Lockdown’s Last Lingerings - (Covid since L2 ended)

[brianusa]

If only it was lock  up instead of lock down, there wouldn't be so many wandering all over the place, spreading the virus.

     Brian.

[Nearholmer]

Could we have a three month lock-in?

[Hobby]

As long as there's a decent supply of real ale....

[hayfield]

1 hour ago, monkeysarefun said:

What? I'm no expert but from the viewpoint of where I am -

Delaying the initial lockdown by weeks.

Not closing borders until belatedly doing it now

Not securely quarantining arrivals until belatedly doing it now

Not preventing overseas travel for non-esential trips until belatedly doing it now

Prematurely reopening everything in summer

Not implementing a real track and trace system.

Not quashing the virus using door to door testing and targeted lock downs back in July when case numbers fell to sub-1000.

 

You would be in a much better place if the restrictions and so on that have been announced there in the last week or so had been done last February. What a shocker.

 

 

 

 

 

Had we done all of those things there would be many saying we acted too harshly !!!

[teaky]

51 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

 

Indeed.

 

To say that they have signed a contract based on "best efforts" but "without obligations" is very odd, possibly a deliberate attempt to gull people who aren't used to the term, because "best efforts" almost certainly is an obligation, and a very onerous one:

 

"Best endeavors is a phrase commonly found in commercial contracts that places an obligation on the identified party to use all efforts necessary to fulfill the terms set out. A best endeavors policy places a party under a stricter obligation than a reasonable endeavors obligation. It is equivalent to best efforts, a term widely used in securities markets and preferred in most commercial contracts signed in the United States."

 

It was drummed into me never to agree to "best endeavours", because it puts one in an incredibly weak position, and allows the other party to "crawl all over you", looking for ways in which you are not doing absolutely every last thing possible to meet their wants. That may be what the "raid" by the EU was - exercising a right to inspect a facility to confirm whether or not best efforts were being made within it.

 

In short, don’t be fooled: “best efforts” is a huge obligation.

 

Stakes are enormous; expect highly partisan spin-doctoring by both sides.

I agree.  It struck me as so unlikely that I wondered if it was a mistranslation.  I can't see an experienced manager like Pascal Soriot signing a contract with such a fundamental flaw so I just took it at face value and treated it as everyday language rather than contractual language.

[John M Upton]

Riddle me this...

 

If we are in a lockdown and there is a clear ban on non essential travel, especially long distance, why is Boris Johnson prancing around a hospital in Scotland in desperate search of a photo opportunity?

 

Perhaps he has booked an eyesight test?

[monkeysarefun]

36 minutes ago, hayfield said:

 

 

Had we done all of those things there would be many saying we acted too harshly !!!

Seriously? who would say that? Our state and federal governments enacted all those regulations and more back in February/March last year , and their popular support is over 85%.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/dec/17/australians-trust-in-governments-surges-to-extraordinary-high-amid-covid

 

 

Even Melbourne that had 111 days of lockdown that included only being allowed out of your house for an hour a day for any reason, total shutdown of schools and businesses, an 8pm to 5am curfew  and a 'ring of steel' around metropolitan Melbourne locking everyone in and limiting travel to 5km from your house  still get 65% support from Victorians. What is the support numbers for the UK governments less harsh response - is it over 50%?

 

As a result of those 'harsh' regulations we've had to put up with, today marks 11 days with zero local cases of Covid, in all of Australia, all state borders have reopened to other states, there are no lockdowns, the only real limits are on crowd numbers at events, masks are limited to public transport. 

 

Oh,  theres still that stupid elbow bump thing.

 

Our economy is forecast to suffer a 2% drop due to the virus, far less than the 10%+ predicted initially and over 90% of the jobs lost due to lockdowns have been restored. Only our tourist industry is still suffering, understandably. 

 

The UK government is basically just too soft, all those exemptions  attached to any new regulation that enables everyone to find a loop hole.

 

Here, even Kylie can't get around the rules...

https://www.smh.com.au/national/we-should-be-so-lucky-kylie-minogue-back-and-in-hotel-quarantine-20210128-p56xls.html

 

 

Oh and  Australia is spending $500 million dollars buying  coronavirus vaccines for our pacific and asian neighbours.  and New Zealand is also planning to  distribute it freely around the Pacific assuming the schoolkid squabbling among the '1st World' countries in the northern hemisphere about who gets what and when gets sorted out.

