Emergency legislation - information and commentary
Discussion
We should appreciate the British public have been given the chance to demonstrate a bit of some common sense, although it's lacking in a few, ref the breakup of a BBQ in Foleshill, Coventry with 20 people at it!
In Spain, the Guardia Civil are on the streets stopping people and checking why they are outdoors. In parts of Italy, you have to apply online for permission to leave the house with where you're going and what for, in case the police stop you.
Here, within reason, you can go outdoors, stroll to the shop or the pharmacy, even go for a run if that's your bag, and as long as you don't congregate in groups, that's fine.
There aren't the facilities to patrol all the roads either and because we don't have toll roads / toll booths (well mostly), roadblocks are unfeasible too without huge dedication.
In Spain, the Guardia Civil are on the streets stopping people and checking why they are outdoors. In parts of Italy, you have to apply online for permission to leave the house with where you're going and what for, in case the police stop you.
Here, within reason, you can go outdoors, stroll to the shop or the pharmacy, even go for a run if that's your bag, and as long as you don't congregate in groups, that's fine.
There aren't the facilities to patrol all the roads either and because we don't have toll roads / toll booths (well mostly), roadblocks are unfeasible too without huge dedication.
Mass euthanasia of anyone who has been in contact with a virus infected person seems a little extreme but presumably reasonably effective.
As a farmer who went through the F&M epidemic and the ongoing farce of TB 'elimination' I have little confidence that the Government has the skill set to deal with the virus.
As a farmer who went through the F&M epidemic and the ongoing farce of TB 'elimination' I have little confidence that the Government has the skill set to deal with the virus.
Breadvan72 said:
Hey everyone, we can all go back to normal! A vet said so in a letter to the Times! Yay!
Some of the posters here could fill in for Trump at his next presser.
I share your cynicism around the Foot and Mouth comparison,man that’s a measure that’s always taken with livestock in any outbreak. However, there is a contrary view from an Oxford University expertSome of the posters here could fill in for Trump at his next presser.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus...
The Coronavirus Act 2020 is now law. Royal Assent was given a few moments ago.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/7/content...
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2020/7/content...
Edited by agtlaw on Wednesday 25th March 19:37
Breadvan72 said:
Hey everyone, we can all go back to normal! A vet said so in a letter to the Times! Yay!
Some of the posters here could fill in for Trump at his next presser.
Really, where did you read that? Perhaps need your eyes testing or maybe a brain scan to check out for neuro-psychiatric complications of Covid-19. Some of the posters here could fill in for Trump at his next presser.
What the Professor said and what I quoted was that the Imperial college scientists were doom-mongers and that they led to the unnecessary slaughter of millions of animals. He was the senior vet in the country intimately involved in that FMD outbreak and working closely with those scientists.
For someone who promotes himself on here as a voice of logic and reason you really dropped one with that comment. Just embarassing.
And the same newspaper this morning reported that an Oxford University study suggested that up to fifty percent of the population may have already had this virus. For what it's worth, my own experiences over the last few weeks at work would support this (though I wouldn't put a figure on it) in that a lot of people have had viral infections which could certainly fit the criteria for Covid-19 infection, suggesting a considerably more widespread infection rate than currently being put forward by the Government and their advisers.
La Liga said:
jm doc said:
Make your own mind up whether we are right to plunge the country into the deepest recession with businesses destroyed and bankrupted with potentially millions unemployed and a generation of children brought up in poverty on the guesswork of these people.
I'll have to borrow your crystal ball when it's free. Or just trying to demonstrate how witty you are and failing badly
unident said:
Breadvan72 said:
Hey everyone, we can all go back to normal! A vet said so in a letter to the Times! Yay!
Some of the posters here could fill in for Trump at his next presser.
I share your cynicism around the Foot and Mouth comparison,man that’s a measure that’s always taken with livestock in any outbreak. However, there is a contrary view from an Oxford University expertSome of the posters here could fill in for Trump at his next presser.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus...
I had of course no evidence for this other than over 30 years experience of viral infection patterns in the general population. I was therefore very interested to read the brief mention in The Times of this new study. Having now just seen the link you posted which reported more extensively on the study, all I can say is that it absolutely reflects my impressions of what I have been seeing over the last few weeks.
And more significantly, it adds a lot of weight to the vet's comments about Imperial college and their ability to model viral spread in the real world.
We've mortgaged our children's future on those guesses.
jm doc said:
....
For someone who promotes himself on here as a voice of logic and reason you really dropped one with that comment. Just embarassing.
