Peter wrote:
They can get back into the UK by saying they were in Spain for 2 weeks and merely drove through France.
If you drive, you can do all that sort of thing.
No stamps in passports…
Last time I checked the UK Govt website it says that even if you have not come from France, but somewhere else, you must follow the rules if entering from France – ie the Chunnel (unless the operator can arrange proof from Belgium etc), and also you need to follow the rules for France if you come from France via somewhere else in the last 10days…
…Of course you could drive from France and take a ferry from Belgium, Spain or Holland etc and lie… but by Commercial aviation this is also possible if you dont use a “connection”, enter a normal Amber country and get separate tickets and also lie… Just as if you flew into Belgium/Spain/Holland etc with your GA aeroplane and lied too… Anyone can lie…
Well, the UK has finally done what it said it never would:
35% of 18-30s have not been vaccinated at all. So they will get a big incentive: from end of September they will not be able to go clubbing without 2x vaccination.
They are leaving it a bit late since everybody can go clubbing from today 
But the incentive starts soon because you need the gap between vaccinations which I think is 8 weeks, which takes you to end of September.
Except it hasn’t actually done it. A bit of posturing I suspect before they back down…
It will have to become like this everywhere.
I’ve seen another variant proposed today: Say, it is up to the venue to assure they are only admitting people who are safe or else they will get a huge fine if a spreader event can be traced back to them. No matter what venue. Bet that only vaccinated people would be admitted? Even though this would not even exclude a spreader event, but if they can prove everyone was vaccinated…
" only admitting people who are safe or else they will get a huge fine if a spreader event can be traced back to them. No matter what"
Much more effective would be legal firm adverts: “Has your venue given you Covid? Contact us to get compensation.”
The insurance companies will then enforce.
Maoraigh wrote:
Much more effective would be legal firm adverts: “Has your venue given you Covid? Contact us to get compensation.”
The insurance companies will then enforce.
It would not surprise me at all if this wasn’t already being discussed by the insurance industry.
Perhaps in the US but not so under most EU legislations.
In order to get compensation from the venue, you need to prove that a) you personally got infected at that venue b) the venue knew that somebody broke the rule or did not know due to their own gross negligence and c) you could not have known that you are at an elevated risk.
In a typical restaurant setting, it will be very hard for you to prove a). It is finally pretty unlikely to have a super spreader event there. In concerts, club settings or football matches, you will fail at c): It is so obvious that there is elevated risk and you did not take care of keeping 1.5m distance yourself so that you can not blame the venue. In such cases any judge in Europe would tell you: „You should have left immediately when you realized the setting could result in a superspreader event – and yes, you could have successfully claimed reimbursement of the entry fee (and perhaps even the cost of transportation to the venue) in such a case. But with staying there you agreed to that elevated risk level yourself and can not claim any compensation now because that risk has materialized“
Governments aren’t doing much useful at the moment, but one thing they could do quite proactively and usefully is to pass legislation defining Covid-19 and other similar viruses as natural phenomena and making it clear that no liability whatsoever can exist in relation to it.
But why should they do that? If you know you are infected/infectious, do not follow the mandated isolation and thereby consciously infect somebody else, you should be liable!
Because it is impossible to produce evidence which would stand up. It’s not like knowing (provably) that you have HIV and infecting somebody else, where you have solid evidence that the “donor” knew (from medical records) and pretty solid evidence that the “recipient” didn’t know (because nobody with any braincells will take that risk, at least without protection).
Some big changes are happening, which previously appeared politically impossible – in the “free” UK at least. I think they have realised (finally) that
As the old saying goes, they always do the right thing, but only after exploring all the alternatives
