Emergency legislation - information and commentary

[Elysium]

redjohn said:

Stay in Bed Instead said:

Sign at the side of the road on the A47 on the way into work today:

ONLY ESSENTIAL JOURNEYS TO AND FROM LEICESTER ALLOWED


And then once in I hear an advert on the radio from the Government along the lines of mis-information about coronavirus is widespread and to look on gov.uk for the correct information.

The sign is correct, Leicester is in lockdown, shops are closed, schools are closed and in out traffic is essential only.

In what context are these the only journeys that are 'allowed'?

We do not need to seek permission to move around the country lawfully.

[Stay in Bed Instead]

redjohn said:

The sign is correct, Leicester is in lockdown, shops are closed, schools are closed and in out traffic is essential only.

[Desiderata]

Pegscratch said:

Desiderata said:

As Nichola Sturgeon's promised mandatory wearing of facecoverings in shops from this Friday (10th July) approaches, has anyone actually seen any new legislation for this? Or does it automatically become law because Nichola says so?

Fumble fumble fumble, face masks, shops, fumble, control the virus, fumble, independence!!!

I still can't find any legislation mentioning face coverings in shops. Am I looking in the wrong places or are her speeches just hot air?
I fully intend to carry on as before, shopping without a mask as I suspect many others will do too. In the last couple of weeks, we have been urged to wear a mask in shops " to get into the habit before it becomes law" but I've seen less than 1 in 10 doing so. Maybe, just maybe, the Scottish people are not such sheep as they think.

[Elysium]

I think this is the new Scottish law:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2020/210/regula...

They have at least figured out banks and masks don't mix well

Will the Scots stand up against oppression, or embrace this new requirement?

[Desiderata]

Elysium said:

I think this is the new Scottish law:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2020/210/regula...

They have at least figured out banks and masks don't mix well

Will the Scots stand up against oppression, or embrace this new requirement?

Thanks for that.
I might be breaking the law this afternoon then as I have to enter a Post Office as part of my work...
Or is it exempt as well as selling stuff, it's also part of a financial institution? Who knows? Who cares? I'll be going in maskless regardless and from what I've seen locally, so will lots of others

Edited by Desiderata on Friday 10th July 09:57

[Elysium]

Desiderata said:

Elysium said:

I think this is the new Scottish law:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2020/210/regula...

They have at least figured out banks and masks don't mix well

Will the Scots stand up against oppression, or embrace this new requirement?

Thanks for that.
I might be breaking the law this afternoon then as I have to enter a Post Office as part of my work...
Or is it exempt as well as selling stuff, it's also part of a financial institution? Who knows? Who cares? I'll be going in maskless regardless and from what I've seen locally, so will lots of others

I am pretty certain that post offices would fall within the following list of things that are not 'shops' in 6B(4)(e):

Scots 'Zorro' Regulations said:

banks, building societies, credit unions, short-term loan providers, savings clubs, cash points and undertakings which by way of business operate a currency exchange office, transmit money (or any representation of money) by any means or cash cheques which are made payable to customers

My local post office is inside a co-op though, which causes a bit of confusion. I also have a currency exchange in my local sainsbury's

[unident]

Elysium said:

Desiderata said:

Elysium said:

I think this is the new Scottish law:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2020/210/regula...

They have at least figured out banks and masks don't mix well

Will the Scots stand up against oppression, or embrace this new requirement?

Thanks for that.
I might be breaking the law this afternoon then as I have to enter a Post Office as part of my work...
Or is it exempt as well as selling stuff, it's also part of a financial institution? Who knows? Who cares? I'll be going in maskless regardless and from what I've seen locally, so will lots of others

I am pretty certain that post offices would fall within the following list of things that are not 'shops' in 6B(4)(e):

Scots 'Zorro' Regulations said:

banks, building societies, credit unions, short-term loan providers, savings clubs, cash points and undertakings which by way of business operate a currency exchange office, transmit money (or any representation of money) by any means or cash cheques which are made payable to customers

My local post office is inside a co-op though, which causes a bit of confusion. I also have a currency exchange in my local sainsbury's

And there we have the thread in a nutshell

- I don’t want to do it and it’s not law so I won’t.

- here’s the law

- well I’ll just break it then

What I don’t understand is whether it’s a need to be seen to be hard in front of everyone else, a complete lack of thought for the rest of society or just outright pigheadedness.

The Zorro comment is great. He wore a mask covering bridge of his nose and the outside of his eyes. Pretty much the exact opposite of what’s needed. Are you now claiming that that would suffice? Or just another attempt at misdirection? Because it takes a special thought process to think a mask covering your mouth and nose would look like one that covers your eyes.

[Elysium]

unident said:

Elysium said:

Desiderata said:

Elysium said:

I think this is the new Scottish law:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ssi/2020/210/regula...

They have at least figured out banks and masks don't mix well

Will the Scots stand up against oppression, or embrace this new requirement?

Thanks for that.
I might be breaking the law this afternoon then as I have to enter a Post Office as part of my work...
Or is it exempt as well as selling stuff, it's also part of a financial institution? Who knows? Who cares? I'll be going in maskless regardless and from what I've seen locally, so will lots of others

I am pretty certain that post offices would fall within the following list of things that are not 'shops' in 6B(4)(e):

Scots 'Zorro' Regulations said:

banks, building societies, credit unions, short-term loan providers, savings clubs, cash points and undertakings which by way of business operate a currency exchange office, transmit money (or any representation of money) by any means or cash cheques which are made payable to customers

My local post office is inside a co-op though, which causes a bit of confusion. I also have a currency exchange in my local sainsbury's

And there we have the thread in a nutshell

- I don’t want to do it and it’s not law so I won’t.

- here’s the law

- well I’ll just break it then

What I don’t understand is whether it’s a need to be seen to be hard in front of everyone else, a complete lack of thought for the rest of society or just outright pigheadedness.

The Zorro comment is great. He wore a mask covering bridge of his nose and the outside of his eyes. Pretty much the exact opposite of what’s needed. Are you now claiming that that would suffice? Or just another attempt at misdirection? Because it takes a special thought process to think a mask covering your mouth and nose would look like one that covers your eyes.

I don't need to follow this law because I live in England. However, I think the arguments for face coverings are deeply flawed and I will be very unhappy if it does become law here.

This is not a law that is good for society. Characterising those who have concerns as thoughtless or pigheaded shows a profound lack of empathy and understanding for alternative views. A requirement that we must cover our faces in public has a huge symbolic impact. Most people in this country would have previously agreed that this is an act of extreme oppression and I very clearly recall discussions of that nature when the Taliban controlled Afghanistan and forced women to wear the burqa:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban_treatment_of...

I find it incredible that people are able to skip over the subtext of forced mask wearing, simply because they think it is a good idea. For me morality is not determined by what I want to do. It is about deciding what it is right to do.

If this is made law in England I will reluctantly comply by wearing the least intrusive 'face covering' I can find. I have already ordered some lightweight bandanas for that purpose.

The 'zorro' comment was dark humour, because I find the situation absurd.

[unident]

Elysium said:

I don't need to follow this law because I live in England. However, I think the arguments for face coverings are deeply flawed and I will be very unhappy if it does become law here.

This is not a law that is good for society. Characterising those who have concerns as thoughtless or pigheaded shows a profound lack of empathy and understanding for alternative views. A requirement that we must cover our faces in public has a huge symbolic impact. Most people in this country would have previously agreed that this is an act of extreme oppression and I very clearly recall discussions of that nature when the Taliban controlled Afghanistan and forced women to wear the burqa:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban_treatment_of...

I find it incredible that people are able to skip over the subtext of forced mask wearing, simply because they think it is a good idea. For me morality is not determined by what I want to do. It is about deciding what it is right to do.

If this is made law in England I will reluctantly comply by wearing the least intrusive 'face covering' I can find. I have already ordered some lightweight bandanas for that purpose.

The 'zorro' comment was dark humour, because I find the situation absurd.

It’s flawed in your opinion only because you disagree with the medical experts around this. To drift onto some objections, because Taliban just highlights how ridiculous this thread is getting. Face masks have been worn in oriental countries for a long time as a way of showing respect when people have been ill and trying not to pass it on. Wearing them isn’t some sort of religious statement. There is no discussion needed around whether they are 100% effective. They aren’t, but added to a number if other measures the spread is reduced and that is what’s trying to be achieved.

The rest of your post just goes to support my argument about you being a contrarian. The Taliban comment is showing that the mask (pun intended) is starting to slip and you’re being seen more and more as a conspiracy theorist.

[Elysium]

unident said:

Elysium said:

I don't need to follow this law because I live in England. However, I think the arguments for face coverings are deeply flawed and I will be very unhappy if it does become law here.

This is not a law that is good for society. Characterising those who have concerns as thoughtless or pigheaded shows a profound lack of empathy and understanding for alternative views. A requirement that we must cover our faces in public has a huge symbolic impact. Most people in this country would have previously agreed that this is an act of extreme oppression and I very clearly recall discussions of that nature when the Taliban controlled Afghanistan and forced women to wear the burqa:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban_treatment_of...

I find it incredible that people are able to skip over the subtext of forced mask wearing, simply because they think it is a good idea. For me morality is not determined by what I want to do. It is about deciding what it is right to do.

If this is made law in England I will reluctantly comply by wearing the least intrusive 'face covering' I can find. I have already ordered some lightweight bandanas for that purpose.

The 'zorro' comment was dark humour, because I find the situation absurd.

It’s flawed in your opinion only because you disagree with the medical experts around this. To drift onto some objections, because Taliban just highlights how ridiculous this thread is getting. Face masks have been worn in oriental countries for a long time as a way of showing respect when people have been ill and trying not to pass it on. Wearing them isn’t some sort of religious statement. There is no discussion needed around whether they are 100% effective. They aren’t, but added to a number if other measures the spread is reduced and that is what’s trying to be achieved.

The rest of your post just goes to support my argument about you being a contrarian. The Taliban comment is showing that the mask (pun intended) is starting to slip and you’re being seen more and more as a conspiracy theorist.

It's not a conspiracy. The Taliban deliberately oppressed women and one of the tactics they employed was to force them to cover their faces. It dehumanises people and reduces normal social interaction.

I find it deeply uncomfortable that a modern democracy like Scotland has decided to move so quickly to make what was an act of oppression a legal requirement against a weak argument that it is for the greater good.

On this particular matter, I am happy to be contrarian because I firmly believe the popular view, that mask wearing is an appropriate and sensible measure, is immoral, ignorant and wrong.

I am not entirely sure what point you are trying to make. I don't think there is any reason why anyone should simply accept every stupid idea presented as Govt guidance or why it bothers you that many free thinking individuals choose not to. It is unrealistic to imagine those people, having rejected the guidance would embrace it as law.

[unident]

Elysium said:

It's not a conspiracy. The Taliban deliberately oppressed women and one of the tactics they employed was to force them to cover their faces. It dehumanises people and reduces normal social interaction.

I find it deeply uncomfortable that a modern democracy like Scotland has decided to move so quickly to make what was an act of oppression a legal requirement against a weak argument that it is for the greater good.

On this particular matter, I am happy to be contrarian because I firmly believe the popular view, that mask wearing is an appropriate and sensible measure, is immoral, ignorant and wrong.

I am not entirely sure what point you are trying to make. I don't think there is any reason why anyone should simply accept every stupid idea presented as Govt guidance or why it bothers you that many free thinking individuals choose not to. It is unrealistic to imagine those people, having rejected the guidance would embrace it as law.

The Taliban enforced their oppressive religious views onto people. They didn’t do it for medical reasons. There is a big difference. The fact you can’t see this is hilarious. What next? objecting to the enforced use of helmets on motorbikes? What about those poor surgeons having to wear masks while carrying out operations?

It’s not an act of oppression. You are being ridiculous.

You keep banging on about refusing to accept guidance. You haven’t accepted a single piece of guidance as right. Not one. That suggests to me that describing you as a contrarian is very accurate. Your thought process is poor. You refuse to accept any guidance, you refuse to accept any of the medical opinion offered by experts, you object to all law around this pandemic.

Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, you’re the one in the wrong. You might be right on some occasions, but your obsession with denying everything means you’re no better than a broken clock, which is right twice a day, but very wrong for the vast majority of it

[RSTurboPaul]

unident said:

Elysium said:

It's not a conspiracy. The Taliban deliberately oppressed women and one of the tactics they employed was to force them to cover their faces. It dehumanises people and reduces normal social interaction.

I find it deeply uncomfortable that a modern democracy like Scotland has decided to move so quickly to make what was an act of oppression a legal requirement against a weak argument that it is for the greater good.

On this particular matter, I am happy to be contrarian because I firmly believe the popular view, that mask wearing is an appropriate and sensible measure, is immoral, ignorant and wrong.

