Coronavirus - how is it/has it affected you?

[Swinglowandslow]

The new variant is more transmissible, certainly, but transmissibility is based on 2 elements, one the virus reaching you and second, the virus attaching, as it were. The social distancing rules are intended to prevent the first of those. The second is a lot to do with your host immunity and resistance, and an element of dumb luck.

There is no evidence the new variant can leap further through the air. Outside remains pretty safe, though, and I would imagine a windswept hilltop is safer again. Proximity and duration are also important. It seemed from the reports, though, that if these two were walking near their homes, the cops would not have been interested. The variable which caused the trouble was the 5 mile drive to wherever it was. I can't see that 5 mile journey caused any risk. If it did, sending cops in multiple cars to lean on them was also a major risk.

Thanks for the explanation. Not saying you are incorrect, but wasn't SD of 2 metres to do with how far "droplets" could travel ( still air). I am wondering if "aerosol" effect hasn't been considered as fully as maybe it should.
On a frosty morning, breath is "seen" and I wonder if breathing each other's air( as opposed to droplets) isn't a vehicle for the new variant?
I know I prefer to err on the side of caution and treat it as if it was.

I agree that in this instance in Derbyshire the question was the five miles.
The authorities were wrong in talking of "you should exercise locally, and that is in your village,part of town etc etc..". Too vague for everyone.
Not really fair on public nor Police.
However, if it was properly delineated, say 2 miles, then a) everyone would know where they stood, and b) beauty spots would not get inundated with numbers, which, as I've suggested, could help the spread .

Edit. Somehow frosty became Friday?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Touché but I don’t continually whine about it

Edited to add: my whine was about people going against gov advice where as yours appear to be about people operating within gov advise as was pointed out by a few posters.

ah - we get into the realms of operating within and outside of gov advice.

Anyway - the Home Sec. is currently being very clear. The basic rule is to stay at home and that we should not be looking to act within the limits - she is also clear that we the public fully understand the 'stay at home' message and that if we have to we should only go out locally.

I'll add that in truth I'm not sure that there is anything against gov advice in respect of couples shopping together.

But therein lies the problem.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

During the 2020 version, the National Police Chiefs Council issued some sensible advice to local forces which helped get things both proportionate and consistent.

Interestingly, the current guidelines say "Stay local means stay in the village, town, or part of the city where you live.". Therefore the same Met Commissioner now considers the Olympic Park to be in the same part of London as Number 10 Downing Street. That is exactly the sort of comment that undermines public trust and adherence to the rules, so perhaps she should stay quiet.

When she saw the rules or guidelines which you quote above, she should have been on that phone to Downing Street saying that it wasn't good enough saying that. The police needed properly defined laws that both they and the public understand.
People think that laws are complicated in the way they are written. They are not really. I was taught many years ago that well written laws are written not so much to be understood, but so that they cannot be misunderstood!
I.e get rid of the "wriggle room"?

 

[JustOne]

I agree that in this instance in Derbyshire the question was the five miles.
The authorities were wrong in talking of "you should exercise locally, and that is in your village,part of town etc etc..". Too vague for everyone.
Not really fair on public nor Police.
However, if it was properly delineated, say 2 miles, then a) everyone would know where they stood, and b) beauty spots would not get inundated with numbers, which, as I've suggested, could help the spread .

I read something (and agree) from the Welsh police that said "exercise should start and finish from your front door"...... how hard could that be to understand?

I think ANYONE using a car should be fined, anyone more than 2 mile walk from their home should be fined. It's exercise NOT a day out.

 

[Old Skier]

ah - we get into the realms of operating within and outside of gov advice.

Anyway - the Home Sec. is currently being very clear. The basic rule is to stay at home and that we should not be looking to act within the limits - she is also clear that we the public fully understand the 'stay at home' message and that if we have to we should only go out locally.

I'll add that in truth I'm not sure that there is anything against gov advice in respect of couples shopping together.

But therein lies the problem.

There is advice on shopping and some stores are at last getting back to ensuring it happens so do I take it you have broken this rule.

 

[road2ruin]

Homeschooling went better today. I still feel like I'm working 3 jobs from home but it's progress.

Good news. We did PE in the garden today as it was dry. It was an extended session from 11am through until close.

 

[PJ87]

Good news. We did PE in the garden today as it was dry. It was an extended session from 11am through until close.

I locked the kids in the garden and said it was a fire drill

 

[Jimaroid]

Good news. We did PE in the garden today as it was dry. It was an extended session from 11am through until close.

Sounds great! We managed a little lunchtime walk to see the nearby ducks and she did PE with Joe Wicks whilst I was back at my desk on Zoom calls. Not complaining (much) but do feel like I'm missing out on moments for quality time with her.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

The rule or law should be clear and easy to understand, not subjective.

It's not for Police or their Chiefs to interpret, that's a Police state.

I wasn't commenting on Police interpretation. Like you say,it shouldn't and mainly doesn't exist.
Lately we have had Police chiefs trying to justify not enforcing certain laws fully. That action or lack of is never straightforward.
But as for the latest "restrictions, I blame the police chiefs for not having the strength to tell Downing Street that the laws have to be watertight. It's no good issuing advice, and then expecting enforcement of that
That's what you are talking about, I believe. Police chiefs advising how their officers are to enforce or not enforce "laws" that turn out not to be laws.
As you have asked( think it was you) - What is local?
That is a term not to be used in a law. Suitable for a weather forecast maybe?
However, it has always been the case that the police can have discretion whether to enforce a law . As I've said, the police are not being a judge and jury- all the action taken is able to be contested in Court.
What is not desirable is asking a police officer to do something that he cannot back up. By that I mean , e.g. that if a police officer " asks" someone to refrain, and they ignore him- so we get to "Look, I've advised you that that is against the law, stop doing it or else"- he has to be able to do the ".or else".
He just can't turn , walk away as if having been told to .....off
So, he acts - and then finds he doesn't have the power of law that he thought he had. The "law" he was enforcing turns out to be guidance or advice!!

What is needed is the Police chiefs to peruse these "laws" and then demand that they be made into proper laws that are clear and enforceable.
Perhaps they have , but I doubt it.

 

[Bunkermagnet]

I wasn't commenting on Police interpretation. Like you say,it shouldn't and mainly doesn't exist.
Lately we have had Police chiefs trying to justify not enforcing certain laws fully. That action or lack of is never straightforward.
But as for the latest "restrictions, I blame the police chiefs for not having the strength to tell Downing Street that the laws have to be watertight. It's no good issuing advice, and then expecting enforcement of that
That's what you are talking about, I believe. Police chiefs advising how their officers are to enforce or not enforce "laws" that turn out not to be laws.
As you have asked( think it was you) - What is local?
That is a term not to be used in a law. Suitable for a weather forecast maybe?
However, it has always been the case that the police can have discretion whether to enforce a law . As I've said, the police are not being a judge and jury- all the action taken is able to be contested in Court.
What is not desirable is asking a police officer to do something that he cannot back up. By that I mean , e.g. that if a police officer " asks" someone to refrain, and they ignore him- so we get to "Look, I've advised you that that is against the law, stop doing it or else"- he has to be able to do the ".or else".
He just can't turn , walk away as if having been told to .....off
So, he acts - and then finds he doesn't have the power of law that he thought he had. The "law" he was enforcing turns out to be guidance or advice!!

What is needed is the Police chiefs to peruse these "laws" and then demand that they be made into proper laws that are clear and enforceable.
Perhaps they have , but I doubt it.

Perhaps what you mean is we expect the police to jail everyone who breaks those rules, except when it's us and we then claim police state/brutaility.

 

[PJ87]

This year is defo taking its toll now

I saw a friend put up pic of his kids 4th bday on FB , I was like wow she must be year above my daughter thought they were same year

Then I remembered it's 2021 not 2020

 

[Swinglowandslow]

I don't know what these covid penalties are. However I received a Section 59 for ludicrous reasons that were completely untrue. And even though I had a dash cam and telemetry of my driving, there was no way to appeal.

That was a semi permanent mark on my car that made me get pulled over stupid amounts following, and if I received another one my car would have been seized.

I have looked up section 59, ( I was unaware of it). I see your reason for annoyance as I cannot see where you are allowed to demand an examination of the allegations in Court. I believe you should be allowed to.
However, this Act would have been passed in law by Parliament, so it is not the police who decided this to be law.
Have you considered contacting your MP about it?

 

[Blue in Munich]

No bashing, but having dealt with it first hand for 30 years, my view will be formed, or clouded if you prefer, by my experience.

Not Poilce bashing as i believe they are in an impossible position, however your statement does nothing to help suggesting , without proof they were lying or exaggerating

And are you, without proof, not accepting every word of their account from a newspaper with a known agenda? I'd suggest I've done no more than you there, just fallen the other side of the fence.

in which case causes further angst towards officers doing an impossible job implementing these "guidelines" ,i am not aware that they are actual laws but happy to be proven wrong.

There has been an awful lot of legislation passed, in very short order, in circumstances where the police will have great trouble keeping fully abreast of it. However if FPN's were issued I find it difficult to believe that there is not a statute offence; how it is worded, & how dependent on the guidance & its interpretation the offence is, I have no idea.

