The big Coronavirus thread

1…969799101102…1347

Comments

  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    rjsterry said:

    nickice said:

    rjsterry said:

    There probably are lots of examples of activities that contravene the rules (whichever country) but don't actually create any additional risk. But rules have to be simple enough that people aren't left in doubt about what they can/can't do.

    You can't make it last if it's too strict and people see no obvious reasons for prohibiting an activity.
    No, it's a balancing act and I doubt any government will get it spot on.
    That's not really a response to my point. In order for it to work, it has to have overwhelming public support. The only other alternative is the kinds of measures China took which simply wouldn't be feasible in the West.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,582
    nickice said:

    rjsterry said:

    nickice said:

    rjsterry said:

    There probably are lots of examples of activities that contravene the rules (whichever country) but don't actually create any additional risk. But rules have to be simple enough that people aren't left in doubt about what they can/can't do.

    You can't make it last if it's too strict and people see no obvious reasons for prohibiting an activity.
    No, it's a balancing act and I doubt any government will get it spot on.
    That's not really a response to my point. In order for it to work, it has to have overwhelming public support. The only other alternative is the kinds of measures China took which simply wouldn't be feasible in the West.
    I meant the specifics of the lockdown rules are a balance of what reduces risk, what can be clearly communicated and, as you say, what people will accept.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    nickice said:

    rjsterry said:

    nickice said:

    rjsterry said:

    There probably are lots of examples of activities that contravene the rules (whichever country) but don't actually create any additional risk. But rules have to be simple enough that people aren't left in doubt about what they can/can't do.

    You can't make it last if it's too strict and people see no obvious reasons for prohibiting an activity.
    No, it's a balancing act and I doubt any government will get it spot on.
    That's not really a response to my point. In order for it to work, it has to have overwhelming public support. The only other alternative is the kinds of measures China took which simply wouldn't be feasible in the West.
    Such as?
    _
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    rjsterry said:

    nickice said:

    rjsterry said:

    nickice said:

    rjsterry said:

    There probably are lots of examples of activities that contravene the rules (whichever country) but don't actually create any additional risk. But rules have to be simple enough that people aren't left in doubt about what they can/can't do.

    You can't make it last if it's too strict and people see no obvious reasons for prohibiting an activity.
    No, it's a balancing act and I doubt any government will get it spot on.
    That's not really a response to my point. In order for it to work, it has to have overwhelming public support. The only other alternative is the kinds of measures China took which simply wouldn't be feasible in the West.
    I meant the specifics of the lockdown rules are a balance of what reduces risk, what can be clearly communicated and, as you say, what people will accept.
    Ah OK, fair enough. Ultimately I just want to go cycling! For some people, who get no exercise, I can see this being not much of a problem but if you're used to getting out, it's more difficult.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    nickice said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    nickice said:

    rjsterry said:

    There probably are lots of examples of activities that contravene the rules (whichever country) but don't actually create any additional risk. But rules have to be simple enough that people aren't left in doubt about what they can/can't do.

    You can't make it last if it's too strict and people see no obvious reasons for prohibiting an activity.
    I see many of the most vulnerable group still out and about, ignoring the isolation recommendation that is for their benefit of living longer.

    If they are not going to respect a life and death decision why should the rest of us follow a lockdown when those most vulnerable are looking after themselves first.
    I talked about it above, but there isn't any evidence that shows being outside (and avoiding crowds) is a big risk for infection.
    If everyone in London went to parks it would be crowded.

    _
  • coopster_the_1st
    coopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    nickice said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    nickice said:

    rjsterry said:

    There probably are lots of examples of activities that contravene the rules (whichever country) but don't actually create any additional risk. But rules have to be simple enough that people aren't left in doubt about what they can/can't do.

    You can't make it last if it's too strict and people see no obvious reasons for prohibiting an activity.
    I see many of the most vulnerable group still out and about, ignoring the isolation recommendation that is for their benefit of living longer.