....
Sarcasm not a thing where you are? You can Google it. I am sorry that you feel embarrassed, and suggest that you don't worry, as this is only the internet. For someone who promotes himself on here as a voice of logic and reason you really dropped one with that comment. Just embarassing.
....
The vet has been cited by contrarian nutters such as Peter Hitchens as a reason to just crack on as normal. The vet's views do not, however, appear to have much relevance to what is happening.
Breadvan72 said:
jm doc said:
....
For someone who promotes himself on here as a voice of logic and reason you really dropped one with that comment. Just embarassing.
....
Sarcasm not a thing where you are? You can Google it. I am sorry that you feel embarrassed, and suggest that you don't worry, as this is only the internet. For someone who promotes himself on here as a voice of logic and reason you really dropped one with that comment. Just embarassing.
....
The vet has been cited by contrarian nutters such as Peter Hitchens as a reason to just crack on as normal. The vet's views do not, however, appear to have much relevance to what is happening.
The vet's comments are very pertinent inasmuch as the economy is heading for possibly the biggest recession ever seen as a result of a policy which is based on, at the very least, some dubious computer modelling, and his experience casts further doubt on it.
As you legal chaps might say, they seem to have previous
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000gwy8
Covid-19 mortality rate increases with age just as it does for the usual, background mortality rate.
Covid-19 mortality rate increases with age just as it does for the usual, background mortality rate.
When the World Health Organisation says normal flu is more infectious than Covid-19 I can only conclude that this new legislation should have been enacted years ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82qsclco1Oo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82qsclco1Oo
jm doc said:
Misunderstood again. I wasn't embarassed, but you should be, I probably didn't make it clear enough, apologies.
The vet's comments are very pertinent inasmuch as the economy is heading for possibly the biggest recession ever seen as a result of a policy which is based on, at the very least, some dubious computer modelling, and his experience casts further doubt on it.
As you legal chaps might say, they seem to have previous
Nope, still not embarrassed. Still sorry for you that you don't know what sarcasm is, but feel happier knowing you have time to look it up online. The vet's comments are very pertinent inasmuch as the economy is heading for possibly the biggest recession ever seen as a result of a policy which is based on, at the very least, some dubious computer modelling, and his experience casts further doubt on it.
As you legal chaps might say, they seem to have previous
I know that some think that being a contrarian is edgy and cool. Twitter is full of (mostly Gen Z) coolsters saying "it's all a fuss about nothing", and "that 21 year old who died was probably sick anyway and who cares", and "only the oldies will die", and so on. Utilitarianism is of course a real thing, and if we truly valued all human life we would take steps such as banning cars and so forth, but we don't. What are Governments to do, faced with real (not modelled) deaths on a scale that matters not to the contrarian edgelords, until one of the deaths happens to be of someone they care about (if there is any such person)? You appear to be in the "screw it , crack on, people all die anyway" camp, and perhaps would be one of those who could sit in a War Room and say "the casualties will only be [number], and that's acceptable", but that's a hard sell for any Government, and some think, perhaps quaintly, that some prices are too high.
Should we be guided by vets writing letters to the Times? I am going to vote no on that one.
Turning back to the new Act: It's in my view, as indicated above, trying to do too much at once. It is too wide in scope, and is fraught with uncertainties. In addition, police resources for enforcement are strained. One thing that the current events are showing us is that a system built on a concept of efficiencies that leaves no room for things not well anticipated may not be the best system
Breadvan72 said:
Turning back to the new Act: It's in my view, as indicated above, trying to do too much at once. It is too wide in scope, and is fraught with uncertainties. In addition, police resources for enforcement are strained. One thing that the current events are showing us is that a system built on a concept of efficiencies that leaves no room for things not well anticipated may not be the best system
Trying to do a lot is, by definition, ambitious so usually, especially when big problems need solving I am in favour of ambitious things. However this has suffered from a perfect storm of urgency and a united front. It was also with a background that there was a risk that parliament might not be able to function for long.
Most acts start out with interested parties saying "I want" and the sponsor playing chair to decide what should go in. Mistakes and anomalies should get ironed out in redrafting, review, debate and committee stages.
This was different in that large parts of government and industry said "If you want us to do that we need to change that" and "If that happens we need powers to do that." Everyone got what they wanted as who wants to say no to saving people. There was clearly an unwillingness to use existing emergency powers. Probably, because it needs to keep going back to parliament, but there is always a concern that ministers want "Cover" for some decisions by getting this through with cross party support.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff