?
Not the shops though. Oh no.
Red 4 said:
PushedDover said:
Autumn and winter is coming. Standing and queuing outside of shops is soon to be untenable.
Get masks on everyone, let everyone in at the same time. No queues.
Shops have a chance of volumes.
Why are these things hard to comprehend by many ?
So the science hasn't changed and masks can still cause more problems than they solve ...Get masks on everyone, let everyone in at the same time. No queues.
Shops have a chance of volumes.
Why are these things hard to comprehend by many ?
The government is hoping for the placebo effect of masks.
I'm not sure the psychological aspect of seeing everyone looking like the have just performed open heart surgery will have people flooding back to the shops.
Masks send the signal that the virus is still among us. I don't think many people think that wearing a mask makes them immune from Covid19.
I think PushedOver will not be (pushed over) as he's correct, there will be no queues. Nor many in the shops.
The end of the High Street is nigh (and I'm a shopper!)
Then again, perhaps not, as I think the muzzle thing will be dropped well before winter.
Let's face it, they (Gov) are even unsure now. If they weren't they'd have introduced muzzle wearing immediately, not in 10 days time.
Red 4 said:
PushedDover said:
Autumn and winter is coming. Standing and queuing outside of shops is soon to be untenable.
Get masks on everyone, let everyone in at the same time. No queues.
Shops have a chance of volumes.
Why are these things hard to comprehend by many ?
So the science hasn't changed and masks can still cause more problems than they solve ...Get masks on everyone, let everyone in at the same time. No queues.
Shops have a chance of volumes.
Why are these things hard to comprehend by many ?
The government is hoping for the placebo effect of masks.
I'm not sure the psychological aspect of seeing everyone looking like the have just performed open heart surgery will have people flooding back to the shops.
Masks send the signal that the virus is still among us. I don't think many people think that wearing a mask makes them immune from Covid19.
PushedDover said:
monkfish1 said:
PushedDover said:
Autumn and winter is coming. Standing and queuing outside of shops is soon to be untenable.
Get masks on everyone, let everyone in at the same time. No queues.
Shops have a chance of volumes.
Why are these things hard to comprehend by many ?
Because thats not what will happen. It will discourage people from going shopping etc. One of us is right, and i know who it is.Get masks on everyone, let everyone in at the same time. No queues.
Shops have a chance of volumes.
Why are these things hard to comprehend by many ?
RSTurboPaul said:
Graveworm said:
RSTurboPaul said:
And what would they say about the fact that under the new legislation, an 'authorised person' can forcibly enter your house if they 'suspect' you may have an infection, transport you without notice or right of refusal to a detention centre for up to 48 hours for testing, and then rule that you cannot leave for 14 days or more?
No they can't.Or transport and detain you for an extended period of time?
I am certain I read that 'health officials' could enter one's home if there was a suspected infected person in it, but I can't find anything on it now.
The part about being detained seems to be correct, though:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/7/schedul...
My TL;DR of it is as follows (with the quoted original text afterwards):
Schedule 21
Part 2
Paragraph 6
(1)
If a Public Health Officer has 'reasonable grounds to suspect' an infection...
(2)
... the PHO can direct the person or have them removed to a screening and assessment location
(4)
It is an offence to fail to go to this location, and to abscond from it.
Paragraph 9
(1)
The PHO can 'require' the person to remain at the location 'for a period not exceeding 48 hours'.
(2)
It is an offence to 'fail to comply' with this 'requirement'.
(3)
The 'requirement' can be 'enforced' by a PHO or constable 'keeping' the person at the location.
Paragraph 10
(1)
The PHO can 'require' the person to be screened and assessed.
(2)
The 'requirements' of this assessment can include 'biological samples' and to answer questions about health, travel history, the friends and family they've had contact with.
Paragraph 11
(1)
The PHO can direct the person or have them removed from the screening and assessment location to another screening and assessment location.
(2)
It is an offence to fail to go to this new location, and to abscond from it.
Paragraph 12
Where powers are exercised under Paragraph 11, paragraphs 9-11 apply 'afresh' in that new location.
Paragraph 14
(1)
Where:
- a person has been screened and confirmed as having Coronavirus;
OR
- the screening was inconclusive;
OR
- the PHO has 'reasonable grounds to suspect' an infection...
(3)
... a person can be 'required':
- to go to a 'specified place' for further assessment;
- to remain at that place for a 'specified period';
- to remain at that place in isolation for a 'specified period'.
(5)
It is an offence to fail to comply with these 'requirements'.
(7) A PHO can extend the 'specified period' in accordance with Paragraph 15.