    If they are not going to respect a life and death decision why should the rest of us follow a lockdown when those most vulnerable are looking after themselves first.
    I talked about it above, but there isn't any evidence that shows being outside (and avoiding crowds) is a big risk for infection.
    Agree. This is where the lockdown has failed us. Unnecessary car journeys, yes should be ceased but stopping people from walking round to their parents to sit in the garden for the afternoon at a safe distance is where it has gone way too far.
  • coopster_the_1st
    coopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    Be interested to see what the wokey dokeys on here think about Scotland's CMO travelling to her second home for the weekend.

    If she thinks this is safe to do, and she is obviously highly qualified to understand this, then it must be safe for the rest of the country.

    It's not so much as mixed messages from the government, but "Do as I say, not as I do!"
  • nickice
    nickice Posts: 2,439
    coopster_the_1st said:

    nickice said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    nickice said:

    rjsterry said:

    There probably are lots of examples of activities that contravene the rules (whichever country) but don't actually create any additional risk. But rules have to be simple enough that people aren't left in doubt about what they can/can't do.

    You can't make it last if it's too strict and people see no obvious reasons for prohibiting an activity.
    I see many of the most vulnerable group still out and about, ignoring the isolation recommendation that is for their benefit of living longer.

    If they are not going to respect a life and death decision why should the rest of us follow a lockdown when those most vulnerable are looking after themselves first.
    I talked about it above, but there isn't any evidence that shows being outside (and avoiding crowds) is a big risk for infection.
    Agree. This is where the lockdown has failed us. Unnecessary car journeys, yes should be ceased but stopping people from walking round to their parents to sit in the garden for the afternoon at a safe distance is where it has gone way too far.
    Doesn't this contradict what you were saying about vulnerable people being out?
  • focuszing723
    focuszing723 Posts: 8,151
    edited April 2020
    coopster_the_1st said:

    nickice said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    nickice said:

    rjsterry said:

    There probably are lots of examples of activities that contravene the rules (whichever country) but don't actually create any additional risk. But rules have to be simple enough that people aren't left in doubt about what they can/can't do.

    You can't make it last if it's too strict and people see no obvious reasons for prohibiting an activity.
    I see many of the most vulnerable group still out and about, ignoring the isolation recommendation that is for their benefit of living longer.

    If they are not going to respect a life and death decision why should the rest of us follow a lockdown when those most vulnerable are looking after themselves first.
    I talked about it above, but there isn't any evidence that shows being outside (and avoiding crowds) is a big risk for infection.
    Agree. This is where the lockdown has failed us. Unnecessary car journeys, yes should be ceased but stopping people from walking round to their parents to sit in the garden for the afternoon at a safe distance is where it has gone way too far.
    The problem is if you don't make it across the board and specific 'Stay At Home Save Lives', there is room for ambiguity.

    Some people are forgetting the main objective is to make sure there is capacity in the hospitals and they are not overrun. It would be a brave Man who would risk opening the flood gates, then have to announce how many ordinarily fit and healthy Doctors and Nurses have died.
  • coopster_the_1st
    coopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    edited April 2020
    nickice said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    nickice said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    nickice said:

    rjsterry said:

    There probably are lots of examples of activities that contravene the rules (whichever country) but don't actually create any additional risk. But rules have to be simple enough that people aren't left in doubt about what they can/can't do.

    You can't make it last if it's too strict and people see no obvious reasons for prohibiting an activity.
    I see many of the most vulnerable group still out and about, ignoring the isolation recommendation that is for their benefit of living longer.

    If they are not going to respect a life and death decision why should the rest of us follow a lockdown when those most vulnerable are looking after themselves first.
    I talked about it above, but there isn't any evidence that shows being outside (and avoiding crowds) is a big risk for infection.
    Agree. This is where the lockdown has failed us. Unnecessary car journeys, yes should be ceased but stopping people from walking round to their parents to sit in the garden for the afternoon at a safe distance is where it has gone way too far.
    Doesn't this contradict what you were saying about vulnerable people being out?
    No, vulnerable people stay at home and sit one end of the garden. Relatives visit and sit 2+ meters apart. Both get an emotional boost and peace of mind that both parents and child are fine which far outweighs any minuscule risk this presents. If you were extra cautious the vulnerable could sit upwind...

