Restrictions on Gatherings and Airsoft?

[GeorgePlaysAirsoft]

I thought I would share the updated guidance from UKAPU which looks at changes to legislation from the 24th September, and the impact on airsoft, both outdoor and indoor:

 

https://www.ukapu.org.uk/coronavirus-portal/regulations-in-england/

 

Mingling is another subject but I found this article about it: https://fullfact.org/health/coronavirus-social-distancing-mingling/

 

 

 

 

[Rogerborg]

58 minutes ago, DrAlexanderTobacco said:

Curious for your thoughts on why Airsoft fits into the indoor sports category

 

It doesn't really matter if it does or doesn't, since that no longer gives it any specific protection (in law, the de facto situation is clearly playing out differently).

 

I mention "indoor sports" because the English regs uses the term "permitted indoor sports".  But that only covers disabled sports now, so it's not relevant to airsoft at the moment.

 

Outdoors, if it's not a "sport", then it loses the exemption for "outdoor sports" in England, but curiously not in Scotland which allows for all "organised activities which take place outdoors".

 

To be clear, participation in all "gatherings" are criminalised, unless allowed, which is a pretty horrible state of affairs.  It's in our interests to find en exemption, i.e to assert that airsoft is a sport, by the plain definition of the word.

 

Sources:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2020/279/regulation/8

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/684/regulation/5

 

 

I take UKAPU's point, but I think they're being wildly optimistic about attendees at an airsoft event not mingling.  We're all there in the same place at the same time to do the same activity with each other.  In car parks, sign in and safe zones, we can stay in groups.  But once it's game on, there is no mechanism to monitor or separate groups, as opposed to (for example) bowling lanes.

 

Outdoors, you can maybe maintain 2m with enough shouting and punishment shots from marshals. Indoors, no chance.

 

If everybody - sites, players, councils, environmental health, police - are happy to maintain the fiction that we're together but separate, then great, let's play.  However, if push comes to shove, I would be astonished if a Magistrate or Sheriff gave it the time of day.

[typefish]

21 hours ago, GeorgePlaysAirsoft said:

I thought I would share the updated guidance from UKAPU which looks at changes to legislation from the 24th September, and the impact on airsoft, both outdoor and indoor:

 

https://www.ukapu.org.uk/coronavirus-portal/regulations-in-england/

 

Mingling is another subject but I found this article about it: https://fullfact.org/health/coronavirus-social-distancing-mingling/

 

21 hours ago, Rogerborg said:

I take UKAPU's point, but I think they're being wildly optimistic about attendees at an airsoft event not mingling.  We're all there in the same place at the same time to do the same activity with each other.  In car parks, sign in and safe zones, we can stay in groups.  But once it's game on, there is no mechanism to monitor or separate groups, as opposed to (for example) bowling lanes.

 

When I wrote that notice, I had wrote it with the idea of a group having only six people within it. A game of 3 versus 3 (or 1 versus 5), shall we say.

 

As with my earlier post in this thread, I agree with you that there is "fat chance" of two individual groups, bubbles or whatever not mixing yet playing the same game and adhering to the regulations in place, but I know that there are a couple of sites that are planning on using HSE/the Government's interpretation of mixing/mingling and treating it to a night it'll never forget.

[typefish]

I know a couple of folks here are interested in the boring legislation so I thought I'll post it here too

 

Tier 1: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1103/made

Tier 2: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1104/made

Tier 3: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1105/made

 

Basically, a 50 to 100 words saying that we can't do anything, then going back on itself and saying that we can, for all three tiers.

[Rogerborg]

Mmm, it seems that even the civil serpents drafting the legislation are having a hard time figuring out what they're trying to achieve.  And then Councils and police make their own interpretation of it anyway.

 

Usually I advocate looking to the legislation for clarity and certainty, but at this point it barely seems worth it.

[typefish]

3 hours ago, Rogerborg said:

Usually I advocate looking to the legislation for clarity and certainty, but at this point it barely seems worth it.

 

Agreed, it's fucked. I spent 4 hours going through it last night and left me in a mess trying to unpick it all 😆

 

I am legitimately surprised that sport can still be played in Tier 3 though, for example - all this talk about banning people from places and stopping people from gathering outside yet people can still take part in a sporting/fitness activity en mass such as airsoft and football (but not spectate oddly enough, a thing unique to Tier 3)

 

Could be worse. Norn Iron has a complete ban on any form of sport.