Paragraph 15
(1)
The 'specified period' referred to in 14(3) can be up to 14 days.
(2)
The PHO must reassess the person within 48 hours of imposing a 'requirement' and reconsider if the requirement is 'necessary and proportionate'.
(4)
If the PHO has revoked or substituted the 'requirement' under Paragraph 15(3), the Secretary of State can reimpose the original 'requirement'.
(5)
If a PHO 'reasonably suspects' the person will be 'potentially infectious' at the end of the 'specified period', the PHO can extend the period with a further 'specified period'.
(6)
A 'specified period' extension under (5) can be up to 14 days - unless it is a period of isolation, which has no set limit.
(7)
A 'specified period' extension under (5) must be reviewed by a PHO at least every 24 hours.
Paragraph 16
Persons sent on to a new 'specified place' after assessment at an initial 'specified place' must 'remain' at the new 'specified place' or risk enforcement against them by a PHO or constable, which can include by arresting and returning them.
Paragraph 17
A person subject to a 'requirement' or any extension of it can appeal against it to a Magistrates' Court (only).
So, unless I'm reading it totally wrong...:
Paragraph 6 and Paragraph 9 = clock starts on up to 48hrs detention.
Paragraph 11 and Paragraph 12 = clock restarts on up to 48hrs detention.
Paragraph 14((3)(d) and (3)(e) and (7) and Paragraph 15(1) = clock starts on up to 14 days detention.
Paragraph 15(4) = clock restarts on up to 14 days detention?
Paragraph 15(5) and 15(6) = detention period extended by up to an additional 14 days - unless it is a period of isolation, which has no set limit.
Original text with my added highlights:
Coronavirus Act 2020 - SCHEDULE 21 - Powers relating to potentially infectious persons - PART 1 - Overview and Interpretation said:
Potentially infectious persons
2(1) For the purposes of this Schedule, a person is “potentially infectious” at any time if—
(a) the person is, or may be, infected or contaminated with coronavirus, and there is a risk that the person might infect or contaminate others with coronavirus, or
(b) the person has been in an infected area within the 14 days preceding that time.
2(1) For the purposes of this Schedule, a person is “potentially infectious” at any time if—
(a) the person is, or may be, infected or contaminated with coronavirus, and there is a risk that the person might infect or contaminate others with coronavirus, or
(b) the person has been in an infected area within the 14 days preceding that time.
Coronavirus Act 2020 - SCHEDULE 21 - PART 2 - Powers relating to potentially infectious persons in England said:
Powers to direct or remove persons to a place suitable for screening and assessment
6
(1) This paragraph applies if, during a transmission control period, a public health officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person in England is potentially infectious.
(2) The public health officer may, subject to sub-paragraph (3)—
(a) direct the person to go immediately to a place specified in the direction which is suitable for screening and assessment,
(b) remove the person to a place suitable for screening and assessment, or
(c) request a constable to remove the person to a place suitable for screening and assessment (and the constable may then do so).
...
(4) Where a public health officer exercises the powers conferred by this paragraph, the officer must inform that person—
(a) of the reason for directing or removing them, and
(b) that it is an offence—
(i) in a case where a person is directed, to fail without reasonable excuse to comply with the direction, or
(ii) in a case where a person is removed (by the officer or by a constable), to abscond.
...
Powers exercisable at a screening and assessment place: public health officers
8
(1) Paragraphs 9 to 11 apply where, during a transmission control period—
(a) a person is (whether or not pursuant to the exercise of powers under this Part of this Schedule) at a place in England which is suitable for screening and assessment, and
(b) a public health officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is potentially infectious.
...
9
(1) A public health officer may require the person referred to in paragraph 8 to remain at the place for screening and assessment purposes for a period not exceeding 48 hours.
(2) Where a public health officer requires a person to remain at a place under this paragraph, the officer must inform that person—
(a) of the reason for imposing the requirement,
(b) of the maximum period the person may be required to remain there, and
(c) that it is an offence to fail to comply with the requirement.
(3) A requirement imposed on a person under this paragraph may be enforced by a public health officer or a constable keeping the person at the place.
10
(1) A public health officer may—
(a) require the person referred to in paragraph 8 to be screened and assessed, and
(b) impose other requirements on the person in connection with their screening and assessment.
(2) Requirements under sub-paragraph (1)(a) may in particular include requirements on a person—
(a) at such times as the public health officer may specify—
(i) to provide a biological sample, or
(ii) to allow a healthcare professional to take a biological sample by appropriate means;
(b) to answer questions and provide information about their health or other relevant matters (including their travel history and other individuals with whom they may have had contact).