If it is as stated by the Police , why not release bodycam evidence ? If indeed they were equipped with them ?

Because it would potentially prejudice any trial, if indeed it was worn? At the time they still had the option of contesting the FPN in court. And how would the public take to a trial being conducted by media? I'd suggest that they'd be even worse off than they currently are.

Surely a word with them would have sufficed instead of using a sledgehammer to crack , in this case , a small nut ?

This is a preferred tactic in a society that is policed by consent, however it is dependant on a couple of things; the ability of the recipient of "the word" to listen to said word, and the ability to understand that it is usually not a negotiable offer, but very much take it or leave it. Quite a lot of the weekend's evening customers were people who had been given "a word", but were either deaf, stupid or some combination of the two. The offence used to be affectionately known amongst law enforcement practitioners as "talking when they should have been listening". Maybe the ladies were offered a word but declined it?

And if indeed the officer classes a coffee\tea as a picnic ,, well we all need to step back and consider what we are doing and if indeed it is in the guidelines .

I'm sure the officer doesn't consider it a picnic. I wouldn't be surprised if a throwaway comment was made, probably during a word that was being had but not listened to, which has now been turned against them. It wouldn't be the first time as I can attest.

As i said i am not anti Police but sometimes you wonder what goes through some officers heads and this gives other officers a bit of a bad rep .

I await the bashing ,,,

I'm not averse to criticism if it is justified; I didn't always get it right, nor did all of my colleagues, but we did get an awful lot more right than wrong, and a hell of a lot more right than the Daily Mail will ever give us credit for. And this one just doesn't ring true to me. Happy to agree to disagree.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

So the summary today was a bit mixed

Number of cases dropping

Number of deaths increased

Vaccine centres opening up

Still on track to be at the level they want in terms of vaccine numbers

45000 fixed penalty notices given

Front line workers to have the vaccine after the vunerable

 

[Swinglowandslow]

S

Perhaps what you mean is we expect the police to jail everyone who breaks those rules, except when it's us and we then claim police state/brutaility.

Sorry, Bunker, I'm not sure I understand what your comment is meant to say in relation to what I wrote.?
I can only reiterate that about the subject of what we can and can't do re Covid ( and what is expected of the police in respect of it), the government should make laws and not guidance. And Police Chiefs should demand that.

 

[larmen]

Homeschooling went better today. I still feel like I'm working 3 jobs from home but it's progress.

What age are you ‘teaching’?

I ‘teach’ reception, and we are having daily phonics and math session to complete (as much as we can).
Offstead rates me appalling ;-(

 

[Tashyboy]

What age are you ‘teaching’?

I ‘teach’ reception, and we are having daily phonics and math session to complete (as much as we can).
Offstead rates me appalling ;-(

you have my utmost sympathies and admiration teaching reception. For anyone that don’t know it’s like trying to teach 30 forummers inc me.

 

[Tashyboy]

Sky news story just Come out. Don’t know how to share the link.

Quote
“Pressure on the NHS will not start to reduce until March, ministers have been warned - amid fears that new infections could be running at more than 250,000 a day.”
“Downing Street has been told by government scientists that the rollout of the vaccines is unlikely to cause the mortality rate to decline until later in February”.

And yet later in the story Boris is under pressure from back benchers to come out of the lockdown on march 8th.How do they know what the death and infection rates will be on March 8th?

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Sky news story just Come out. Don’t know how to share the link.

Quote
“Pressure on the NHS will not start to reduce until March, ministers have been warned - amid fears that new infections could be running at more than 250,000 a day.”
“Downing Street has been told by government scientists that the rollout of the vaccines is unlikely to cause the mortality rate to decline until later in February”.

And yet later in the story Boris is under pressure from back benchers to come out of the lockdown on march 8th.How do they know what the death and infection rates will be on March 8th?

I think you mean this one https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19...re-on-nhs-may-not-reduce-until-march-12186135

To be honest that matches what we've been planning for and our current prediction given current numbers and trend is we will not have scaled back into a normal 21 bed unit until Easter

 

[Ethan]

Sky news story just Come out. Don’t know how to share the link.

Quote
“Pressure on the NHS will not start to reduce until March, ministers have been warned - amid fears that new infections could be running at more than 250,000 a day.”
“Downing Street has been told by government scientists that the rollout of the vaccines is unlikely to cause the mortality rate to decline until later in February”.

And yet later in the story Boris is under pressure from back benchers to come out of the lockdown on march 8th.How do they know what the death and infection rates will be on March 8th?

It will be a miracle if pressure on the NHS eases by then. Once the Covid numbers drop, a large pent up demand for lots of other healthcare will burst forward.