    It's about being pragmatic, not the current panic meausres we have.
  • briantrumpet
    briantrumpet Posts: 20,389
    rick_chasey said:

    If everyone in London went to parks it would be crowded.


    This is one of the central dilemmas. If the laws are drafted to deal with this, it's going to seem daft in rural areas. For isolated exercise I am far better off getting on the bike and getting away from town: I can be out in deserted lanes in five minutes, whereas directly around my house people are wondering around in narrow streets seemingly without a care in the world. But, as things stand, they need to deal with the situation in London and Birmingham, and that's going to drive policy. It could lead to seemingly illogical outcomes depending on where one lives.
    https://www.facebook.com/unanglaisendiois
  • coopster_the_1st
    coopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    edited April 2020
    focuszing723 said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    nickice said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    nickice said:

    rjsterry said:

    There probably are lots of examples of activities that contravene the rules (whichever country) but don't actually create any additional risk. But rules have to be simple enough that people aren't left in doubt about what they can/can't do.

    You can't make it last if it's too strict and people see no obvious reasons for prohibiting an activity.
    I see many of the most vulnerable group still out and about, ignoring the isolation recommendation that is for their benefit of living longer.

    If they are not going to respect a life and death decision why should the rest of us follow a lockdown when those most vulnerable are looking after themselves first.
    I talked about it above, but there isn't any evidence that shows being outside (and avoiding crowds) is a big risk for infection.
    Agree. This is where the lockdown has failed us. Unnecessary car journeys, yes should be ceased but stopping people from walking round to their parents to sit in the garden for the afternoon at a safe distance is where it has gone way too far.
    The problem is if you don't make it across the board and specific 'Stay At Home Save Lives', there is room for ambiguity.

    Some people are forgetting the main objective is to make sure there is capacity in the hospitals and they are not overrun. It would be a brave Man who would risk opening the flood gates, then have to announce how many ordinarily fit and healthy Doctors and Nurses have died.
    A perfect example of emotion over pragmatism.

    What is the percentages of front line workers dying from C19?

    I want to see the frontline staff at less risk but the reality of that is we triage who we think we can save a lot earlier in the process so that there is less exposure of the virus to front line staff. This is unacceptable to the SJW's as has been proved here in the last couple of weeks!

  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    coopster_the_1st said:

    nickice said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    nickice said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    nickice said:

    rjsterry said:

    There probably are lots of examples of activities that contravene the rules (whichever country) but don't actually create any additional risk. But rules have to be simple enough that people aren't left in doubt about what they can/can't do.

    You can't make it last if it's too strict and people see no obvious reasons for prohibiting an activity.
    I see many of the most vulnerable group still out and about, ignoring the isolation recommendation that is for their benefit of living longer.

    If they are not going to respect a life and death decision why should the rest of us follow a lockdown when those most vulnerable are looking after themselves first.
    I talked about it above, but there isn't any evidence that shows being outside (and avoiding crowds) is a big risk for infection.
    Agree. This is where the lockdown has failed us. Unnecessary car journeys, yes should be ceased but stopping people from walking round to their parents to sit in the garden for the afternoon at a safe distance is where it has gone way too far.
    Doesn't this contradict what you were saying about vulnerable people being out?
    No, vulnerable people stay at home and sit one end of the garden. Relatives visit and sit 2+ meters apart. Both get an emotional boost and peace of mind that both parents and child are fine which far outweighs any minuscule risk this presents. If you were extra cautious the vulnerable could sit upwind...

    It's about being pragmatic, not the current panic meausres we have.
    Surely people are doing this.
  • pangolin
    pangolin Posts: 6,648
    coopster_the_1st said:

    nickice said:

    rjsterry said:

    There probably are lots of examples of activities that contravene the rules (whichever country) but don't actually create any additional risk. But rules have to be simple enough that people aren't left in doubt about what they can/can't do.

    You can't make it last if it's too strict and people see no obvious reasons for prohibiting an activity.
    I see many of the most vulnerable group still out and about, ignoring the isolation recommendation that is for their benefit of living longer.