...
11
(1) If a public health officer considers it appropriate for the purposes of screening or assessing the person, the officer may—
(a) direct the person referred to in paragraph 8 to go immediately to another place which is specified in the direction and is suitable for those purposes,
(b) remove the person to another place suitable for those purposes, or
(c) request a constable to remove the person to another place suitable for those purposes (and the constable may then do so).
(2) Where a public health officer exercises the powers conferred by this paragraph, the officer must inform that person—
(a) of the reason for directing or removing them, and
(b) that it is an offence—
(i) in a case where a person is directed, to fail without reasonable excuse to comply with the direction, or
(ii) in a case where a person is removed (by the officer or by a constable), to abscond.
12
Where the powers in paragraph 6, 7 or 11 are exercised in relation to a person in a place so as to direct them to go to, or remove them to, another place, paragraphs 9 to 11 apply in relation to that person afresh in that other place.
...
Powers exercisable after assessment
14
(1) This paragraph applies where, during a transmission control period—
(a) a person in England has been screened and assessed by a public health officer (under paragraph 10 or otherwise) and—
(i) the screening confirmed that the person is infected or contaminated with coronavirus, or
(ii) the screening was inconclusive, or
(b) a person in England has been assessed by a public health officer (under paragraph 10 or otherwise) and the officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is potentially infectious.
...
(3) Requirements under this paragraph may include requirements—
(a) to provide information to the public health officer or any specified person;
(b) to provide details by which the person may be contacted during a specified period;
(c) to go for the purposes of further screening and assessment to a specified place suitable for those purposes and do anything that may be required under paragraph 10(1);
(d) to remain at a specified place (which may be a place suitable for screening and assessment) for a specified period;
(e) to remain at a specified place in isolation from others for a specified period.
(4) Restrictions on a person under this paragraph may include restrictions, for a specified period, on—
(a) the person's movements or travel (within or outside the United Kingdom);
(b) the person's activities (including their work or business activities);
(c) the person's contact with other persons or with other specified persons.
(5) Where a public health officer imposes a requirement or restriction on a person under this paragraph, the officer must inform the person—
(a) of the reason for doing so, and
(b) that it is an offence to fail to comply with the requirement or restriction.
(6) In deciding whether to impose a requirement referred to in sub-paragraph (3)(d) or (e) the public health officer must have regard to a person's wellbeing and personal circumstances.
(7) A public health officer may vary or revoke a requirement or restriction imposed on a person (but may only extend the period to which a requirement referred to in sub-paragraph (3)(d) or (e) or a restriction relates in accordance with paragraph 15).
15
(1) The period specified in relation to a requirement referred to in paragraph 14(3)(d) or (e) (a “requirement to remain”), or in relation to any restriction under paragraph 14, may not exceed 14 days.
(2) After the imposition of a requirement to remain or a restriction under paragraph 14, a public health officer must—
(a) assess the person within 48 hours, and
(b) in the light of that assessment reconsider which requirements or restrictions it is necessary and proportionate to impose on that person under paragraph 14 for the purposes referred to in paragraph 14(2).
(3) The public health officer may, following reconsideration under sub-paragraph (2)—
(a) revoke the requirement to remain or the restriction or specify a different period not exceeding 14 days in relation to it;
(b) substitute a different requirement or restriction under paragraph 14.
(4) If under sub-paragraph (3) the public health officer revokes the requirement to remain or the restriction, the Secretary of State may, if satisfied that the person is potentially infectious, re-impose the requirement or restriction (for the period originally specified).
(5) If before the end of the period specified in relation to a requirement to remain or restriction (under paragraph 14(3) or sub-paragraph (3)(a))—
(a) a public health officer reasonably suspects that the person will be potentially infectious at the end of that period, and
(b) the officer considers that the requirement or restriction is still necessary and proportionate for the purposes referred to in paragraph 14(2),
the officer may extend the period for a further specified period.
(6) Except in the case of a requirement referred to in paragraph 14(3)(e) (requirement to remain in isolation), the further period specified under sub-paragraph (5) may not exceed 14 days.
(7) Where the period to which a requirement to remain or restriction under paragraph 14 relates is extended under sub-paragraph (5), a public health officer must review the requirement or restriction at least once in every period of 24 hours.
(8) If on a review under sub-paragraph (7) the public health officer considers that the person is no longer potentially infectious, the officer must revoke the requirement to remain or the restriction.
(9) If on a review under sub-paragraph (7)—
(a) sub-paragraph (8) does not apply, but
(b) the public health officer considers that the requirement to remain or the restriction is no longer necessary and proportionate for the purposes referred to in paragraph 14(2),
the public health officer may substitute a different requirement or restriction under paragraph 14 (which may not apply beyond the end of the further period specified under sub-paragraph (5)).
16
Where a person is required to remain at a place under paragraph 14(3)(d) or (e) the requirement may be enforced—
(a) by a constable or public health officer removing the person to the place;
(b) by a constable or public health officer keeping the person at the place;
(c) if the person absconds, by a constable taking the person into custody and returning them to that place or another place a public health officer may specify.
17
(1) A person on whom a requirement or restriction is imposed under paragraph 14 may appeal against it (or against any variation of it or any extension of the period to which it relates) to a magistrates' court.
(2) On an appeal under this paragraph the court may—
(a) confirm the requirement or restriction (or variation or extension), with or without modification, or
(b) quash the requirement or restriction (or variation or extension).
6
(1) This paragraph applies if, during a transmission control period, a public health officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person in England is potentially infectious.
(2) The public health officer may, subject to sub-paragraph (3)—
(a) direct the person to go immediately to a place specified in the direction which is suitable for screening and assessment,
(b) remove the person to a place suitable for screening and assessment, or
(c) request a constable to remove the person to a place suitable for screening and assessment (and the constable may then do so).
...
(4) Where a public health officer exercises the powers conferred by this paragraph, the officer must inform that person—
(a) of the reason for directing or removing them, and
(b) that it is an offence—
(i) in a case where a person is directed, to fail without reasonable excuse to comply with the direction, or
(ii) in a case where a person is removed (by the officer or by a constable), to abscond.
...
Powers exercisable at a screening and assessment place: public health officers
8
(1) Paragraphs 9 to 11 apply where, during a transmission control period—
(a) a person is (whether or not pursuant to the exercise of powers under this Part of this Schedule) at a place in England which is suitable for screening and assessment, and
(b) a public health officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is potentially infectious.
...
9
(1) A public health officer may require the person referred to in paragraph 8 to remain at the place for screening and assessment purposes for a period not exceeding 48 hours.
(2) Where a public health officer requires a person to remain at a place under this paragraph, the officer must inform that person—
(a) of the reason for imposing the requirement,
(b) of the maximum period the person may be required to remain there, and
(c) that it is an offence to fail to comply with the requirement.
(3) A requirement imposed on a person under this paragraph may be enforced by a public health officer or a constable keeping the person at the place.
10
(1) A public health officer may—
(a) require the person referred to in paragraph 8 to be screened and assessed, and
(b) impose other requirements on the person in connection with their screening and assessment.
(2) Requirements under sub-paragraph (1)(a) may in particular include requirements on a person—
(a) at such times as the public health officer may specify—
(i) to provide a biological sample, or
(ii) to allow a healthcare professional to take a biological sample by appropriate means;
(b) to answer questions and provide information about their health or other relevant matters (including their travel history and other individuals with whom they may have had contact).
...
11
(1) If a public health officer considers it appropriate for the purposes of screening or assessing the person, the officer may—
(a) direct the person referred to in paragraph 8 to go immediately to another place which is specified in the direction and is suitable for those purposes,
(b) remove the person to another place suitable for those purposes, or
(c) request a constable to remove the person to another place suitable for those purposes (and the constable may then do so).
(2) Where a public health officer exercises the powers conferred by this paragraph, the officer must inform that person—
(a) of the reason for directing or removing them, and
(b) that it is an offence—
(i) in a case where a person is directed, to fail without reasonable excuse to comply with the direction, or
(ii) in a case where a person is removed (by the officer or by a constable), to abscond.
12
Where the powers in paragraph 6, 7 or 11 are exercised in relation to a person in a place so as to direct them to go to, or remove them to, another place, paragraphs 9 to 11 apply in relation to that person afresh in that other place.
...
Powers exercisable after assessment
14
(1) This paragraph applies where, during a transmission control period—
(a) a person in England has been screened and assessed by a public health officer (under paragraph 10 or otherwise) and—
(i) the screening confirmed that the person is infected or contaminated with coronavirus, or
(ii) the screening was inconclusive, or
(b) a person in England has been assessed by a public health officer (under paragraph 10 or otherwise) and the officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is potentially infectious.
...
(3) Requirements under this paragraph may include requirements—
(a) to provide information to the public health officer or any specified person;
(b) to provide details by which the person may be contacted during a specified period;
(c) to go for the purposes of further screening and assessment to a specified place suitable for those purposes and do anything that may be required under paragraph 10(1);
(d) to remain at a specified place (which may be a place suitable for screening and assessment) for a specified period;
(e) to remain at a specified place in isolation from others for a specified period.
