Coronavirus - Part Two.

[nightrider 13]

28 minutes ago, Baron99 said:

Well clearly the Chief Constable believes he does have the resources.  Although his message does appear at odd of the lower ranked SY Officer I heard speaking with Toby Foster last week. I think he was a Superintendent? 

He was claiming that the police didn't have the resources to police every COVID-19 incident & the population wouldn't thank the police for chasing the COVID-19 individuals at the expense of catching a burglar in your house.  Although as we know, SYP don't tend to do this either.  The busiest officer, if you read many comments in other threads on SF, is the one who just issues the crime numbers for your insurance purposes. 

 

I also saw the BBC report of a British bloke who lived in Spain with the video showing 3 police officers walking the streets at a resort, checking people were complying with Spanish COVID-19 rules. 

 

As that expat said, there is no nonsense with the Spanish police.  They catch you flouting the rules, you're find.  No offering advise & this has been the same since day one of the fines being introduced. 

 

If we in the UK had gone down this route, by now we'd probably not still have people flouting our rules?  If there is a concerted effort in the short term to start fining individuals, the message will soon get through to the reckless minority. 

 

It does seem that in the UK, when we introduce new rules & regulations, the first thought of the average Brit is, "How can I get round this new rule?" 

 

It's much easier & takes much less effort just to comply in the short term

The fines are now very large - he won't need many police to make examples of a few, which hopefully will deter the rest of the minority. Already started elsewhere -  £10k fine for a house party!

 

https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/teenager-issued-huge-10000-fine-4510501

 

 

Edited September 29, 2020 by nightrider

[catmiss 12]

16 minutes ago, Anna B said:

Wouldn't it have been a good idea to have all these different bodies working together to find a solution?

I think that would have been a logistical nightmare and, as I understand it, they were working on different vaccination modules/formulations with the hope that at least one would find the answer. The more successful trials the better re the amounts available and competitive costs so not just the rich countries have access 

[nightrider 13]

17 minutes ago, Easy livin said:

And in 10-years when it has been accurately tested in the same way as any other medicine on the market has been tested then I may consider thinking about it.

 

Anyone who allows an untested drug to be injected into themselves in the hope that they will not die from a virus that already has a minuscule chance of actually killing them is a fool.

 

Queue up queue up please let the testing begin on you. Just not on me

It's unlikely most of us will be allowed the vaccine for that reason. What will probably happen is they give it to the elderly because long term affects are not an issue, then the rest of us only get it after the usual testing (I have been told 2 years by someone who works in big pharma).

[pattricia 584]

On 28/09/2020 at 12:57, Arnold_Lane said:

How does the government know whether anyone has Covid if they aren't tested?  What's your point?

Well Boris is prepared to deploy the Army to keep us in check. Shame he is not so inclined to muster them to police our borders !

[Arnold_Lane 0]

27 minutes ago, pattricia said:

Well Boris is prepared to deploy the Army to keep us in check. Shame he is not so inclined to muster them to police our borders !

If you say so.

[nightrider 13]

52 minutes ago, Easy livin said:

so are you saying that after 6-months of repeatedly hearing how everybody has to look after the elderly and the vulnerable that the untested and may be dangerous vaccines with unknown long term effects will actually be tested on the vulnerable and elderly

No. We have already tested it on people. We wait to see if it has long term affects. Meanwhile there is nothing to lose by giving it to the elderly if we know it safe in the short term.

[Baron99 815]

5 hours ago, nightrider said:

The fines are now very large - he won't need many police to make examples of a few, which hopefully will deter the rest of the minority. Already started elsewhere -  £10k fine for a house party!

 

https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/nottingham-news/teenager-issued-huge-10000-fine-4510501

 

 

Exactly.  Yes, some would moan & start shouting, "Your making an example of me & a scapegoat" but so what, if it continues to protect the abiding majority.  

[ECCOnoob 1,053]

2 hours ago, nightrider said:

No. We have already tested it on people. We wait to see if it has long term affects. Meanwhile there is nothing to lose by giving it to the elderly if we know it safe in the short term.

So just to be clear - you are think its fine using the elderly like lab rats because, meh... they are going to die soon anyway.  

 

I can see the human rights lawyers having a field day with that one.   

 

 

 

[Baron99 815]

4 hours ago, pattricia said:

Well Boris is prepared to deploy the Army to keep us in check. Shame he is not so inclined to muster them to police our borders !

It's not exactly what he said.  It's been misinterpreted & repeated so often now that many believe it.  I even heard one bloke on the radio, who grew up in Belfast but is now living in London state; "What are we going to have in England then?  The same as when I grew up in the 1970's in Belfast?  Check point & barbed wire every few hundred yards, manned by armed soldiers?" 

 

Er, no.  If people listened properly to the PM's announcement on this he said there was potential to use the military to free up the police by back-filling the in-house police duties. 

 

In other words, the police get to go out on the streets to enforce the COVID-19 rules, while the military, (I'm guessing we're talking about something like the Logistics Corps, rather than the SAS), get to handle nothing more lethal than the police admin. 

Edited September 29, 2020 by Baron99

[butlers 270]

Nottingham party boy got all he deserved.

The fact they were abusive to the council officers who likely were only going to issue a warning ,is very satisfying

[whiteowl 54]

5 hours ago, Easy livin said:

On average of takes 7 years of clinical trials before a new drug is put forward for licence.

 

 

Whilst I do get where you're coming from, the flu vaccine changes every year and obviously there's not a 7 year test on that. I'm not an expert so happy to be educated why the flu vaccine can be different every year but others need 7 years testing?

 

Don't get me wrong, I understand what you're saying and I doubt I'll be in the first corhort to take a new vaccine 🤷‍♂️

[Pettytom 1]

14 hours ago, Easy livin said:

On average of takes 7 years of clinical trials before a new drug is put forward for licence.

 

 

But vaccines and treatment drugs are different. 
 

Also, we have years of research already into  coronavirus vaccines of one type or another.

 

There is also an imperative to find effective vaccines that is powering the development of a safe and effective vaccine.

 

We will have one by next year, but like all vaccines, it will only work if most people have it. I don’t agree with compulsory vaccinations, but I do think that if you refuse it, you shouldn’t necessarily be afforded the opportunity to participate fully in our society.

Edited September 30, 2020 by Pettytom