Jump to content


Coronavirus - Part Two.

Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, Becky B said:

Listening to a medical programme about this earlier, one of the experts said if anything, this lockdown should be stricter than the first because the new variant is 50% more transmissible.

The first lockdown worked to bring the R number down, but this time it's harder to achieve because of the increased transmissibility.

 

People have become complacent (even if they were bothering with social distancing in the first place).

 

It feels like it's never going to end 😞

Its also not as strict as the first lockdown, people are still allowed to work, nurseries still open etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ECCOnoob Thank you for your post (#3653). Sadly, there are those - like the 'experts' mentioned, that appear to exist in their own bubble,  to use one of the current 'in' words - who pontificate without reference to the real world.

Edited by RollingJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, melthebell said:

Its also not as strict as the first lockdown, people are still allowed to work, nurseries still open etc

Good. People going to work equals money. Not everyone has a luxury of a big family available for childcare at the snap of fingers. Children going to nursery or into school means parents can go to work.

 

Just like I said, it's practical realities vs idealistic opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

But it's much less strict than march/April - you only need to look at the end of your road. "Essential" has a much wider remit this time round. If in doubt, probably visit a school. Also much busier than march/April.

 

30 minutes ago, melthebell said:

Its also not as strict as the first lockdown, people are still allowed to work, nurseries still open etc

.....Yet.

 

This is the very start of the lockdown- I predict that it will get much stricter. Just from looking at the front pages of the papers today, I see the typical govt rumblings about the public not complying and therefore 'killing people', that always precede tougher measures. 

 

Also, according to the media, British police have been told to issue £200 fines to anyone who doesn't immediately go home when instructed to.

 

2 hours ago, petemcewan said:

For those of you who are interested in this debate. My own personal opinion of this brand of ethics, is that it's a prime example of repugnant  authoritarian Utilitarianism. An example of how to tailor a proposition to the outcome that is desired.

I sincerely hope the UK does not  adopted the strategy outlined 

 

https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2020/11/09/medethics-2020-106821

There will be much more of these- IMO mandetory covid vaccination, or, coercive i.e those not accepting vaccination will be limited in terms of travel, employment etc, is almost guaranteed. And that will likely not be a one off, but at least an annual complulsory/coerced vaccination justifed due to new strains/mutations.

 

Anyone who really finds complulsory/coerced vaccination to be repugnant/authoritarian and a very serious civil liberty issue, needs to realise it is very likely coming and start opposing it [IMO]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

 

.

 

Also, according to the media, British police have been told to issue £200 fines to anyone who doesn't immediately go home when instructed to.

So, there's going to be a copper on every street corner? Otherwise, how is that going to work - seriously ? Media hype, again.

Edited by RollingJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, onewheeldave said:

 

.....Yet.

 

This is the very start of the lockdown- I predict that it will get much stricter. Just from looking at the front pages of the papers today, I see the typical govt rumblings about the public not complying and therefore 'killing people', that always precede tougher measures. 

 

Also, according to the media, British police have been told to issue £200 fines to anyone who doesn't immediately go home when instructed to.

I'm not sure that the Government have been particularly vocal about people not complying with lockdown restrictions, especially given the steep rise in cases & deaths in the last month or so.

I just wish the Government were clearer and more consistent in their messaging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RollingJ said:

So, there's going to be a copper on every street corner? Otherwise, how is that going to work - seriously ? Media hype, again.

How it is likely going to work is- 

 

remember the first lockdown where some police forces went well over the top and, for example, harrassed people simply going for a walk in the country, alone? [plus posting drone videos on the forces twitter account]. And how said forces were instructed by rational superiors to cease such actions?

 

It looks like they are now being given carte blanche to restart that kind of behaviour, and, get away with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like the lawyers are going to have a field day.    Maybe it's all intentional to get at least one industry booming again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, onewheeldave said:

How it is likely going to work is- 

 

remember the first lockdown where some police forces went well over the top and, for example, harrassed people simply going for a walk in the country, alone? [plus posting drone videos on the forces twitter account]. And how said forces were instructed by rational superiors to cease such actions?

 

It looks like they are now being given carte blanche to restart that kind of behaviour, and, get away with it.

Well, I remember walking to Archer Road from home around the start of that time, and the only police I saw were a group of 8 of them - not practising any social distancing at all - who I walked past, said 'Hello, having a nice rest?' and just got a few laughs, no question of where I was from/going to or anything. They were all on 'trials' type motorbikes too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ECCOnoob said:

Sounds like the lawyers are going to have a field day.    Maybe it's all intentional to get at least one industry booming again.

Make the rules clearer for starters. Stay local? What does that mean? Ireland it's something like 5km from your front door. If I stayed in the 0114 dialing area I could be anywhere from killamarsh to Stocksbridge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tinfoilhat said:

Make the rules clearer for starters. Stay local? What does that mean? Ireland it's something like 5km from your front door. If I stayed in the 0114 dialing area I could be anywhere from killamarsh to Stocksbridge. 

So what do you want them to do?  

 

It is already been clearly expressed that people should stay local, only travel when it's essential for work, shopping or caring responsibilities  and people should not be crossing into other tier areas. How more specific can you be? 

 

If you start blanket putting distances on things such as nobody can go outside a mile from their home that means different things to different people. It will be all well and good having a rule like that but what if people don't have a Shop within a mile distance?  What if their  supermarket is 5, 10, 20 miles away?

 

If you nominated a specific single place where people are only allowed to get food from how is that going to work in terms of fairly allocating the numbers? or capacity? or or even practicalities for those who might not drive etc??

 

Goodness sake I know ambiguity can always be a risk but there has to be some elements of flexibility and basic common sense.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ECCOnoob said:

So what do you want them to do?  

 

It is already been clearly expressed that people should stay local, only travel when it's essential for work, shopping or caring responsibilities  and people should not be crossing into other tier areas. How more specific can you be? 

 

If you start blanket putting distances on things such as nobody can go outside a mile from their home that means different things to different people. It will be all well and good having a rule like that but what if people don't have a Shop within a mile distance?  What if their  supermarket is 5, 10, 20 miles away?

 

If you nominated a specific single place where people are only allowed to get food from how is that going to work in terms of fairly allocating the numbers? or capacity? or or even practicalities for those who might not drive etc??

 

Goodness sake I know ambiguity can always be a risk but there has to be some elements of flexibility and basic common sense.  

How can a mile from home mean different things to different people unless youve got 20 acres of land? In Ireland that's for exercise by the way.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.