Emergency legislation - information and commentary

[yellowjack]

Bobtherallyfan said:

The person from Poole drove on a 60 mile round trip, past literally hundreds of open spaces, past miles of coastal paths, because they wanted to walk in Lyndhurst....despite the lack of implicit legislation, that is still simply selfish and idiotic. And yes, most of us do hate Lycra clad cyclists wobbling all over our lovely driving roads.....it’s bad enough having to drive at 40mph in the forest, without having to stare at some fat cyclist’s arse.

"selfish and idiotic"? WTF? Are you one of the New Forest NIMBY lunatics then? Because those idiots are a special kind of special. They want ANPR used to ensure that only local cars can use New Forest car parks. Completely blind to the fact that if they are New Forest residents then THEY should be exercising from their own front doors and not "picking and choosing which bits of the Forest are nicest to walk in". If Poole residents can't drive there to enjoy the National Park, then ALL of the car parks should be locked shut. As for "selfish and idiotic"? Do one fella. There is nothing idiotic about driving somewhere COMPLETELY ISOLATED from other road users in your own tin box, then going for a walk in thousands of hectares of open countryside. The distance driven is completely irrelevant to the risk of spreading/catching a virus. And the irony is that you only have to look at the Echo's "letters to the editor" page to see complaints from Poole residents that the promenade is "scary" and "too busy", and assertions that "at least three quarters of people weren't local". How they work those numbers out I don't know, but perhaps those Poole residents fined for daring to travel to Lyndhurst were just trying to find a less crowded place than Poole sea front to get some exercise.

As for the frothy-mouthed, swivel-eyed, cyclist-hating loons in the New Forest? Yup, we've seen their genius before. Apparently they don't like large organised cycle events. Partly because such events disturb the wildlife. So they throw tacks onto the road. Which is a brilliant idea for the local wildlife, which now not only has to run the gauntlet of marauding aggressive cyclists, but has to tiptoe between tacks laid by event saboteurs lest they get sharp metal objects stuck in their paws/hooves. Utter morons. Oh, and what was the other argument for not allowing cycle events? Oh, yes. Ambulances and fire engines would be prevented from getting to emergencies on the route. Completely ignoring the fact that, when faced with a big red truck with lights and sirens, any number of cyclists can dismount and carry their chosen conveyance onto the grass verge. Try picking up an L200, a horsebox, or a Range Rover and carrying it out of the way of an oncoming fire engine. And that's before we get to the financial implications to local businesses of discouraging tourists. New Forest NIMBYs just make themselves a complete laughing stock every time they wipe away their incessant dribbling and speak out on Forest matters.

And getting away from territorial pissing matches for a moment - has anyone dug around into the current Covid figures? THREE cases in my ward, and numbers plummeting all the time. It's about time the shrieking harridans who so love their locals only lockdowns actually woke up and realised that Covid isn't sneaking about ambushing random people. It strikes those who either aren't following sensible precautions themselves, or who have friends and family who can't follow basic hygiene protocols. It certainly isn't leaping athletically from one walker (or cyclist) to another across wide Forest fire roads...

[blueg33]

Bobtherallyfan said:

yellowjack said:

I don't know. But my wife was reading some bits from the internet earlier. I didn't read them myself but the gist is that 100s of cars were turned away from Lulworth and Durdle Door at the weekend, and apparently someone (from Poole) was fined for going to the New Forest. Which stinks.

Me? I've grown tired of playing the game with the guidelines, and decided to go cycling today. A lovely 100 km/62 mile ride right into the heart of the New Forest National NIMBY Park, and the only plod I saw the whole way round were a couple of chaps in an X5 ARV parked just off the A35 Christchurch bypass.

The person from Poole drove on a 60 mile round trip, past literally hundreds of open spaces, past miles of coastal paths, because they wanted to walk in Lyndhurst....despite the lack of implicit legislation, that is still simply selfish and idiotic. And yes, most of us do hate Lycra clad cyclists wobbling all over our lovely driving roads.....it’s bad enough having to drive at 40mph in the forest, without having to stare at some fat cyclist’s arse.

Explain why its selfish? Who is going to catch Covid from a couple in their car whether they have driven 5 miles or 50 miles?

[unident]

blueg33 said:

Explain why its selfish? Who is going to catch Covid from a couple in their car whether they have driven 5 miles or 50 miles?

Exactly. Who is going to spread the Brazilian variant when they’ve travelled 1000 miles in a plane

On a slightly more serious note, the whole point is that by travelling 50 miles they are in a new area and if infected could be spreading it in a previously unaffected area. I know there are some “ifs” in there, but that’s the as;etc I’ve spoken of previously about social responsibility, that many on here scoff at, because it’s “all about the letter of the law and nothing else”

[Oceanrower]

unident said:

blueg33 said:

Explain why its selfish? Who is going to catch Covid from a couple in their car whether they have driven 5 miles or 50 miles?

Exactly. Who is going to spread the Brazilian variant when they’ve travelled 1000 miles in a plane

On a slightly more serious note, the whole point is that by travelling 50 miles they are in a new area and if infected could be spreading it in a previously unaffected area. I know there are some “ifs” in there, but that’s the as;etc I’ve spoken of previously about social responsibility, that many on here scoff at, because it’s “all about the letter of the law and nothing else”

But suppose they’re uninflected and drive 50 miles from a high infection area to a lower one. Then they’ve less chance of catching it and passing it on

Sounds very responsible to me...

[blueg33]

unident said:

blueg33 said:

Explain why its selfish? Who is going to catch Covid from a couple in their car whether they have driven 5 miles or 50 miles?

Exactly. Who is going to spread the Brazilian variant when they’ve travelled 1000 miles in a plane

On a slightly more serious note, the whole point is that by travelling 50 miles they are in a new area and if infected could be spreading it in a previously unaffected area. I know there are some “ifs” in there, but that’s the as;etc I’ve spoken of previously about social responsibility, that many on here scoff at, because it’s “all about the letter of the law and nothing else”

If you are going for a walk - how are you spreading Covid? Not sure a stroll in the new forest is a threat

Utilising a similar argument argument to that cited above - officers stopping people probably have more likelihood of spreading it than members of the public purely because they are in contact with more people.

Of course social responsibility is a factor, but the law enables people to make their own judgements on that because it is silent. You cannot and should not fine people because their judgement doesn't align with someone else's unless their judgement takes them outside of the law.

I saw a clip last week where a police officer said to a member of the public "I want to check your thinking" - clearly not a reader of Orwell

[unident]

Oceanrower said:

But suppose they’re uninflected and drive 50 miles from a high infection area to a lower one. Then they’ve less chance of catching it and passing it on

Sounds very responsible to me...

Not really, they’re going back to the high infection area at the end of the day.

[unident]

blueg33 said:

If you are going for a walk - how are you spreading Covid? Not sure a stroll in the new forest is a threat

Utilising a similar argument argument to that cited above - officers stopping people probably have more likelihood of spreading it than members of the public purely because they are in contact with more people.

Of course social responsibility is a factor, but the law enables people to make their own judgements on that because it is silent. You cannot and should not fine people because their judgement doesn't align with someone else's unless their judgement takes them outside of the law.

I saw a clip last week where a police officer said to a member of the public "I want to check your thinking" - clearly not a reader of Orwell

I’m not suggesting fining them, I’m saying that there’s more to being a member of society than just sticking to the letter of the law.

We don’t know if this hypothetical walk was on their own, in which case there’s a zero chance of transmission, or amongst hordes of people that could (note could) mean that they are either spreading, or catching it. The point is that I don’t have an issue with people applying common sense and acting responsibly, but most people seem to be lacking in that regard. As much as you’d like to think you’re just the man on the street, the reality is you’re not and the way you act is different from the rest of the country whether better or worse.

[Oceanrower]

unident said:

Oceanrower said:

But suppose they’re uninflected and drive 50 miles from a high infection area to a lower one. Then they’ve less chance of catching it and passing it on

Sounds very responsible to me...

Not really, they’re going back to the high infection area at the end of the day.

Yes. But the longer they’re out of the high infection area the less chance of catching it so longer walk and driving slowly would be best...

[unident]

Oceanrower said:

Yes. But the longer they’re out of the high infection area the less chance of catching it so longer walk and driving slowly would be best...

You’re pushing your logic beyond its limits now.

[carinaman]

unident said:

Oceanrower said:

But suppose they’re uninflected and drive 50 miles from a high infection area to a lower one. Then they’ve less chance of catching it and passing it on

Sounds very responsible to me...

Not really, they’re going back to the high infection area at the end of the day.

Imagine a police officer in a low infection area, say Devon, travelling to a relatively high infection area, like the West Midlands, to attend a month long course with other police officers from other parts of the Country, and all the attendees of that month long course returning home to their different geographic regions at weekends.

How are those police officers that travel to attend such a course doing anything different or anything more, or less, likely to spread the contagion?

Would there be some National Decision Making Model use or Cost Benefit Analysis to weigh up the importance of that Course, the importance of running that Course this year during this global 'pandemic' and the risks associated by keeping those officers together at the same site for a month rather than going home each weekend that may seem to increase the travelling, that the public aren't supposed to be doing, and spreading the killer virus?

If any of those police officers attending any such Course in the West Midlands caught the killer Covid while in the West Midlands and returned to their home area at weekends how many of their family could they infect with Covid and how many people could they in turn infect?

[Greendubber]

carinaman said:

unident said:

Oceanrower said:

But suppose they’re uninflected and drive 50 miles from a high infection area to a lower one. Then they’ve less chance of catching it and passing it on

Sounds very responsible to me...

Not really, they’re going back to the high infection area at the end of the day.

Imagine a police officer in a low infection area, say Devon, travelling to a relatively high infection area, like the West Midlands, to attend a month long course with other police officers from other parts of the Country, and all the attendees of that month long course returning home to their different geographic regions at weekends?

How are those police officers that travel to attend such a course doing anything different or anything more, or less, likely to spread the contagion?

Would there be some National Decision Making Model use or Cost benefit Analysis to weigh up the importance of that Course, the importance of running that Course this year during this global 'pandemic' and the risks associated by keeping those officers together at the same site for a month rather than going home each weekend that may seem to increase the travelling, that the public aren't supposed to be doing, and spreading the killer virus?

If any of those police officers attending any such Course in the West Midlands caught the killer Covid while in the West Midlands and returned to their home area at weekends how many of their family could they infect with Covid and how many people could they in turn infect?

Courses in those circumstances aren't happening and no, its nothing to do with the NDM

[carinaman]

Greendubber said:

Courses in those circumstances aren't happening and no, its nothing to do with the NDM

Thanks for the reply.

I am sure all Courses could be delivered online E-Learning, NCALT etc.

[unident]

carinaman said:

Imagine a police officer in a low infection area, say Devon, travelling to a relatively high infection area, like the West Midlands, to attend a month long course with other police officers from other parts of the Country, and all the attendees of that month long course returning home to their different geographic regions at weekends.

How are those police officers that travel to attend such a course doing anything different or anything more, or less, likely to spread the contagion?

Would there be some National Decision Making Model use or Cost Benefit Analysis to weigh up the importance of that Course, the importance of running that Course this year during this global 'pandemic' and the risks associated by keeping those officers together at the same site for a month rather than going home each weekend that may seem to increase the travelling, that the public aren't supposed to be doing, and spreading the killer virus?

If any of those police officers attending any such Course in the West Midlands caught the killer Covid while in the West Midlands and returned to their home area at weekends how many of their family could they infect with Covid and how many people could they in turn infect?

The main point has been answered, but you are tedious with your hyperbolic comments, pretending to be humour. “killer Covid”, as much as you mock I’m sure the 120k+ deaths are quite important to those affected by it. No doubt I’m a snowflake for thinking that.

[yellowjack]

unident said:

The main point has been answered, but you are tedious with your hyperbolic comments, pretending to be humour. “killer Covid”, as much as you mock I’m sure the 120k+ deaths are quite important to those affected by it. No doubt I’m a snowflake for thinking that.

[carinaman]

unident said:

The main point has been answered, but you are tedious with your hyperbolic comments, pretending to be humour. “killer Covid”, as much as you mock I’m sure the 120k+ deaths are quite important to those affected by it. No doubt I’m a snowflake for thinking that.

I am not sure locking down the rest of the country and the financial expense and the impacts on the lives and futures of others is proportionate.

The Flu kills people with co-morbidities every year.

[unident]

carinaman said:

I am not sure locking down the rest of the country and the financial expense and the impacts on the lives and futures of others is proportionate.

The Flu kills people with co-morbidities every year.

Ring a ring of roses (yes I know the history)

Let’s go round again

The circle of life

We aren’t the only country to do it. We had a way to fight flu, we didn’t with coronavirus

Edited by unident on Wednesday 3rd March 13:58

[Greendubber]

carinaman said:

Greendubber said:

Courses in those circumstances aren't happening and no, its nothing to do with the NDM

Thanks for the reply.

I am sure all Courses could be delivered online E-Learning, NCALT etc.

No, not at all. You can't teach someone to shoot an SLP or become a licensed search officer remotely.

[MYOB]

Can't find anything in the legislation but are people allowed to visit elderly parents who have just been informed they only have a few months to live?

I've told my mother to go and visit her mum who is dying but my mother is saying she's not allowed.

The grandmother is at home at the moment and is 2 hours away.

Grateful if someone could signpost me to the specific legislation on this matter please.

Thanks.

[MYOB]

MYOB said:

Can't find anything in the legislation but are people allowed to visit elderly parents who have just been informed they only have a few months to live?

I've told my mother to go and visit her mum who is dying but my mother is saying she's not allowed.

The grandmother is at home at the moment and is 2 hours away.

Grateful if someone could signpost me to the specific legislation on this matter please.

Thanks.

Found the legislation, thanks anyway

[carinaman]

Are the Lockdowns, or curfews, despotic?:

https://unherd.com/2021/03/lord-sumption-civil-dis...

Link for an interview with Lord Sumption.