 

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/australia-to-spend-500-million-on-coronavirus-vaccines-for-southeast-asian-and-pacific-neighbours

 

 

Edited January 28, 2021 by monkeysarefun

[chris p bacon]

1 hour ago, John M Upton said:

Riddle me this...

 

If we are in a lockdown and there is a clear ban on non essential travel, especially long distance, why is Boris Johnson prancing around a hospital in Scotland in desperate search of a photo opportunity?

 

Perhaps he has booked an eyesight test?

What does he do, if he stays in London/Westminster he's accused of ignoring the rest of the country and by going to Scotland to see progress at first hand he gives the SNP a stick to hit him over the head.

 

In case those with a political axe to grind have forgotten he is The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Even Kier Starmer agrees he didn't do wrong.

 

 

Edited January 28, 2021 by chris p bacon

[Nearholmer]

11 minutes ago, monkeysarefun said:

who would say that?

Half the population, led-on by a bunch of ‘look at me’ libertarian-populist politicians, and the very same newspapers and populist mouth-all-mighty people who are currently saying that nothing like enough has been done.

 

It is axiomatic in this country that whatever any government does, roughly half of the population broadly supports it, while half broadly opposes it, and at the outer edges of the two halves are a small number of fringe-thinkers, in this case anti-vaxxer libertarians on one fringe, and those who advocate permitting  absolutely no risk of Covid whatsoever on the other.

 

Are you trying to tell us that Aus is a land of gentle and moderate consensus in all things, never troubled by fractious debate?

 

 

[auldreekie]

Perhaps it's the UK populace,  as well as its representative government,  which is too soft - in the head and/or in the "resolve" department.  Really the guiding principles are VERY simple indeed:

 

- don't engage in social proximity with anyone unless it is absolutely necessary;

 

- practise hygiene scrupulously  (ie wash your hands and surfaces,  especially those open to use by many people);  and

 

-  so as to make the above two easier to achieve, stay at home unless  it is necessary not to do so in order to take exercise. 

 

All the rules and regulations which come and go are merely supplementary to these.   They provide foc's'le lawyers,  as any such provisions would do,   with opportunities to seek to justify their pig-headed foolishness by finding inconsistencies and loopholes.

 

It's not comfortable to be so limited for extended periods.  I didn't vote for this government,  whose leader I hold in deepest contempt.   But it's not to blame for the existence of the pandemic,  and it's in everyone's interest that we all do our best to comply fully with the letter and the spirit of the restrictions which it imposes,  however well- or ill-considered we may believe them to be.

 

auldreekie

[monkeysarefun]

27 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Are you trying to tell us that Aus is a land of gentle and moderate consensus in all things, never troubled by fractious debate?

 

Not at all good sir, our election results s are always in the  49% to 51% range one way or the other and we have our fair share of division usually stoked by the Murdoch press.

Our government is a rightleaning one and denies climate change science (for economic reasons mainly - we need to sell that coal!)  who copped a rightly deserved clobbering by the population over its tardy and inept handling of the bushfires this time last year.

 

So it is bizarre but in a good way (and possibly as a result of all the bad bushfire press)  that right from when initial reports of a virus appearing in Wuhan started landing in intelligence reports and so on the federal government  set up a task force led by scientists and medical experts and immediately handed over all decisions to them, and complied to the letter with what they recommended when they recommended them despite any risks to the economy.

 

Actually that bit isn't quite right, the PM announced lockdowns on a Friday to start the following Monday  but the states united in implementing them right away forcing the Feds along with them but since then  the response has been focussed and unwavering and the message from the government has always been  clear and concise and understandable. A s a result we've all gone along with the rules.

 

Seeing such a fast result at the start (our numbers dropped really quickly due to the border closures and 'harsh'  lockdown measures)  also showed us that they worked and were therefore for a worthwhile reason. In contrast the UK continual open up, close up, allow international travel, stop international travel must seem like being on an endless hamster wheel, and understandly would generate a great amount of scepticism, denial and opposition.

Edited January 28, 2021 by monkeysarefun

[LBRJ]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

 

Indeed.

 

To say that they have signed a contract based on "best efforts" but "without obligations" is very odd, possibly a deliberate attempt to gull people who aren't used to the term, because "best efforts" almost certainly is an obligation, and a very onerous one:

 

"Best endeavors is a phrase commonly found in commercial contracts that places an obligation on the identified party to use all efforts necessary to fulfill the terms set out. A best endeavors policy places a party under a stricter obligation than a reasonable endeavors obligation. It is equivalent to best efforts, a term widely used in securities markets and preferred in most commercial contracts signed in the United States."

 

It was drummed into me never to agree to "best endeavours", because it puts one in an incredibly weak position, and allows the other party to "crawl all over you", looking for ways in which you are not doing absolutely every last thing possible to meet their wants. That may be what the "raid" by the EU was - exercising a right to inspect a facility to confirm whether or not best efforts were being made within it.

 

In short, don’t be fooled: “best efforts” is a huge obligation.

 

Stakes are enormous; expect highly partisan spin-doctoring by both sides.

 

Best Endeavours isn't anywhere near to being an Obligation, thats why it is called Best Endeavours.

It is the second highest degree of accepting a contract, but its often put in place when the alternative is to just walk away.

 

NHS Estates used to (have to)  be great fans of BE - which also used to sometimes cause all sorts of "issues", but no main contractor would ever guarantee anything!

 

AZ have guaranteed the UK vaccine supply (presumably cos the UK ponied up in the first place)

They have offered their Best Endevours to the EU.

 

 

[Nearholmer]

59 minutes ago, LBRJ said:

Best Endeavours isn't anywhere near to being an Obligation, 

 

is it the 'O' vs 'o' that you are driving at?

 

My understanding is that it is an obligation; an obligation to use BE.

 

"Commercial contracts often impose obligations on a party to use their “best endeavours” or “reasonable endeavours” to perform a particular contractual obligation. For example, in a contract for the purchase and sale of land, one of the parties may be under an obligation to use their “best endeavours” or “reasonable endeavours” to obtain development approval for the land."

 

I'm not a commercial lawyer (there is at least one with athread on RMWeb, should we need him, although I fear we might need to pay rather a lot!), but I have been closely involved in the setting-up and running of a lot of large contracts, and I've always understood it as such.

 

Mind you, as Teaky says, the language may be colloquial, rather than formal, or lost in translation.

Edited January 28, 2021 by Nearholmer

[Nearholmer]

This is quite funny in a "Doh!" sort of way https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55844367

 

I'd love whoever drew it to visit our house, because in between rambling and ranting on here, I do 80% of the home-schooling support for our two, more than half of the cooking and house-work, etc., and some part-time WFH. And, I know plenty of other dads who are doing the same, but with a lot more WFH.

 

So, its not only annoying to women, its annoying to men too!

 

 

[LBRJ]

44 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

 

is it the 'O' vs 'o' that you are driving at?

 

My understanding is that it is an obligation; an obligation to use BE.

 

"Commercial contracts often impose obligations on a party to use their “best endeavours” or “reasonable endeavours” to perform a particular contractual obligation. For example, in a contract for the purchase and sale of land, one of the parties may be under an obligation to use their “best endeavours” or “reasonable endeavours” to obtain development approval for the land."

 

I'm not a commercial lawyer (there is at least one with athread on RMWeb, should we need him, although I fear we might need to pay rather a lot!), but I have been closely involved in the setting-up and running of a lot of large contracts, and I've always understood it as such.

 

Mind you, as Teaky says, the language may be colloquial, rather than formal, or lost in translation.

Yeah

If you like it is O vs o...

Bit like being engaged as opposed to being married to keep it light hearted....

It means you will try bloody hard, even if it costs you....

But there is not a guarantee you will be able to provide....

 

It seems to have become something of  a buzz term on the internet at the moment , but it has a very clear* legal meaning....

It is rather like the Railway Rule Book is is very fond of the term of where practicable, as opposed to you must, without the rider......

again, its a real Legal term. not just some casual frippery.

 

* Ill leave that one for the lawyers

[LBRJ]

Just in case anyone thinks I am talking out of my stovepipe, once upon a time my dad used to actually write contract for NHS capital developments (and we aint talking about a new kitchen on the back of a semi here).

 

When the Estates got privatized (sort of) he still did it but as a "consultant"

He then needed someone (someone cheap!))  who could type better than him and understand the content and context of what they were typing.

That would be me...

[Nearholmer]

25 minutes ago, LBRJ said:

It means you will try bloody hard, even if it costs you....

One of the cases that gets cited involved an airport, which contracted to support the services of a budget airline on a BE basis, and found that keeping the entire airport open for a late-evening flight was costing them a fortune for virtually no return. When they tried to close the airport after the main business of the day, the airline took them to court and won - they had to continue losing money every evening until the contract expired (although I think the airline eventually pulled-out because it too was losing money).

[Neil]

9 hours ago, hayfield said:

 

 

Had we done all of those things there would be many saying we acted too harshly !!!

 

I'm not so sure. There would perhaps be a few but I guess most would be very happy if we were to join Australia, Taiwan and New Zealand in the group of countries which had dealt well with the pandemic. Sure they may have been some chuntering at the beginning but after six months all but the most die hard libertarian zealots would be looking at the rest of world and congratulating our government for taking swift and decisive action. Our current ranking as second worst country in the world for Covid deaths illustrates the dangers of courting popularity over showing leadership.

Edited January 29, 2021 by Neil

[beast66606]

51 minutes ago, Neil said:

but after six months all but the most die hard libertarian zealots would be looking at the rest of world and congratulating our government for taking swift and decisive action. ]

 

I'm sure all those who have lost their jobs, lost their futures, lost their close ones through suicide consider themselves as "Libertarian Zealots" 

Edited January 29, 2021 by beast66606

[Bernard Lamb]

11 hours ago, John M Upton said:

Riddle me this...

 

If we are in a lockdown and there is a clear ban on non essential travel, especially long distance, why is Boris Johnson prancing around a hospital in Scotland in desperate search of a photo opportunity?

 

Perhaps he has booked an eyesight test?

I phoned my sister in Embra and asked her to hang on to him but she said she would do all she could to help him on his way back south.

I think the real purpose of the trip was to annoy a big fish.

Bernard

[Nearholmer]

But ..... if we’d truly nailed it in July, when we were sooooo close, rather than opening too quickly in the north, allowing too much internal travel, allowing foreign travel, and a few other things, we almost certainly wouldn’t have had to lock down in the autumn, or have this current bloody horrible lockdown that has been made necessary by The Virus of Kent, because that probably wouldn’t have arisen.

 

Job losses would have been fewer. And, the total time in hard lockdown would have been far less - in the South of England the first lockdown was very effective, and in a few more weeks the same could have been achieved in the North.

 

But, as per my earlier post, half of everyone would have moaned their heads off at the time.

 

Anyway, we can’t change history, all we can do is learn from it and move forward.

 

 

[Hobby]

1 hour ago, Neil said:

Our current ranking as second worst country in the world for Covid deaths

 

By which standard method of counting deaths are we talking about? From what I can see every country is recoding deaths differently so there is no way at all we can compare our true Covid death rate with any other country.

[Hobby]

6 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

The Virus of Kent, because that probably wouldn’t have arisen.

 

The chances are it would, even in March/April last year there were recordings of varients of Covid... It's what viruss do I'm lead to believe...

 

Quote

Anyway, we can’t change history, all we can do is learn from it and move forward.

 

Too true... But there always has to be someone to blame these days, even though they were in a cleft stick and had to balance the economic needs of the country against the medical advice of the experts (who were themselves feeling their way in the early days (remember herd immunity?)).

Edited January 29, 2021 by Hobby

[Nearholmer]

Look at it upside down, sideways, from the back or the front: the U.K. has done worse than it’s peers.

 

You can pick detail around the way death stats are compiled, or whatever, but we have done worse than any peer except Belgium, which really does count very differently. If you doubt that we’ve done badly, look at “excess death” rates, which are unambiguous - if you die you get counted.

 

There was indeed a need to balance harms, and last summer IMO we got it wrong, by not being able to conceive how bad this thing could be - treating it like a fox instead of a pack of ravening wolves. Most of Europe and the US made the same mistake. The Far East much less so, and Aus and NZ behaved ‘eastern’ rather than ‘European’.

 

Blame? No. Hold accountable, yes. And actually one thing I respect the PM for is not attempting in any way to dodge accountability - he acknowledges his accountability, and you only have to look at him to see that it is hanging-heavy on him.

 

If the vaccination goes well, we might just come out of this with some positives to our name, but if it doesn’t, it’s hard to see how we could. 
 

 

Edited January 29, 2021 by Nearholmer

[jcm@gwr]

25 minutes ago, Hobby said:

 

The chances are it would, even in March/April last year there were recordings of varients of Covid... It's what viruss do I'm lead to believe...

 

 

Too true... But there always has to be someone to blame these days, even though they were in a cleft stick and had to balance the economic needs of the country against the medical advice of the experts (who were themselves feeling their way in the early days (remember herd immunity?)).

 

Ultimately, you can blame the Chinese Communist Party, their culture and attitudes.

Firstly what they eat and wet markets, and suspect standards at research facilities.

Secondly, the cover ups, lies and denials, which threw away any chance of containment.

I could go on, but anything else is just trying to fix the situation they created.

It's a shame they can't be held accountable for the damage they've caused to the rest of the world.