    If they are not going to respect a life and death decision why should the rest of us follow a lockdown when those most vulnerable are looking after themselves first.
    This is the same kind of drivel that makes people think they are right to treat "cyclists" badly on the road because they've seen "cyclists" running reds.
    - Genesis Croix de Fer
    - Dolan Tuono
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,698
    nickice said:

    I was out for a walk yesterday in France and I noticed far more people are starting to chance it when it comes to cycling. To be fair, it is a stupid rule which isn't based on any real evidence. The most annoying thing is that if I lived just across the border I'd be able to cycle for leisure. It's encouraged in Belgium (and Germany).

    Had a ZOOM party with some of my colleagues in Chamonix & Morzine and I wondered for a while why they were all hitting the bottle quite so hard until I remembered that they can hardly even go outside. The poor guys without balconies...

    Praise Jebus we're not locked down so much in Switzerland and Gawd bless the Swiss for being good boys that follow rules about staying apart so we don't have to.

    On another note, none of them think they've caught it or know anyone that has. Everyone in Verbier thinks they've had it now...
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • focuszing723
    focuszing723 Posts: 8,151
    coopster_the_1st said:

    focuszing723 said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    nickice said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    nickice said:

    rjsterry said:

    There probably are lots of examples of activities that contravene the rules (whichever country) but don't actually create any additional risk. But rules have to be simple enough that people aren't left in doubt about what they can/can't do.

    You can't make it last if it's too strict and people see no obvious reasons for prohibiting an activity.
    I see many of the most vulnerable group still out and about, ignoring the isolation recommendation that is for their benefit of living longer.

    If they are not going to respect a life and death decision why should the rest of us follow a lockdown when those most vulnerable are looking after themselves first.
    I talked about it above, but there isn't any evidence that shows being outside (and avoiding crowds) is a big risk for infection.
    Agree. This is where the lockdown has failed us. Unnecessary car journeys, yes should be ceased but stopping people from walking round to their parents to sit in the garden for the afternoon at a safe distance is where it has gone way too far.
    The problem is if you don't make it across the board and specific 'Stay At Home Save Lives', there is room for ambiguity.

    Some people are forgetting the main objective is to make sure there is capacity in the hospitals and they are not overrun. It would be a brave Man who would risk opening the flood gates, then have to announce how many ordinarily fit and healthy Doctors and Nurses have died.
    A perfect example of emotion over pragmatism.

    What is the percentages of front line workers dying from C19?

    I want to see the frontline staff at less risk but the reality of that is we triage who we think we can save a lot earlier in the process so that there is less exposure of the virus to front line staff. This is unacceptable to the SJW's as has been proved here in the last couple of weeks!

    The Tories are in power, relax, do some useful jobs around the house. Let the Government and the Medical Experts take care of things for you.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,433
    focuszing723 said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    focuszing723 said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    nickice said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    nickice said:

    rjsterry said:

    There probably are lots of examples of activities that contravene the rules (whichever country) but don't actually create any additional risk. But rules have to be simple enough that people aren't left in doubt about what they can/can't do.

    You can't make it last if it's too strict and people see no obvious reasons for prohibiting an activity.
    I see many of the most vulnerable group still out and about, ignoring the isolation recommendation that is for their benefit of living longer.

    If they are not going to respect a life and death decision why should the rest of us follow a lockdown when those most vulnerable are looking after themselves first.
    I talked about it above, but there isn't any evidence that shows being outside (and avoiding crowds) is a big risk for infection.
    Agree. This is where the lockdown has failed us. Unnecessary car journeys, yes should be ceased but stopping people from walking round to their parents to sit in the garden for the afternoon at a safe distance is where it has gone way too far.
    The problem is if you don't make it across the board and specific 'Stay At Home Save Lives', there is room for ambiguity.

    Some people are forgetting the main objective is to make sure there is capacity in the hospitals and they are not overrun. It would be a brave Man who would risk opening the flood gates, then have to announce how many ordinarily fit and healthy Doctors and Nurses have died.
    A perfect example of emotion over pragmatism.

    What is the percentages of front line workers dying from C19?

    I want to see the frontline staff at less risk but the reality of that is we triage who we think we can save a lot earlier in the process so that there is less exposure of the virus to front line staff. This is unacceptable to the SJW's as has been proved here in the last couple of weeks!

