/ Health

How do you feel about the reopening across the UK?

With gyms, pubs, and restaurants able to reopen in England, are you returning to your local shops? Or are you sticking with shopping from home?

19/07/2021: Almost all restrictions removed

We’ve reached the final stage of the government’s lockdown lifting roadmap: from today nearly all legal restrictions on social contact will be lifted, though guidance will still remain in place.

Some of the changes from today:

🗓 In England: the ‘rule of six’ for meeting inside and ‘one-metre plus’ requirement for spacing in pubs and restaurants will be dropped. Masks are no longer required by law, but people are still advised to wear them.

🗓 Scotland moves into Level 0, with more restrictions in place on social contact, face coverings still legally mandated, and working from home where possible is still advised.

Face coverings will still be mandatory in some places, such as on London’s transport network, and other shops and businesses have started to announce their policies.

Are you in favour of the relaxing of coronavirus restrictions from 19 July?
Loading ... Loading ...

How do you feel about the rules being relaxed further? Will you be relaxing your own precautions, or will you continue to observe social distancing and wearing face coverings?

What conditions would make it safe for you to return to the kinds of social contact you enjoyed before the pandemic?

17/05/2021: Further restrictions lifted

Further lockdown rules have lifted in England, Scotland and Wales today with indoor socialising, larger outdoor gatherings and hugging permitted in England and Scotland.

Pubs and restaurants are also now able to open indoors – are you keen to pay them a visit?

How are you feeling about this new stage of restrictions easing? Do you have concerns over further COVID-19 variants potentially preventing or reversing lockdown restrictions?

Let us know in the comments.

14/04/2021: How do you feel about reopening?

The UK moved one step closer to lifting lockdown restrictions this week:

🗓 Pubs and restaurants have now opened for outdoor table service in England, with Wales and Scotland following on 26 April (subject to data).

🗓 Hairdressers and barbers are open for appointments in England, Scotland, and Wales. Walk-ins are also now permitted in England. They remain closed in Northern Ireland.

🗓 Many non-essential shops, and some public buildings such as libraries and community centres are now able to reopen in England. Restrictions in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland will vary, but some shops have been able to reopen or resume click-and-collect services.

While eased somewhat, restrictions and timeframes will vary depending on where you are in the UK.   

See what restrictions are in place in your area

Flocking back or staying home?

Reopening has seemed pretty normal in my area, all things considered. It was nice to walk by the local pub and see the caution tape and barricades blocking off the car parks and patios were replaced with people enjoying themselves. Further down my high street, I saw people sitting outside of Costa, and a man visibly excited to finally be getting his hair seen to in a barber.  

There were still masks, face coverings, distancing – it seemed pretty sensible from where I was standing at least.  

On the other hand, it’s easy see why people would be concerned about social distancing and potential further spread as people cram into smaller outdoor dining areas, or queue for shops:

How do you feel about reopening?

Have you been out again following the easing of lockdown restrictions in England and Wales? 

Which non-essential shop have you missed the most during the winter lockdown?
Loading ... Loading ...

What’s it like to shop in-store again?  Are you seeing long queues or other restrictions on entry?  

Are people still socially distancing and wearing masks, or has the easing of restrictions caused others to behave differently?  

What concerns do you have about the easing of restrictions? Do you feel that you’ll retain any of your lockdown shopping habits as restrictions ease? 

Comments

Quite, wingman. Shops should enforce the wearing of masks to protect the rest of their customers. In the two supermarkets I visit it is now rare to see anyone without a mask.

We are debating in our sports club whether we should require anyone attending to have been fully vaccinated. My personal view is that if someone does not take up the vaccines without a medical reason then they should not mix with those who have protected. themselves

Novak’s is, appropriately, caught up in this. I trust reason prevails. It does seem that sport suffers, at least as publicised, significantly from infections.

Hi Malcolm, I would agree with your suggestion that those attending meetings, clubs, organisations and other gatherings should be fully vaccinated unless they are exempt for medical reasons.

Unfortunately, there will always be those in society who take the ‘you can’t tell me what to do’ approach, but when their actions are placing others at risk, I firmly believe a more robust approach is needed.

I called the Head Office of the supermarket in question to ask why the Security guard was not advising customers they should be wearing a mask and they explained it was not their responsibility to challenge or police the wearing of masks. But given the requirement is law, then surely supermarkets are responsible for enforcing this on their premises.

“Novak’s” / No-vax?

Should have seen it coming!

The supermarkets are in a similar position with regard to the sale of knives to persons under the age of eighteen years. That law impacts on the seller not the buyer. It is illegal to sell a banned type of knife to someone under 18 so the retailers have to protect themselves against committing the offence. They do this by stating the legal position in the parts of the shop where knives are sold and, where there is a checkout, they display a reminder notice that informs the customer that they have the right to see proof of age before putting through the sale of a knife.

In the case of face coverings mandated during an epidemic [except where an exemption applies] and where the burden of compliance is on the customer rather than on the retailer, I should have thought it would be appropriate for shops to inform intending customers at the entrance (a) that they will not be allowed into the premises without a mask, (b) that if they do not continue to wear it throughout their occupation of the store they will be asked to leave, (c) and that none of their intended purchases will be processed and will be recovered in the event that they do not comply. It also seems appropriate to me that stores should be able to require evidence of a medical exemption where that is claimed.

I endorse Malcolm’s suggestion that the shop offers a mask to anyone attempting to enter without one. In a small number of cases it might be rejected but then further action against the intending customer would be legitimised.

This approach might be irksome to retailers and give rise to some initial difficulties. It could also require enforcement support in some circumstances but I think that would only be for a temporary period while certain anti-social people tested its impact. Retailers have the right to exclude and not to serve people who refuse to abide by their terms and conditions of business. The existence of CCTV in many shops would act as a deterrent to aggravated disruptive behaviour.

An epidemic is a national emergency for which effective control measures are essential and, in terms of citizens’ rights to freedom of behaviour, the interests of the greater number have to be paramount.

I completely agree with all the points raised and would like to see retailers encouraging customers to wear face coverings, but unfortunately it is just not happening.

From numerous articles I have read, most retailers have made it clear that their only responsibility is to advise customers (with signs placed at the entrance to stores), but they do not intend to Police or enforce face coverings due to potential threat of abuse for their staff.

This is not helped by retail Trade Bodies who have said that retailers should not challenge customers who refuse to abide by face covering rules. Even the Police have said that enforcement should not necessarily mean involvement by officers and that businesses and local authorities would be expected to resolve the majority of incidents.

It seems pointless having a mandatory requirement for face coverings, with the risk of a fine for those failing to comply, if retailers are choosing to take no action whatsoever.

Unfortunately, there has been very little serious argument allowed by the media about what has been done: lockdown, masks treatments besides vaccines – all given the nod with no questioning about the science. I worked in pharma until 2008 and I am in disbelief at how anything outwith their advice has been given a decent hearing. Vitamin D, was something about which I had a great deal of knowledge.
When I saw saw the people who were dying, my immediate thought was: these are all people in whom vitamin D is low.
Yet, when studies came out of Spain showing that treating patients with activated vitamin D ( this is a pharmaceutical entity available only by a hospital consultant’s prescription) the results were downplayed by doctors. It was explained as being a result of vitamin D being low in patients due to the effects of the virus and not because the individuals who were I’ll had historically had low vitamin D levels. However, the latest study fro Israel completely verifies the Spanish studies. No moderately or seriously ill among those with good levels of vitamin D.
Not only that, but there was only condemnation for anyone saying that there treatments using old drugs – repurposing then, even when good result were demonstrated. In what other disease outbreak have patients been sent home without treatment and wait for their condition to improve or deteriorate.
Everything pointed to stopping progression to serious condition. Once they needed hospitalisation, hard luck.
And yet very highly regarded clinicians, including Paul Marik, East Virginia, Medical School , have been silenced, for saying that Ivermectin was useful in treating COVID.
I expect the response to my comments will be negative, but I’m convinced that a large part of our medical profession have been duped by the industry that I worked in and that there is little recognition
of the vice like grip in which they are being held.
What is needed is a reassessment of what makes us healthy.
Carbohydrate restriction has been shown to have good effects in many areas and is exemplified by Dr David Unwin, in Southport, UK.

I was deficient in vitamin D several years ago, so I took steps to increase my intake. My wife, who was being treated for cancer, read that it might be helpful for her conditions, so joined me. We manage our sun exposure after living in some very sunny climates in the past, and having unfortunate momentous of those times. In January last year, my wife developed covid, but after intensive treatment over numerous weeks with various pharmaceuticals, she recovered. I have avoided Covid so far, and at my age, I am keen to continue aggressive self-protection. Did vitamin D help me? Maybe, it did not protect my wife.
My level is now considered close to the upper limit, but I do not know my wife’s levels. Since then, we have been keen to take up any vaccinations, though we never had any reservations about them in the past, ensuring that the children were kept up to date. One daughter has worked many overtime hours over the past year or so in the ‘delivery side’ of the health industry, and her reaction to those less committed to vaccination in general is unprintable.
Due to the stress of dealing with my wife’s health issues, I have taken my eye off my weight, though it has recently moved centre stage as other health issues have reared up in my path.
I try to take a balanced course through the conflicting sources of data and take as much care as I can to balance things out. I am well aware that the mix of tablets I already take can easily end up in conflicts if I mix in too many new items.
I consider that there is unlikely to be any one answer. I has become increasingly clear that a personal’s genetic make up can affect many aspects of their life, ranging from food intolerances through to their reactions to drugs and to illnesses. It is clear that a one size fits all approach does not fit all. Members of my family have different, negative, but by no means unusual reactions to different treatments, e.g. sedatives, antibiotics, some foods, flavourings such as garlic, etc to which we all react in our own ways. For this reason, I am not always keen to just accept results from situations that do not necessarily mimic my family’s background. Thus, I understand anyone’s hesitation about studies carried out in other locations where diet, food sources, digestive systems, etc. may not represent their normality. Happily, this problem is being understood by the industry and their approach has been to extend study boundaries as widely as practical.

Trevor says:
23 February 2022

This article concetrates on the situation in England. It fails to take account of the rest of us who live under Devolved Administrations where this article lacks relevance.

Don’t the principles apply? Would not the devolved nations be likely to follow the same path?

Why not, I wonder?