 

Also, why Tier 3? Tier 1 is Medium, will there be a Tier 0 for low risk, Tier -1 (or Tier 4294967295) for no risk?

[GeorgePlaysAirsoft]

27 minutes ago, typefish said:

 

Agreed, it's fucked. I spent 4 hours going through it last night and left me in a mess trying to unpick it all 😆

 

I am legitimately surprised that sport can still be played in Tier 3 though, for example - all this talk about banning people from places and stopping people from gathering outside yet people can still take part in a sporting/fitness activity en mass such as airsoft and football (but not spectate oddly enough, a thing unique to Tier 3)

 

Could be worse. Norn Iron has a complete ban on any form of sport.

 

Also, why Tier 3? Tier 1 is Medium, will there be a Tier 0 for low risk, Tier -1 (or Tier 4294967295) for no risk?

 

Firstly thank you very much for your analysis, I do appreciate it, - as you note, its a total headfuck.

 

With reference to sporting activities and so forth - if i say so myself,  the benefits of exercise and team sports for physical and mental health (both very important considerations) are well understood and supported in scientific literature, likewise unless more absolute measures are put in place, a line has to be drawn somewhere, which of course opens it up to inconsistencies.  If one was to take a purely epidemiological approach then the idea of disabled people being exempt from the restrictions of indoor sport may not make sense - however a more holistic approach would recognise the (imo) obvious benefits of such an exemption.

 

Re Tier 0 and such - I would except that in the event of the possibility of such a tier, the existing tier system would be inappropriate in its entirety. 

 

Thanks again

 

 

[Cannonfodder]

I suspect that the reason for tier 1 being labelled medium, rather than low, is because calling it low would make people become complacent and more likely not to follow guidelines, potentially causing a greater spread of the virus 

[Lozart]

3 hours ago, Cannonfodder said:

I suspect that the reason for tier 1 being labelled medium, rather than low, is because calling it low would make people become complacent and more likely not to follow guidelines, potentially causing a greater spread of the virus 

 

Just like they have over the last few weeks you mean?

[Guest]

It’s all bollocks.

 

Tier3 in Liverpool, no gyms allowed to open

 

Tier3 in Lancashire, all gyms allowed to open

[typefish]

On 17/10/2020 at 11:16, rocketdogbert said:

It’s all bollocks.

 

Tier3 in Liverpool, no gyms allowed to open

 

Tier3 in Lancashire, all gyms allowed to open

 

When I first heard about that, I didn't think it would end up like this. It's a spit in the face for clarity.

 

Even more hilariously, I thought that someone would have corrected the typo where it accidentally suggests that those taking part in outdoor shoots are disabled and/or otherwise impaired by now. 🤫

[Rogerborg]

5 hours ago, typefish said:

I thought that someone would have corrected the typo where it accidentally suggests that those taking part in outdoor shoots are disabled and/or otherwise impaired by now

 

I rather suspect that nobody is really reading this legislation any more, not even the people writing it.

[Cannonfodder]

On 15/10/2020 at 14:56, Lozart said:

 

Just like they have over the last few weeks you mean?

Exactly. 

 

What makes me eye roll is that my other half can't visit her parent's at home as they live in a tier 2 area, but they're allowed to visit our house as we're in a tier 1 area

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, Cannonfodder said:

Exactly. 

 

What makes me eye roll is that my other half can't visit her parent's at home as they live in a tier 2 area, but they're allowed to visit our house as we're in a tier 1 area

But they’re not. If you live in a Tier2 area (I do) you take your restrictions whenever you go into a lower tier area, and abide by the restrictions of a higher tier area when you enter that

[Rogerborg]

43 minutes ago, rocketdogbert said:

If you live in a Tier2 area (I do) you take your restrictions whenever you go into a lower tier area, and abide by the restrictions of a higher tier area when you enter that

 

Do you? What restrictions?  I mean, in law.

 

Burnham refusing to co-operate with bumping Manchester up is an interesting situation.  If he doesn't feel minded to comply because of financial considerations, what example does that set?

 

Me, I'm going anywhere that's open.

 

By the way, there were over 50,000 excess Winter deaths in England and Wales in 2017-2018.  Remember that?  Remember the resulting crushing restriction of civil liberties, mass criminalisation, isolation and dehumanisation, the destruction of vast swathes of the economy, half a trillion in borrowing, and the effective suspension of Parliamentary democracy? 

 

No, me neither.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Rogerborg said:

 

Do you? What restrictions?  I mean, in law.

 

Burnham refusing to co-operate with bumping Manchester up is an interesting situation.  If he doesn't feel minded to comply because of financial considerations, what example does that set?

 

Me, I'm going anywhere that's open.

 

By the way, there were over 50,000 excess Winter deaths in England and Wales in 2017-2018.  Remember that?  Remember the resulting crushing restriction of civil liberties, mass criminalisation, isolation and dehumanisation, the destruction of vast swathes of the economy, half a trillion in borrowing, and the effective suspension of Parliamentary democracy? 

 

No, me neither.

I’m not going there

[Rogerborg]

Mmm, it's an emotive subject.  I'm not for one second downplaying the seriousness of SARS-COV-2, or criticising any individual who wants to protect themselves and their loved ones.

[Lozart]

45 minutes ago, Rogerborg said:

 

Do you? What restrictions?  I mean, in law.

 

Burnham refusing to co-operate with bumping Manchester up is an interesting situation.  If he doesn't feel minded to comply because of financial considerations, what example does that set?

 

Me, I'm going anywhere that's open.

 

By the way, there were over 50,000 excess Winter deaths in England and Wales in 2017-2018.  Remember that?  Remember the resulting crushing restriction of civil liberties, mass criminalisation, isolation and dehumanisation, the destruction of vast swathes of the economy, half a trillion in borrowing, and the effective suspension of Parliamentary democracy? 

 

No, me neither.

 

The peak in 2017/18 was not that unusual al though granted, higher than it's been for a while. Nevertheless it was still a strain of influenza coupled with the particularly cold weather so a known quantity.

 

The current situation is down to a novel virus with no effective vaccine as yet. We are in uncharted territory and as such life has to step away from normality to deal with it. Like it or not, the most effective way of stopping viral spread is isolation. Huge chunks of the population have demonstrated their unwillingness to comply with even the most simple of guidance so we find ourselves in the current situation. Have the government handled it well? Of course not, but I very much doubt that ANY political party would be handling it well without the general consensus of the population and if this country has proven ANYTHING over the last few months it's that there IS no consensus among the general public, most of whom seem to lack even the most basic of common sense.

 

As for Manchester, it all just looks like political point scoring at the cost of the people of Manchester. Somehow if Corbyn or Starner were in power I doubt very much that Burnham would be kicking up as much fuss even if presented with the exact same scenario.

[Rogerborg]

2 hours ago, Lozart said:

Huge chunks of the population have demonstrated their unwillingness to comply with even the most simple of guidance

 

That's the thing, I'm not sure if that's the case, or whether it made much difference if it was.

 

Some of the apparent mass breaches were fake news: those crowded beach scenes over summer were forced-perspective #ScumMedia trickery to make people appear much closer than they actually were - covidiot outrage sells papers.

 

The mass rallies of various sorts didn't seem to result in a rise in hospitalisations or deaths. Deaths remain on or under the mean in everywhere in Europe except Spain, including all UK regions. [0]

 

I'm seeing fairly good compliance with face coverings in shops (and even airsoft sites). 98% of adults self-report as using them[1].

 

Positive PCR test results (which are not the same as active cases, let alone sickness) are rising among school age children and young adults, which is what you'd expect from schools and universities being back, and not a matter for blame.  Virtually none of them are going to be seriously effected.  Thankfully, positive test results among over 70s aren't rising at all[2].

 

Yes, large parties where people get pissed up, hug, kiss and shag each other up the back stairs are bad.  But they're already illegal.  Laws only bother the law abiding.  Smart, sensible people won't be popping round their gran's place to lick the spoons regardless of the law.  Chavs will do it despite, or perhaps even to spite, any prohibition on it.

 

I cannot stress enough how much I am not pooh-poohing this or saying "Yeahbut, Sweden".  I took this seriously from the beginning, and I commend everyone who does at a personal level.