    The Tories are in power, relax, do some useful jobs around the house. Let the Government and the Medical Experts take care of things for you.
    You could try saying the same to everyone on here and see what the reaction is :smile:
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Wheelspinner
    Wheelspinner Posts: 6,697
    briantrumpet said:

    rick_chasey said:

    If everyone in London went to parks it would be crowded.


    This is one of the central dilemmas. If the laws are drafted to deal with this, it's going to seem daft in rural areas. For isolated exercise I am far better off getting on the bike and getting away from town: I can be out in deserted lanes in five minutes, whereas directly around my house people are wondering around in narrow streets seemingly without a care in the world. But, as things stand, they need to deal with the situation in London and Birmingham, and that's going to drive policy. It could lead to seemingly illogical outcomes depending on where one lives.
    Exactly this here too. The state government made a blanket call to "close" all spaces that are officially managed by the National Parks service.

    I live within a very short walk of one such area. On a *BUSY* day that area will have anything up to a grand total of nearly 20 people scattered about, walking. That's spread over more than 250 acres of open land.

    Yet this weekend it's marked as "closed".

    The alternative is therefore to go walking / riding past the hundred or so houses in the little township instead, and mingle with many more people at much closer range.

    I get that it is administratively very difficult to make an individual assessment for every public space and post signage accordingly, but the policy itself is stupidly worded and implemented.

    The flip side is "people" are often too stupid and selfish to care anyway. That whole area is (officially) marked as dogs-ON-leash at all times. The majority on any given day ignore that too. 99% of the time it's not a problem, but given those folks won't abide a simple requirement like that, what makes any government think they'll stop walking out there at all?

    Open One+ BMC TE29 Seven 622SL On One Scandal Cervelo RS
  • focuszing723
    focuszing723 Posts: 8,151
    Stevo_666 said:

    focuszing723 said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    focuszing723 said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    nickice said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    nickice said:

    rjsterry said:

    There probably are lots of examples of activities that contravene the rules (whichever country) but don't actually create any additional risk. But rules have to be simple enough that people aren't left in doubt about what they can/can't do.

    You can't make it last if it's too strict and people see no obvious reasons for prohibiting an activity.
    I see many of the most vulnerable group still out and about, ignoring the isolation recommendation that is for their benefit of living longer.

    If they are not going to respect a life and death decision why should the rest of us follow a lockdown when those most vulnerable are looking after themselves first.
    I talked about it above, but there isn't any evidence that shows being outside (and avoiding crowds) is a big risk for infection.
    Agree. This is where the lockdown has failed us. Unnecessary car journeys, yes should be ceased but stopping people from walking round to their parents to sit in the garden for the afternoon at a safe distance is where it has gone way too far.
    The problem is if you don't make it across the board and specific 'Stay At Home Save Lives', there is room for ambiguity.

    Some people are forgetting the main objective is to make sure there is capacity in the hospitals and they are not overrun. It would be a brave Man who would risk opening the flood gates, then have to announce how many ordinarily fit and healthy Doctors and Nurses have died.
    A perfect example of emotion over pragmatism.

    What is the percentages of front line workers dying from C19?

    I want to see the frontline staff at less risk but the reality of that is we triage who we think we can save a lot earlier in the process so that there is less exposure of the virus to front line staff. This is unacceptable to the SJW's as has been proved here in the last couple of weeks!

    The Tories are in power, relax, do some useful jobs around the house. Let the Government and the Medical Experts take care of things for you.
    You could try saying the same to everyone on here and see what the reaction is :smile:
    What do you think it would be?
  • tailwindhome
    tailwindhome Posts: 19,436
    coopster_the_1st said:

    focuszing723 said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    nickice said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    nickice said:

    rjsterry said:

    There probably are lots of examples of activities that contravene the rules (whichever country) but don't actually create any additional risk. But rules have to be simple enough that people aren't left in doubt about what they can/can't do.

    You can't make it last if it's too strict and people see no obvious reasons for prohibiting an activity.
    I see many of the most vulnerable group still out and about, ignoring the isolation recommendation that is for their benefit of living longer.

    If they are not going to respect a life and death decision why should the rest of us follow a lockdown when those most vulnerable are looking after themselves first.
    I talked about it above, but there isn't any evidence that shows being outside (and avoiding crowds) is a big risk for infection.
    Agree. This is where the lockdown has failed us. Unnecessary car journeys, yes should be ceased but stopping people from walking round to their parents to sit in the garden for the afternoon at a safe distance is where it has gone way too far.
    The problem is if you don't make it across the board and specific 'Stay At Home Save Lives', there is room for ambiguity.

    Some people are forgetting the main objective is to make sure there is capacity in the hospitals and they are not overrun. It would be a brave Man who would risk opening the flood gates, then have to announce how many ordinarily fit and healthy Doctors and Nurses have died.
    A perfect example of emotion over pragmatism.

    What is the percentages of front line workers dying from C19?

    I want to see the frontline staff at less risk but the reality of that is we triage who we think we can save a lot earlier in the process so that there is less exposure of the virus to front line staff. This is unacceptable to the SJW's as has been proved here in the last couple of weeks!

    Can you expand further on this plan.

    “New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,433
    focuszing723 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    focuszing723 said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    focuszing723 said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    nickice said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    nickice said:

    rjsterry said:

    There probably are lots of examples of activities that contravene the rules (whichever country) but don't actually create any additional risk. But rules have to be simple enough that people aren't left in doubt about what they can/can't do.

    You can't make it last if it's too strict and people see no obvious reasons for prohibiting an activity.
    I see many of the most vulnerable group still out and about, ignoring the isolation recommendation that is for their benefit of living longer.

    If they are not going to respect a life and death decision why should the rest of us follow a lockdown when those most vulnerable are looking after themselves first.
    I talked about it above, but there isn't any evidence that shows being outside (and avoiding crowds) is a big risk for infection.
    Agree. This is where the lockdown has failed us. Unnecessary car journeys, yes should be ceased but stopping people from walking round to their parents to sit in the garden for the afternoon at a safe distance is where it has gone way too far.
    The problem is if you don't make it across the board and specific 'Stay At Home Save Lives', there is room for ambiguity.

    Some people are forgetting the main objective is to make sure there is capacity in the hospitals and they are not overrun. It would be a brave Man who would risk opening the flood gates, then have to announce how many ordinarily fit and healthy Doctors and Nurses have died.
    A perfect example of emotion over pragmatism.

    What is the percentages of front line workers dying from C19?

    I want to see the frontline staff at less risk but the reality of that is we triage who we think we can save a lot earlier in the process so that there is less exposure of the virus to front line staff. This is unacceptable to the SJW's as has been proved here in the last couple of weeks!

    The Tories are in power, relax, do some useful jobs around the house. Let the Government and the Medical Experts take care of things for you.
    You could try saying the same to everyone on here and see what the reaction is :smile:
    What do you think it would be?
    Not sure, why not give it a try?
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • focuszing723
    focuszing723 Posts: 8,151
    Stevo_666 said:

    focuszing723 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    focuszing723 said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    focuszing723 said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    nickice said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    nickice said:

    rjsterry said:

    There probably are lots of examples of activities that contravene the rules (whichever country) but don't actually create any additional risk. But rules have to be simple enough that people aren't left in doubt about what they can/can't do.

    You can't make it last if it's too strict and people see no obvious reasons for prohibiting an activity.
    I see many of the most vulnerable group still out and about, ignoring the isolation recommendation that is for their benefit of living longer.

    If they are not going to respect a life and death decision why should the rest of us follow a lockdown when those most vulnerable are looking after themselves first.
    I talked about it above, but there isn't any evidence that shows being outside (and avoiding crowds) is a big risk for infection.
    Agree. This is where the lockdown has failed us. Unnecessary car journeys, yes should be ceased but stopping people from walking round to their parents to sit in the garden for the afternoon at a safe distance is where it has gone way too far.
    The problem is if you don't make it across the board and specific 'Stay At Home Save Lives', there is room for ambiguity.

    Some people are forgetting the main objective is to make sure there is capacity in the hospitals and they are not overrun. It would be a brave Man who would risk opening the flood gates, then have to announce how many ordinarily fit and healthy Doctors and Nurses have died.
    A perfect example of emotion over pragmatism.

    What is the percentages of front line workers dying from C19?

    I want to see the frontline staff at less risk but the reality of that is we triage who we think we can save a lot earlier in the process so that there is less exposure of the virus to front line staff. This is unacceptable to the SJW's as has been proved here in the last couple of weeks!

    The Tories are in power, relax, do some useful jobs around the house. Let the Government and the Medical Experts take care of things for you.
    You could try saying the same to everyone on here and see what the reaction is :smile:
    What do you think it would be?
    Not sure, why not give it a try?
    Stevo_666 said:

    focuszing723 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    focuszing723 said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    focuszing723 said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    nickice said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    nickice said:

    rjsterry said:

    There probably are lots of examples of activities that contravene the rules (whichever country) but don't actually create any additional risk. But rules have to be simple enough that people aren't left in doubt about what they can/can't do.

    You can't make it last if it's too strict and people see no obvious reasons for prohibiting an activity.
    I see many of the most vulnerable group still out and about, ignoring the isolation recommendation that is for their benefit of living longer.

    If they are not going to respect a life and death decision why should the rest of us follow a lockdown when those most vulnerable are looking after themselves first.
    I talked about it above, but there isn't any evidence that shows being outside (and avoiding crowds) is a big risk for infection.
    Agree. This is where the lockdown has failed us. Unnecessary car journeys, yes should be ceased but stopping people from walking round to their parents to sit in the garden for the afternoon at a safe distance is where it has gone way too far.
    The problem is if you don't make it across the board and specific 'Stay At Home Save Lives', there is room for ambiguity.

    Some people are forgetting the main objective is to make sure there is capacity in the hospitals and they are not overrun. It would be a brave Man who would risk opening the flood gates, then have to announce how many ordinarily fit and healthy Doctors and Nurses have died.
    A perfect example of emotion over pragmatism.

    What is the percentages of front line workers dying from C19?

    I want to see the frontline staff at less risk but the reality of that is we triage who we think we can save a lot earlier in the process so that there is less exposure of the virus to front line staff. This is unacceptable to the SJW's as has been proved here in the last couple of weeks!

    The Tories are in power, relax, do some useful jobs around the house. Let the Government and the Medical Experts take care of things for you.
    You could try saying the same to everyone on here and see what the reaction is :smile:
    What do you think it would be?
    Not sure, why not give it a try?
    No why don't you give it try?

    Nah, lol. I think it's bloody easy to criticise with hindsight, which is why I haven't:)
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 29,582
    Stevo_666 said:

    focuszing723 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    focuszing723 said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    focuszing723 said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    nickice said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    nickice said:

    rjsterry said:

    There probably are lots of examples of activities that contravene the rules (whichever country) but don't actually create any additional risk. But rules have to be simple enough that people aren't left in doubt about what they can/can't do.

    You can't make it last if it's too strict and people see no obvious reasons for prohibiting an activity.
    I see many of the most vulnerable group still out and about, ignoring the isolation recommendation that is for their benefit of living longer.

    If they are not going to respect a life and death decision why should the rest of us follow a lockdown when those most vulnerable are looking after themselves first.
    I talked about it above, but there isn't any evidence that shows being outside (and avoiding crowds) is a big risk for infection.
    Agree. This is where the lockdown has failed us. Unnecessary car journeys, yes should be ceased but stopping people from walking round to their parents to sit in the garden for the afternoon at a safe distance is where it has gone way too far.
    The problem is if you don't make it across the board and specific 'Stay At Home Save Lives', there is room for ambiguity.

    Some people are forgetting the main objective is to make sure there is capacity in the hospitals and they are not overrun. It would be a brave Man who would risk opening the flood gates, then have to announce how many ordinarily fit and healthy Doctors and Nurses have died.
    A perfect example of emotion over pragmatism.

    What is the percentages of front line workers dying from C19?

    I want to see the frontline staff at less risk but the reality of that is we triage who we think we can save a lot earlier in the process so that there is less exposure of the virus to front line staff. This is unacceptable to the SJW's as has been proved here in the last couple of weeks!

    The Tories are in power, relax, do some useful jobs around the house. Let the Government and the Medical Experts take care of things for you.
    You could try saying the same to everyone on here and see what the reaction is :smile:
    What do you think it would be?
    Not sure, why not give it a try?
    He did already. We all saw it.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    oxoman said:

    Stevo, just imagine if corbyn and labour had have been in, there would have been enough nurses. They would have been using hankies for masks. And the funeral industry would have been nationalised and on strike..

    There you go. FTFY

  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,930
    Only logged on to check the subject of the day worrying Rick.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,463
    Those who have suggested we could possibly regionalise lockdown and relax it in areas with low infection rates. How do you propose preventing travel between highly affected areas and low affected areas? Surely everyone is going to want to escape to areas where the relaxations are lifted and spread the virus? It would need far more Draconian policing than at present and would be similar to what Italy initially tried to do in restricting lockdown to the worst affected area in the north - that wasn't very successful.
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,698
    I don't see any other end to the lockdown that's not an antibody test...
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    So here in Scotland, the CMO is in a bit of trouble for heading to her holiday home at the weekends...
    Shame, 'cos she's competent and human, but it's hard to justify isn't it. Might be hard for her job to survive as there are a lot of people looking for someone to rage at.
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 61,433
    rjsterry said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    focuszing723 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    focuszing723 said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    focuszing723 said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    nickice said:

    coopster_the_1st said:

    nickice said:

    rjsterry said:

    There probably are lots of examples of activities that contravene the rules (whichever country) but don't actually create any additional risk. But rules have to be simple enough that people aren't left in doubt about what they can/can't do.

    You can't make it last if it's too strict and people see no obvious reasons for prohibiting an activity.
    I see many of the most vulnerable group still out and about, ignoring the isolation recommendation that is for their benefit of living longer.

    If they are not going to respect a life and death decision why should the rest of us follow a lockdown when those most vulnerable are looking after themselves first.
    I talked about it above, but there isn't any evidence that shows being outside (and avoiding crowds) is a big risk for infection.
    Agree. This is where the lockdown has failed us. Unnecessary car journeys, yes should be ceased but stopping people from walking round to their parents to sit in the garden for the afternoon at a safe distance is where it has gone way too far.
    The problem is if you don't make it across the board and specific 'Stay At Home Save Lives', there is room for ambiguity.

    Some people are forgetting the main objective is to make sure there is capacity in the hospitals and they are not overrun. It would be a brave Man who would risk opening the flood gates, then have to announce how many ordinarily fit and healthy Doctors and Nurses have died.
    A perfect example of emotion over pragmatism.

    What is the percentages of front line workers dying from C19?

    I want to see the frontline staff at less risk but the reality of that is we triage who we think we can save a lot earlier in the process so that there is less exposure of the virus to front line staff. This is unacceptable to the SJW's as has been proved here in the last couple of weeks!

    The Tories are in power, relax, do some useful jobs around the house. Let the Government and the Medical Experts take care of things for you.
    You could try saying the same to everyone on here and see what the reaction is :smile:
    What do you think it would be?
    Not sure, why not give it a try?
    He did already. We all saw it.
    No, it was addressed specifically to Coopster. Hence my point above.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • coopster_the_1st
    coopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    ddraver said:

    I don't see any other end to the lockdown that's not an antibody test...

    Do you hear the people sing?
    Singing the songs of angry men?
    It is the music of the people
    Who will not be slaves again!
    When the beating of your heart
    Echoes the beating of the drums
    There is a life about to start
    When tomorrow comes!

    Will you join in our crusade?
    Who will be strong and stand with me?
    Somewhere beyond the barricade
    Is there a world you long to see?

    Then join in the fight
    That will give you the right to be free!

    Do you hear the people sing?
    Singing the songs of angry men?
    It is the music of the people

    Who will not be slaves again!
    When the beating of your heart
    Echoes the beating of the drums
    There is a life about to start
    When tomorrow comes!

    Will you give all you can give
    So that our banner may advance
    Some will fall and some will live
    Will…

Categories