I am not entirely sure what point you are trying to make. I don't think there is any reason why anyone should simply accept every stupid idea presented as Govt guidance or why it bothers you that many free thinking individuals choose not to. It is unrealistic to imagine those people, having rejected the guidance would embrace it as law.

The Taliban enforced their oppressive religious views onto people. They didn’t do it for medical reasons. There is a big difference. The fact you can’t see this is hilarious. What next? objecting to the enforced use of helmets on motorbikes? What about those poor surgeons having to wear masks while carrying out operations?

It’s not an act of oppression. You are being ridiculous.

You keep banging on about refusing to accept guidance. You haven’t accepted a single piece of guidance as right. Not one. That suggests to me that describing you as a contrarian is very accurate. Your thought process is poor. You refuse to accept any guidance, you refuse to accept any of the medical opinion offered by experts, you object to all law around this pandemic.

Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, you’re the one in the wrong. You might be right on some occasions, but your obsession with denying everything means you’re no better than a broken clock, which is right twice a day, but very wrong for the vast majority of it

Helmet wearing has a known and evidenced benefit.

As does the use of medical grade masks by surgeons undertaken invasive surgery.

The use of 'face coverings' made from any old scrap of material one has laying about the house does not - which the WHO has acknowledged within their own reports.


Guidance is guidance. It is not law.

Do you eat '5 a day'? Do you think you should be publicly shamed and fined for not doing so? If not, why not? It's for your own benefit and the benefit of those around you, after all.

[Jasandjules]

Elysium said:

I find it deeply uncomfortable that a modern democracy like Scotland has decided to move so quickly to make what was an act of oppression a legal requirement against a weak argument that it is for the greater good.

Many millions have been killed throughout history and many wrongs undertaken "for the greater good".

I fear anyone who says such a thing fails to appreciate history.

(I note I don't mean you in that reference to a failure to appreciate history)

[Desiderata]

unident said:

What I don’t understand is whether it’s a need to be seen to be hard in front of everyone else, a complete lack of thought for the rest of society or just outright pigheadedness.

For me it's completely the opposite, there is nothing I'd like to do more than quietly go about my business, it would be no skin off my nose (pun intended) just to pop on a bandana for a few minutes a week, but at some point we have to stand up and be counted. This isn't an attempt at fighting the pandemic, it's political showboating with little or no scientific basis. What's next? A leper's bell, a shaven head, a tattoo?
It's precisely my regard to society and the common good that leads me to take a stand.

[unident]

RSTurboPaul said:

Helmet wearing has a known and evidenced benefit.

As does the use of medical grade masks by surgeons undertaken invasive surgery.

The use of 'face coverings' made from any old scrap of material one has laying about the house does not - which the WHO has acknowledged within their own reports.


Guidance is guidance. It is not law.

Do you eat '5 a day'? Do you think you should be publicly shamed and fined for not doing so? If not, why not? It's for your own benefit and the benefit of those around you, after all.

The WHO haven’t acknowledged it. I’ve already stated quite clearly that there’s no need for a discussion about face coverings being 100% effective. They aren’t. They are one of a combination of measures being taken that may help to reduce the spread. Doing nothing is guaranteed to do nothing to to stop the spread. I’m saying no more on this, as it’s simple enough for anyone to understand.

Helmets, surgeons masks all cover the face though. They all therefore impact on Elysium’s fear of social exclusion. That’s the reason I raised them. He was banging on about the Taliban and oppressive regimes. I suggested he should take issue with these too as they are equally oppressive.

I eat a lot of fruit, I do a lot of exercise. I also eat unhealthy food sometimes. I don’t have to abide by all guidance, at all times, but I don’t have to rail against it as if it somehow makes me into some sort of ………whatever you think it makes you

I can’t be fined for something that’s not law, or publicly shamed for it, but I don’t really care either way.

[unident]

Desiderata said:

For me it's completely the opposite, there is nothing I'd like to do more than quietly go about my business, it would be no skin off my nose (pun intended) just to pop on a bandana for a few minutes a week, but at some point we have to stand up and be counted. This isn't an attempt at fighting the pandemic, it's political showboating with little or no scientific basis. What's next? A leper's bell, a shaven head, a tattoo?
It's precisely my regard to society and the common good that leads me to take a stand.

What are you standing up for? It has a scientific basis. None of your ridiculous extremes are anything more than being drama queen.

Here’s something to read through

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-con...

[gareth_r]

[quote=unident... What next? Objecting to the enforced use of helmets on motorbikes? ...
[/quote]

The helmet law is not "next". It was "first".

It was the first law in our history that protected individuals from their own actions.

[Elysium]

unident said:

Elysium said:

It's not a conspiracy. The Taliban deliberately oppressed women and one of the tactics they employed was to force them to cover their faces. It dehumanises people and reduces normal social interaction.

I find it deeply uncomfortable that a modern democracy like Scotland has decided to move so quickly to make what was an act of oppression a legal requirement against a weak argument that it is for the greater good.

On this particular matter, I am happy to be contrarian because I firmly believe the popular view, that mask wearing is an appropriate and sensible measure, is immoral, ignorant and wrong.

I am not entirely sure what point you are trying to make. I don't think there is any reason why anyone should simply accept every stupid idea presented as Govt guidance or why it bothers you that many free thinking individuals choose not to. It is unrealistic to imagine those people, having rejected the guidance would embrace it as law.

The Taliban enforced their oppressive religious views onto people. They didn’t do it for medical reasons. There is a big difference. The fact you can’t see this is hilarious. What next? objecting to the enforced use of helmets on motorbikes? What about those poor surgeons having to wear masks while carrying out operations?

It’s not an act of oppression. You are being ridiculous.

You keep banging on about refusing to accept guidance. You haven’t accepted a single piece of guidance as right. Not one. That suggests to me that describing you as a contrarian is very accurate. Your thought process is poor. You refuse to accept any guidance, you refuse to accept any of the medical opinion offered by experts, you object to all law around this pandemic.

Have you ever considered that maybe, just maybe, you’re the one in the wrong. You might be right on some occasions, but your obsession with denying everything means you’re no better than a broken clock, which is right twice a day, but very wrong for the vast majority of it

I am quite happy with much of the guidance. For example, I think it is entirely appropriate to ask symptomatic people to self isolate, I support the way that we have encouraged people to work from home, I wash my hands carefully, I have bought a thermometer to check my temperature and pulse oximeter to check my blood oxygen levels in the event I become ill. I accept the need to restrict large gatherings and to limit unnecessary travel.

I don't know why you have decided to claim otherwise, but you are quite obviously incorrect.

I am sure the Taliban thought they were doing the right thing. We could have a lengthy philosphical debate about the differences between science and religion and from where I am sitting the desire to find a scientific basis for mask wearing is more about belief than evidence.

Edited by Elysium on Friday 10th July 13:44

[Elysium]

unident said:

Desiderata said:

For me it's completely the opposite, there is nothing I'd like to do more than quietly go about my business, it would be no skin off my nose (pun intended) just to pop on a bandana for a few minutes a week, but at some point we have to stand up and be counted. This isn't an attempt at fighting the pandemic, it's political showboating with little or no scientific basis. What's next? A leper's bell, a shaven head, a tattoo?
It's precisely my regard to society and the common good that leads me to take a stand.

What are you standing up for? It has a scientific basis. None of your ridiculous extremes are anything more than being drama queen.

Here’s something to read through

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/06/417906/still-con...

Most of the studies I have seen on mask use acknowledge that they might provide a small benefit, if they are made out of the right stuff and used correctly.

From a narrow public health focus, you could conclude that they should be mandated, because in a pandemic small, but consistent gains can add up.

What these studies do not do is consider the downsides. What about people who cannot wear masks for health reasons, what about deaf people who rely on lip reading, what about those who suffer from anxiety, what are the potential impacts on social discourse and the functioning of our society? These are all legitimate questions which should be weighed in the balance against the benefits.

I think there is plenty of evidence to support the recommendation that people should wear face coverings. However, that evidence is nowhere near compelling enough to justify Scotlands decision to make it law.

Whilst it is a recommendation, I will exercise my freedom to ignore it. When it becomes law, I will reluctantly comply in a way that causes me least inconvenience.

At the moment, our country is still sufficiently free to allow me to make that choice.

[unident]

gareth_r said:

unident said:

... What next? Objecting to the enforced use of helmets on motorbikes? ...

The helmet law is not "next". It was "first".

It was the first law in our history that protected individuals from their own actions.

What? Have you read what I’ve written?