 

It's the scale and the sustainability of the response that I question: economically, socially, politically, and legally.  Passing and enforcing laws that 78% of people claim that they want[3], but which at least 89% then don't follow[4], doesn't seem to lead to a particularly good place.

 

And medically, even leaving aside the long tail of untreated cancer diagnoses, there's already a big cost in folk just dying at home rather than seeking help.[5]

 

Well, I guess that's the world put to rights.  Has anyone posted a comically over-priced toy in Macks?

 

 

[0] https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/

 

[1] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthandwellbeing/bulletins/coronavirusandthesocialimpactsongreatbritain/16october2020

 

[2] https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19roundup/2020-03-26

 

[3] https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/09/23/brits-support-new-lockdown-rules-many-think-they-d

 

[4] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54586897

 

[5] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54598728

[Stratton Oakmont]

82, I repeat 82. 
the Current average age of a death from covid.

 

 

Average uk life expectancy 2019

81

 

1 minute ago, osteoshot said:

82, I repeat 82. 
the Current average age of a death from covid.

 

 

Average uk life expectancy 2019

81

 

Covid, is it really that newsworthy?

or is it a really good way to divert attention away from brexit no deal?

[typefish]

Wales will be cutting down metaphorical trees in an attempt to quell the spread of Coronavirus

 

Essentially they've reverted to their previous position of not allowing anyone outside of the house unless a reasonable excuse applies. Boo.

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/wsi/2020/1149/pdfs/wsi_20201149_en.pdf

[Rogerborg]

I thought "fire break" was a little on the nose, since creating one is a destructive process.

 

However, you could also view a controlled burn of parts of a forest as some sort of... sylvan cinder immunity.

 

I'm not sure if locking students up together so that they all get a 2 day cough and then get over it is deliberate or accidental, but either way it seems like a pretty good idea.

[Rogerborg]

Well, that's most of Scotland by population going straight into tier 3, which means no indoor adults sports.

 

I was booked in for woodland today, but last night the site put up a new set of rules.

• Single household cars, which means more traffic than usual.
• Temperature checks, sign in and BB purchase on the access road. The single track access road with no passing places or turning points and strictly entry-only from 8am until 10am.  Think that one through.  What exactly happens if one person in your car is too hot according to their Fisher Price Mr No Entry Tempy Checky?
• Players to stay in their household car at all times between games until summoned to the next brief. No moving around, no socialising.
• Muzzles to be worn at all times except while in your car, or during a game. Yes, at all other times, outdoors, with 2m distancing.  Game on, muzzles off; game over, muzzles on.

Whether they were instructed to do all that by the council, or whether it's their own policy, it's insane.  Literally, not rational.  It's cult behaviour, rituals to ward off evil spirits.

 

Hand sanitisers. They have hand sanitisers on site. For a 2m separated non-contact sport in which nobody will be touching anybody else or their gear anyway. So, why?  For the religious symbolism, that's why.

 

It's only going to get worse from here. No travel in or out of tier 3/4 in Scotland.  Given the above, it seems likely that businesses will be told to, or will choose to, enforce that sooner or later. "No, mate, you can't come in here, you're from a low infection area, we can't let you take that risk."

 

Winter 2017/2018: 50,100 excess deaths in England and Wales. We went about our lives exactly as normal.

 

Deaths from covid-19 so far: 44,745. And yet we've lost our collective minds. 26,000 extra people have died at home rather than seeking or receiving hospital care.

 

Nah, I'm out.  I can't recreate that way.  It's against my secular rationalist principles: that's just what I was raised to not believe.

 

I'll be packing up my stuff until the New Normal looks to be within a long sniper shot of sanity again.

 

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, Rogerborg said:

Well, that's most of Scotland by population going straight into tier 3, which means no indoor adults sports

oerr misses 😱😱😂😂

[Musica]

25 minutes ago, Rogerborg said:

I'll be packing up my stuff until the New Normal looks to be within a long sniper shot of sanity again.

 

Sorry to hear that mate I really thought you were getting in some "OK" pew pew. We will be back to not hearing each other on the radios soon enough.

 

I got my RTX 3080 on Friday so my virtual pew pews have intensified!