He thinks thats bad , wait until the third wave mid January
Covid-19 the second wave.
- Thread starter Chippy_Tea
- Start date
Help Support The Homebrew Forum:
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2019
- Messages
- 1,099
- Reaction score
- 530
Possibly. Probably.
Ah. To lighten the mood:
Probable-Possible, my black hen,
She lays eggs in the Relative When.
She doesn't lay eggs in the Positive Now
Because she's unable to postulate how.
(Frederick Winsor)
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2019
- Messages
- 2,205
- Reaction score
- 2,096
Supposedly it started with an outbreak in the prisons in North Kent, which has then "seeped out" into the general population (presumably via staff and deliveries) - all "work" movements so not limited by lockdown.
Also don't forget things like schools and colleges have been open during lockdown.
I think maybe the way to look at it is that the south a) got a bit lucky in Sept/October but also was helped by having a lot more WFH, fewer (not none!) poor areas with people crammed together, but everywhere was going to get it bad once winter kicked in, only some of those oop north who were "always" going to get it, had already had it. And anecdotally there feels like there's a bit of a vibe about that the people who have been generally "safe" are the ones feeling relaxed enough to go out and do daft stuff like shopping on crowded streets.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2019
- Messages
- 2,205
- Reaction score
- 2,096
There may be some, but it's certainly not the normal experience for pubs, certainly not pubco pubs - although it does say something for how little some publicans earn that the grants would be an improvement. But it's been really tough for pubs in Tier 2, particularly in October when there was no support and apparently no support planned, I know some making people redundant who had been working there 20+ years, but they had no choice because sales were down 60+% in Tier 2 through no fault of their own and yet there was no support being offered. And yet the (often offshore) owners of pubs have not suffered in the same way as a lot of the grants have just ended up paying rent - and that's an area where the government has missed a bit of a trick IMO.
The government could have saved a ton of (our) money by saying in March - all rent obligations by pub tenants are suspended for 1 year from 1st April, the government sorts it directly with freeholders by giving them cash equivalent to the interest payments on their "mortgages" and they sort it with their lenders that they effectively go interest-only for a year. That would save the taxpayer a huge amount of cash, with relatively little pain.
And if you want to be nasty and stitch up the offshore property owners, pay the freeholders in the form of a rebate against UK tax paid in the last year (as has happened with rates at local level). Might be some unintended consequences, but it seems fair that if you don't pay UK tax, you don't get handouts from the UK taxpayer. The current system doesn't allow for that.
And just generally the treatment of wet-led pubs has been pretty shocking, the recent "£1k for Christmas" was just insulting.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2019
- Messages
- 2,205
- Reaction score
- 2,096
To be fair, the real issue here is utter confusion and inconsistency from a government led by a man who doesn't do detail and surrounded by people of marginal competence which leads to front pages like this :
This was all because the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice) said "I think a Scotch egg probably would count as a substantial meal if there were table service." and the official gov.uk guidance "on the interpretation of the key issues within The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) Regulations 2020...and in particular the Tier 2 ‘High Alert’ restrictions " goes into some detail on case law in this area, and includes "it would be difficult to argue that a single sausage roll or a snack pork pie constitutes a main meal, whereas if it was served plated with accompaniments such as vegetables, salad or potatoes it could be considered substantial"
It would have been a lot easier if the Secretary of State for Food actually knew what the guidelines were, instead of trying to wing it - but then he's ex-UKIP, so facts aren't a strong point. Clear messaging from the top would make such a difference.
Cheers for the answer, maybe my 1st question should have been, How were cases rising in North Kent during lockdown 2 when they were dropping massively everywhere in the rest of the country. There were alot of cases in a prison in Sheppey but I think Thanet was rising 1st.
Yes the government has totally failed to clarify the definition of a substantial meal, I think if you want to sell something cheap just to comply the best idea is a lidl or cash and carry ploughman's lunch it could easily cost under 50p.
Totally agree but I think in March they based the pay outs on thinking it would all be over buy the end of summer.
What's the science around how the virus transmits by a person sat a table being served a scotch egg and a pint, but not if there are boiled potatoes, and a medley of green veg on the plate as well?
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2015
- Messages
- 10,321
- Reaction score
- 9,434
I should have said that my conversations were all with Welsh businesses and we have different and additional grants to the English government.
I know one guy who owns a pub said he usually makes £60k profit (doesn't sell food) and via the grants etc he is on course to do the same. He didn't even bother to reopen in November when firebreak ended and he could have made some proper cash due to the rugby internationals. This is due to the grants covering everything plus he had so much hassle from punters not abiding by the rules
I know one guy who owns a pub said he usually makes £60k profit (doesn't sell food) and via the grants etc he is on course to do the same. He didn't even bother to reopen in November when firebreak ended and he could have made some proper cash due to the rugby internationals. This is due to the grants covering everything plus he had so much hassle from punters not abiding by the rules
I think it's much simpler tha that, the type of people who go out for a substantial meal are highly unlikely to be the sort who get hammered then ignore covid rules which may lead to the pub losing its permission to open.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2019
- Messages
- 2,205
- Reaction score
- 2,096
Obviously hard to comment without knowing details, but there's not too many wet-only pubs making £60k, so it sounds a bit of an unusual case in the first place - probably freehold, so gets the support that's gone to freeholders as well as operators? And although I've not followed it closely, Wales seems to have had a rather different experience to England, with far less time spent in tiers which are the really corrosive times - "open" so little if any support from government or freeholders, but higher staff costs on 30-40% of sales. This Twitter thread is pretty typical I'd guess of much of the trade in England :
Food-led pub that normally turns over £600k inc VAT/year, was up year-on-year before lockdown, currently at about a third of last year's sales whilst in Tier 2, and looking at over 50% down for the year. Looking at a loss of £10k for the year, which would have been £50k and bankruptcy if it hadn't been for the lockdown1 grant and EOTHO.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2019
- Messages
- 2,205
- Reaction score
- 2,096
Which it would have been if they had gone hard like Taiwan and Australia, but their own advice in March was that we'd be seeing cycles of on/off lockdowns through the autumn and winter. Being soft on the virus ends up costing you far more long-term.
And (qv Brexit negotiations), this is a government that prefers to act on a day-to-day basis rather than understanding how important it is to set out a plan so that others can plan round them. To be fair, at least they've effectively told nightclubs that they're shut for a year and have given support to cover that to some (although eg Deltic are on the brink of administration).
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2015
- Messages
- 10,321
- Reaction score
- 9,434
As said every business is different and grants vary by business. My wife as her own company and businesses could get very large grants some up to £50k by showing how they would do things differently against a set criteria. They teach people to shoot. They got £10k by saying they would cater for wheelchair users by just showing a quote for a ramp for their vehicle.
But the man runs a restaurant. He *knows* what a "substantial meal" should be, in context, because of previous rulings. He should not be getting his information from "The Sun", or Mr Eustice, but direct from the authorities, as normal, as you indicate. He should not be trying to evade the rules.
The media has a lot to answer for. "The Sun" is not very good, but it seems to me better than "The Daily Express", or "The Independent" (the latter's reoprtage, although "deeper" than The Sun's seems to me to be as "bent" as the Express's.
Not science so much as psychology allied with science, as alluded to by Chippy_Tea.
But the responsible person - the licencee or his representative - should not tolerate bad behaviour on the premises, and should refuse to serve those indulging in it ("throw them out"), just as they normally do to others indulging in bad behaviour, or being drunk, in their premises. It's only if they don't do that they should be closed for some duration (and perhaps lose their licence).
I can certainly agree with that.
However, it seems to me that - if everyone stuck to the rules - that we would have far, far less of a problem. The trouble is that some people won't stick to the rules; possibly because for most, there is very little enforcement.
You can say that again. Looks like completely 'finger in the air' assumptions by the advisers to me.
