It really will be a huge change on 19 July if legal social distancing restrictions are lifted.
Will be the first time since 26 March 2020 that there have been no legal social distancing requirements - e.g. group socialising limits
That is 480 days
It does sound like some legal duties will remain:
1. Self-isolation for people who come into contact with a positive case, though it sounds like this will be different to current rules 2. Travel self-isolation and hotel quarantine
Interestingly:
"there will be no Covid certificate required to attend events or venues"
So domestic 'covid passports' are a non-starter (though they have been tried for big events this summer along with negative tests)
Face coverings to be guidance not law
Long-time followers will know govt has never been clear on difference between guidance & law, and why that should matter to people
It has fudged
Now it is left with the mess of convincing people to do things which are "guidance only"
People might reasonably ask why some important things (eg self-isolation) will remain law but other important things (eg face covering on public transport) will only be guidance.
I imagine the answer is as much to do with Tory backbenchers (masks have become totemic) as reason
Next question which will be on many businesses owners' minds is what to do about face coverings, tests, vaccine proof etc as entry requirements.
Just because the government is not making these things compulsory doesn't mean they are decoupled entirely from legal requirements...
Health and safety law might even require that certain businesses recommend face coverings or tests/vaccine certificates.
The truth is this is unknown territory - we have spent 480 days in government mandated land and now we are moving into 'use your discretion' land
E.g. a theatre which knows its audience is high Covid risk - e.g. elderly people - is opening up to maximum numbers.
Covid rates are high and getting higher.
If it leaves measures up to discretion of customers and there is a covid outbreak and someone dies, is it responsible?
E.g. a company knows that certain of its staff are very vulnerable to Covid and haven't been vaccinated. If it leaves measures to "personal responsibility" and there is a Covid outbreak, will it be responsible for the vulnerable employee getting Covid?
This will of course either be the end of social distancing requirements in law or the first major gap between two sets of legal social distancing requirements.
I suppose we will find out in the autumn/winter
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
One thing that I have been saying for a long time is that the problem of making laws by ministerial decree is that it makes them far more open to corruption. I don’t necessarily mean corruption in the sense of people enriching themselves (though that may have happened!)…
… I mean the banality of everyday corruption. The evidence with the Covid regulations is how many times exceptions seems to have been made for “friends of the government”. The exception for grouse shooting, for foreign travel to buy a property, the exception now to…
the self isolation rules for (quite literally) big business people. The worry I have always had is not the exceptions we know about but the ones we don’t, how many times did someone knock on the door or send a WhatsApp message and get a change to the law?
A lot of parents are asking me whether if a school tells your child to self isolate there is a legal duty for them to do so (meaning that you could be given a fixed penalty notice or charged with an offence if you do not comply)
I am actually going to change what I said in the original thread - an be a bit less equivocal. I think that it is entirely possible that the legal duty to self isolate and would be triggered as school could be engaged by a local authority in communicable disease control.
As with all things Covid regulations, the answer is not particularly clear!
I appreciate some will see the Hancock story as a private affair - but there is an important question of whether the Health Secretary broke his own lockdown laws
As I explain 👇🏼, private indoor meetings between people not living together were unlawful for most of the past year
Lord Sumption makes a convincing argument in the new Law Quarterly Review that Dolan was wrongly decided and use of the Public Health Act to impose lockdowns was contrary to the principle of legality