(4) Restrictions on a person under this paragraph may include restrictions, for a specified period, on—
(a) the person's movements or travel (within or outside the United Kingdom);
(b) the person's activities (including their work or business activities);
(c) the person's contact with other persons or with other specified persons.
(5) Where a public health officer imposes a requirement or restriction on a person under this paragraph, the officer must inform the person—
(a) of the reason for doing so, and
(b) that it is an offence to fail to comply with the requirement or restriction.
(6) In deciding whether to impose a requirement referred to in sub-paragraph (3)(d) or (e) the public health officer must have regard to a person's wellbeing and personal circumstances.
(7) A public health officer may vary or revoke a requirement or restriction imposed on a person (but may only extend the period to which a requirement referred to in sub-paragraph (3)(d) or (e) or a restriction relates in accordance with paragraph 15).
15
(1) The period specified in relation to a requirement referred to in paragraph 14(3)(d) or (e) (a “requirement to remain”), or in relation to any restriction under paragraph 14, may not exceed 14 days.
(2) After the imposition of a requirement to remain or a restriction under paragraph 14, a public health officer must—
(a) assess the person within 48 hours, and
(b) in the light of that assessment reconsider which requirements or restrictions it is necessary and proportionate to impose on that person under paragraph 14 for the purposes referred to in paragraph 14(2).
(3) The public health officer may, following reconsideration under sub-paragraph (2)—
(a) revoke the requirement to remain or the restriction or specify a different period not exceeding 14 days in relation to it;
(b) substitute a different requirement or restriction under paragraph 14.
(4) If under sub-paragraph (3) the public health officer revokes the requirement to remain or the restriction, the Secretary of State may, if satisfied that the person is potentially infectious, re-impose the requirement or restriction (for the period originally specified).
(5) If before the end of the period specified in relation to a requirement to remain or restriction (under paragraph 14(3) or sub-paragraph (3)(a))—
(a) a public health officer reasonably suspects that the person will be potentially infectious at the end of that period, and
(b) the officer considers that the requirement or restriction is still necessary and proportionate for the purposes referred to in paragraph 14(2),
the officer may extend the period for a further specified period.
(6) Except in the case of a requirement referred to in paragraph 14(3)(e) (requirement to remain in isolation), the further period specified under sub-paragraph (5) may not exceed 14 days.
(7) Where the period to which a requirement to remain or restriction under paragraph 14 relates is extended under sub-paragraph (5), a public health officer must review the requirement or restriction at least once in every period of 24 hours.
(8) If on a review under sub-paragraph (7) the public health officer considers that the person is no longer potentially infectious, the officer must revoke the requirement to remain or the restriction.
(9) If on a review under sub-paragraph (7)—
(a) sub-paragraph (8) does not apply, but
(b) the public health officer considers that the requirement to remain or the restriction is no longer necessary and proportionate for the purposes referred to in paragraph 14(2),
the public health officer may substitute a different requirement or restriction under paragraph 14 (which may not apply beyond the end of the further period specified under sub-paragraph (5)).
16
Where a person is required to remain at a place under paragraph 14(3)(d) or (e) the requirement may be enforced—
(a) by a constable or public health officer removing the person to the place;
(b) by a constable or public health officer keeping the person at the place;
(c) if the person absconds, by a constable taking the person into custody and returning them to that place or another place a public health officer may specify.
17
(1) A person on whom a requirement or restriction is imposed under paragraph 14 may appeal against it (or against any variation of it or any extension of the period to which it relates) to a magistrates' court.
(2) On an appeal under this paragraph the court may—
(a) confirm the requirement or restriction (or variation or extension), with or without modification, or
(b) quash the requirement or restriction (or variation or extension).
PushedDover said:
Red 4 said:
PushedDover said:
Autumn and winter is coming. Standing and queuing outside of shops is soon to be untenable.
Get masks on everyone, let everyone in at the same time. No queues.
Shops have a chance of volumes.
Why are these things hard to comprehend by many ?
So the science hasn't changed and masks can still cause more problems than they solve ...Get masks on everyone, let everyone in at the same time. No queues.
Shops have a chance of volumes.
Why are these things hard to comprehend by many ?
The government is hoping for the placebo effect of masks.
I'm not sure the psychological aspect of seeing everyone looking like the have just performed open heart surgery will have people flooding back to the shops.
Masks send the signal that the virus is still among us. I don't think many people think that wearing a mask makes them immune from Covid19.
If you were not talking about masks then what were you talking about ?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff