Emergency legislation - information and commentary
Discussion
Red 4 said:
The more cases you have, the more people are likely to need hospital treatment, the more likely the NHS will be overwhelmed.
So yes, cases matter. They are predictor of what is likely to happen and assist in identifying areas more affected than others.
Unless, of course, you think the govt make up the figures "to keep everyone in check".
But with vaccinations being rolled out to those most impacted they are becoming increasingly irrelevant...So yes, cases matter. They are predictor of what is likely to happen and assist in identifying areas more affected than others.
Unless, of course, you think the govt make up the figures "to keep everyone in check".
Red 4 said:
The more cases you have, the more people are likely to need hospital treatment, the more likely the NHS will be overwhelmed.
So yes, cases matter. They are predictor of what is likely to happen and assist in identifying areas more affected than others.
Unless, of course, you think the govt make up the figures "to keep everyone in check".
Evidence the NHS is going to be overwhelmed?So yes, cases matter. They are predictor of what is likely to happen and assist in identifying areas more affected than others.
Unless, of course, you think the govt make up the figures "to keep everyone in check".
RSTurboPaul said:
Red 4 said:
The more cases you have, the more people are likely to need hospital treatment, the more likely the NHS will be overwhelmed.
So yes, cases matter. They are predictor of what is likely to happen and assist in identifying areas more affected than others.
Unless, of course, you think the govt make up the figures "to keep everyone in check".
Evidence the NHS is going to be overwhelmed?So yes, cases matter. They are predictor of what is likely to happen and assist in identifying areas more affected than others.
Unless, of course, you think the govt make up the figures "to keep everyone in check".
This was 8 January 2021
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-major-incident...
XCP said:
RSTurboPaul said:
unident said:
There have been times in the past when restrictions have been placed on all of us for the greater good and they were accepted rather than fought.
Laws put in place during the war were only repealed in the 1970s, I believe.Hardly an encouraging precedent.
The Temporary continuations mentioned in the above Act expired on 31st December 1964 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Regulations
Btw, for those who think the present government's handling of news/information is shambolic read this - https://history.blog.gov.uk/2014/09/12/chaos-and-c...
Red 4 said:
RSTurboPaul said:
Red 4 said:
The more cases you have, the more people are likely to need hospital treatment, the more likely the NHS will be overwhelmed.
So yes, cases matter. They are predictor of what is likely to happen and assist in identifying areas more affected than others.
Unless, of course, you think the govt make up the figures "to keep everyone in check".
Evidence the NHS is going to be overwhelmed?So yes, cases matter. They are predictor of what is likely to happen and assist in identifying areas more affected than others.
Unless, of course, you think the govt make up the figures "to keep everyone in check".
This was 8 January 2021
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-major-incident...
Perhaps if Govt took that into account, rather than trying to maintain some bizarre narrative of 'controlling the virus', they wouldn't continue unnecessary restrictions all the way through summer (with Covid deaths in single digits per day and therefore a glut of hospital capacity that could be used to let SARS-CoV-2 spread a bit further with minimal NHS impacts) resulting in pushing the spread of infection back and into winter, where it could add to the usual annual winter pressures?
I mean, this is definitely the first year that the NHS has been 'overwhelmed' so they couldn't possible have foreseen such a thing...
And maybe if that had considered it, they could have set up some high-capacity, dedicated care facilities and intensively trained staff during the quiet summer period to man them in Winter? Perhaps naming them after a famous nurse??
And not set such a thing up initially at vast cost, end up not using them because the initial infection surge dropped off of its own accord (as pandemics do), mothball them, empty them out over summer, and then hurriedly have to refit them when the winter surge appeared while claiming they are definitely open for business (*cough*Hancock*cough*)?
Red Devil said:
XCP said:
RSTurboPaul said:
unident said:
There have been times in the past when restrictions have been placed on all of us for the greater good and they were accepted rather than fought.
Laws put in place during the war were only repealed in the 1970s, I believe.Hardly an encouraging precedent.
The Temporary continuations mentioned in the above Act expired on 31st December 1964 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Regulations
Btw, for those who think the present government's handling of news/information is shambolic read this - https://history.blog.gov.uk/2014/09/12/chaos-and-c...
So we'll be free of Covid-related nonsense by 2040?
Seems proportionate.
RSTurboPaul said:
I do not have a link to the source but isaldiri has stated on the 'cure worse than the disease' thread that 11th January is the NHS's busiest day of the year usually.
Perhaps if Govt took that into account, rather than trying to maintain some bizarre narrative of 'controlling the virus', they wouldn't continue unnecessary restrictions all the way through summer (with Covid deaths in single digits per day and therefore a glut of hospital capacity that could be used to let SARS-CoV-2 spread a bit further with minimal NHS impacts) resulting in pushing the spread of infection back and into winter, where it could add to the usual annual winter pressures?
I mean, this is definitely the first year that the NHS has been 'overwhelmed' so they couldn't possible have foreseen such a thing...
And maybe if that had considered it, they could have set up some high-capacity, dedicated care facilities and intensively trained staff during the quiet summer period to man them in Winter? Perhaps naming them after a famous nurse??
And not set such a thing up initially at vast cost, end up not using them because the initial infection surge dropped off of its own accord (as pandemics do), mothball them, empty them out over summer, and then hurriedly have to refit them when the winter surge appeared while claiming they are definitely open for business (*cough*Hancock*cough*)?
Why do you insist on writing a thesis? It doesn’t make your point any more valid, not that I think your points are that valid anyway. Perhaps if Govt took that into account, rather than trying to maintain some bizarre narrative of 'controlling the virus', they wouldn't continue unnecessary restrictions all the way through summer (with Covid deaths in single digits per day and therefore a glut of hospital capacity that could be used to let SARS-CoV-2 spread a bit further with minimal NHS impacts) resulting in pushing the spread of infection back and into winter, where it could add to the usual annual winter pressures?
I mean, this is definitely the first year that the NHS has been 'overwhelmed' so they couldn't possible have foreseen such a thing...
And maybe if that had considered it, they could have set up some high-capacity, dedicated care facilities and intensively trained staff during the quiet summer period to man them in Winter? Perhaps naming them after a famous nurse??
And not set such a thing up initially at vast cost, end up not using them because the initial infection surge dropped off of its own accord (as pandemics do), mothball them, empty them out over summer, and then hurriedly have to refit them when the winter surge appeared while claiming they are definitely open for business (*cough*Hancock*cough*)?
I’ve highlighted one bit, because I’d like to know which country you’re referencing with the “Covid deaths in single digits per day” comment.
News report from the BBC,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56148160
This bit in particular...
“And from 29 March it is also understood that people will once again be able to travel out of their areas - although guidance will likely still recommend staying local, and overnight stays will not be permitted.”
Will they never learn!
(Had to post it here as someone conveniently got the “staying local” thread pulled...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56148160
This bit in particular...
“And from 29 March it is also understood that people will once again be able to travel out of their areas - although guidance will likely still recommend staying local, and overnight stays will not be permitted.”
Will they never learn!
(Had to post it here as someone conveniently got the “staying local” thread pulled...
Edited by Oceanrower on Monday 22 February 13:16
Q. Guidance is guidance and law is law. However, could Ministerial statements be used to ascertain or persuade a court of what is reasonable (or not) ?
Yes, yes, we know guidance is not law but the guidance is provided by government.
I'm just wondering could guidance be used to bolster (NB - bolster) an argument that travelling a long way from home in order to "exercise" is unreasonable ?
Yes, yes, we know guidance is not law but the guidance is provided by government.
I'm just wondering could guidance be used to bolster (NB - bolster) an argument that travelling a long way from home in order to "exercise" is unreasonable ?
RSTurboPaul said:
Red Devil said:
XCP said:
RSTurboPaul said:
unident said:
There have been times in the past when restrictions have been placed on all of us for the greater good and they were accepted rather than fought.
Laws put in place during the war were only repealed in the 1970s, I believe.Hardly an encouraging precedent.
The Temporary continuations mentioned in the above Act expired on 31st December 1964 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Regulations
Btw, for those who think the present government's handling of news/information is shambolic read this - https://history.blog.gov.uk/2014/09/12/chaos-and-c...
So we'll be free of Covid-related nonsense by 2040?
Seems proportionate.
Milk quotas imposed as a wartime measure lasted into the late 80's and inhibited cheese manufacture by small producers = 40ish years
Interesting to see what measures this government clings on to " just in case".
Red 4 said:
Q. Guidance is guidance and law is law. However, could Ministerial statements be used to ascertain or persuade a court of what is reasonable (or not) ?
Yes, yes, we know guidance is not law but the guidance is provided by government.
I'm just wondering could guidance be used to bolster (NB - bolster) an argument that travelling a long way from home in order to "exercise" is unreasonable ?
FWIW, the last time that question was asked, BV said no, on the basis that the guidance was not statutory guidance, as it is for example in the Highway Code.Yes, yes, we know guidance is not law but the guidance is provided by government.
I'm just wondering could guidance be used to bolster (NB - bolster) an argument that travelling a long way from home in order to "exercise" is unreasonable ?
unident said:
RSTurboPaul said:
I do not have a link to the source but isaldiri has stated on the 'cure worse than the disease' thread that 11th January is the NHS's busiest day of the year usually.
Perhaps if Govt took that into account, rather than trying to maintain some bizarre narrative of 'controlling the virus', they wouldn't continue unnecessary restrictions all the way through summer (with Covid deaths in single digits per day and therefore a glut of hospital capacity that could be used to let SARS-CoV-2 spread a bit further with minimal NHS impacts) resulting in pushing the spread of infection back and into winter, where it could add to the usual annual winter pressures?
I mean, this is definitely the first year that the NHS has been 'overwhelmed' so they couldn't possible have foreseen such a thing...
And maybe if that had considered it, they could have set up some high-capacity, dedicated care facilities and intensively trained staff during the quiet summer period to man them in Winter? Perhaps naming them after a famous nurse??
And not set such a thing up initially at vast cost, end up not using them because the initial infection surge dropped off of its own accord (as pandemics do), mothball them, empty them out over summer, and then hurriedly have to refit them when the winter surge appeared while claiming they are definitely open for business (*cough*Hancock*cough*)?
Why do you insist on writing a thesis? It doesn’t make your point any more valid, not that I think your points are that valid anyway. Perhaps if Govt took that into account, rather than trying to maintain some bizarre narrative of 'controlling the virus', they wouldn't continue unnecessary restrictions all the way through summer (with Covid deaths in single digits per day and therefore a glut of hospital capacity that could be used to let SARS-CoV-2 spread a bit further with minimal NHS impacts) resulting in pushing the spread of infection back and into winter, where it could add to the usual annual winter pressures?
I mean, this is definitely the first year that the NHS has been 'overwhelmed' so they couldn't possible have foreseen such a thing...
And maybe if that had considered it, they could have set up some high-capacity, dedicated care facilities and intensively trained staff during the quiet summer period to man them in Winter? Perhaps naming them after a famous nurse??
And not set such a thing up initially at vast cost, end up not using them because the initial infection surge dropped off of its own accord (as pandemics do), mothball them, empty them out over summer, and then hurriedly have to refit them when the winter surge appeared while claiming they are definitely open for business (*cough*Hancock*cough*)?
I’ve highlighted one bit, because I’d like to know which country you’re referencing with the “Covid deaths in single digits per day” comment.
Edited by RSTurboPaul on Monday 22 February 14:49
RSTurboPaul said:
I’ve just read your comments again and the summary seems to be to let the virus run free in summer, because it’s not winter and that’s fine because not many were dying. I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but death is the absolute end of the chain. Along the way there are many touch points where the NHS is needed and could easily be overwhelmed. The plan has always been to slow the spread, not stop it, not eradicate, but slow it down and try to avoid the NHS being overwhelmed. The fact it hasn’t been overwhelmed is a sign of success. The plan wasn’t to run it to capacity and have as many people ill as we could treat. That would be ridiculous, but it seems to be the latest loony tunes approach that you’re peddling. unident said:
RSTurboPaul said:
I’ve just read your comments again and the summary seems to be to let the virus run free in summer, because it’s not winter and that’s fine because not many were dying. I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but death is the absolute end of the chain. Along the way there are many touch points where the NHS is needed and could easily be overwhelmed. The plan has always been to slow the spread, not stop it, not eradicate, but slow it down and try to avoid the NHS being overwhelmed. The fact it hasn’t been overwhelmed is a sign of success. The plan wasn’t to run it to capacity and have as many people ill as we could treat. That would be ridiculous, but it seems to be the latest loony tunes approach that you’re peddling. 
Edited by RSTurboPaul on Tuesday 23 February 01:29
Red 4 said:
Q. Guidance is guidance and law is law. However, could Ministerial statements be used to ascertain or persuade a court of what is reasonable (or not) ?
Yes, yes, we know guidance is not law but the guidance is provided by government.
I'm just wondering could guidance be used to bolster (NB - bolster) an argument that travelling a long way from home in order to "exercise" is unreasonable ?
I don't see that it matters whether it is or isn't. The excuse for leaving home has to be reasonable that's all. Now obviously if you drive a long way ostensibly for a short burst of exercise then this could be interpreted as the drive rather than the exercise being the reason for leaving home, thereby prompting the question as to whether a drive is a reasonable excuse for leaving home. But if you can satisfy the authorities that you are out for exercise then the distance is irrelevant. Only the reason for leaving home needs to be reasonable.Yes, yes, we know guidance is not law but the guidance is provided by government.
I'm just wondering could guidance be used to bolster (NB - bolster) an argument that travelling a long way from home in order to "exercise" is unreasonable ?
After all if you go out to collect a pizza then that is specifically included as a reasonable excuse. Even if you buy a pineapple pizza which many may regard as unreasonable that doesn't mean the reason for leaving home isn't reasonable.
Another example of using bullying to get there results. What has this Gov become?
https://goodlawproject.org/update/tomorrow-in-cour...
"after Government revealed it planned to spend an eye-watering £1 million defending the case."
They honestly dont care how they spend tax money.
https://goodlawproject.org/update/tomorrow-in-cour...
"after Government revealed it planned to spend an eye-watering £1 million defending the case."
They honestly dont care how they spend tax money.
carinaman said:
It's OK, Steve Baker MP is calling for a new Health Protection Act so all future power grabs and restrictions on our freedoms and liberties can be voted on by Parliament.
Isn't that how it's supposed to work already?
I think Steve is right on many of the virus issues, but, alas, he is too controversial for BJ/Nut Nut/The Chuckle Brothers etc, so I think his downfall into obscurity is almost guaranteed.Isn't that how it's supposed to work already?
Dr Jekyll said:
I don't see that it matters whether it is or isn't. The excuse for leaving home has to be reasonable that's all. Now obviously if you drive a long way ostensibly for a short burst of exercise then this could be interpreted as the drive rather than the exercise being the reason for leaving home, thereby prompting the question as to whether a drive is a reasonable excuse for leaving home. But if you can satisfy the authorities that you are out for exercise then the distance is irrelevant. Only the reason for leaving home needs to be reasonable.
After all if you go out to collect a pizza then that is specifically included as a reasonable excuse. Even if you buy a pineapple pizza which many may regard as unreasonable that doesn't mean the reason for leaving home isn't reasonable.
That was the way it was worded in the first set of regs back in March 2020 but they soon "Clarified" it to "Remove ambiguity". Currently, under tier 4, you need a reasonable excuse to leave OR be outside the place where you are living. So you would need to have a reasonable excuse for whatever you were doing. After all if you go out to collect a pizza then that is specifically included as a reasonable excuse. Even if you buy a pineapple pizza which many may regard as unreasonable that doesn't mean the reason for leaving home isn't reasonable.
Travel to exercise is not exercise, so technically it's not a an explicit listed reasonable excuse. Nor is travelling to shop or any of the other listed excuses; but it is nearly always implicit as how can you do anything if you can't travel to where you need to be to do it.
However if the journey becomes obviously unreasonable or unnecessary, then the distinction between the journey and the activity could properly come into it, that is not the same as there is a limit on distance as that would mean even if it was reasonable and necessary then it would still be an offence. However there could be an objective test applied and ultimately it could be for the person taking the journey to show that it amounted to a reasonable excuse.
C.V the reported cases of drivers being caught driving long distances to shop (Staffs to Bradford and Notts to London are 2 that come to mind).
RSTurboPaul said:
unident said:
RSTurboPaul said:
I’ve just read your comments again and the summary seems to be to let the virus run free in summer, because it’s not winter and that’s fine because not many were dying. I’m not sure if you’re aware of this, but death is the absolute end of the chain. Along the way there are many touch points where the NHS is needed and could easily be overwhelmed. The plan has always been to slow the spread, not stop it, not eradicate, but slow it down and try to avoid the NHS being overwhelmed. The fact it hasn’t been overwhelmed is a sign of success. The plan wasn’t to run it to capacity and have as many people ill as we could treat. That would be ridiculous, but it seems to be the latest loony tunes approach that you’re peddling. Edited by RSTurboPaul on Tuesday 23 February 01:29
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff