If government guidance says face coverings reduce Covid transmission individual businesses should be able to impose face covering mandates if that’s what their health and safety risk assessment concludes. Should be subject to health (physical & mental) exemptions…
… And if that is a policy in, say, a shop then I see no reason why they owner could not prohibit people entering if they do not comply (in the same way they could with anyone posing a safety risk). But, in practical reality, given there are people for whom opposition to face…
… coverings is an ideological red line, there may be legal challenges to certain business policies. I would be very surprised if they have any success but much will depend on the clarity of government and health and safety executive guidance. The clearer it is, the easier for…
… a court to give short shrift to any legal challenge. Unfortunately, for businesses they are stuck between a rock and a hard place because they understandably want to protect their customers and staff and will also have their insurance policies in mind, and govt…
… have basically passed on the difficult decisions to them it would seem to appease Conservative backbenchers who are in the ideological anti-mask group.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Since "Nuremberg" is trending I recommend this @FullFact article which dispels some of the very common (in my timeline, anyway) "the Covid-19 vaccines are experimental" memes fullfact.org/health/nurembe…
"... when we talk about Pfizer or AstraZeneca [vaccines], we’re out of the auspices of the Nuremberg Code because this is a product that has been trialled, with appropriate ethics in place, and has been approved and is now in production and being used globally."
This. I have seen it over and over again, and increasingly - the constant comparisons, implicit and explicit, between Covid-19 prevention measures and Nazi Germany. See also Lord Sumption's comment "no moral obligation for Germans to comply with the Nazi race laws"
Thinking back to the semi-final of Italia 90 when my parents wouldn’t let me watch the second half and I watched it on a fuzzy tv with no ariel. My kids are watching tonight (if they don’t fall asleep!)
I have convinced my daughter that one of the rituals of watching a big football match is going crisp shopping, so we are doing that this afternoon
We also went shopping for little plastic England flags and my daughter said, with amazing perspicacity, “daddy this is your dream and your nightmare all at once”
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)
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!