COVID-19 — Coronavirus

[Tim of the Oak]

 

[Rammy Blue]

That was enjoyable watching Piers get shot down and to look like a prick by David Davies and John Caudwell. So now he changes tact to just create a load of straw man arguments once they are off screen.

 

[inchy14]

If a handful of posters on this forum are arguing over the interpretation of the rules then by definition the rules are not clear and that lack of clarity extrapolated over a nation of 60 odd million people will not end well.

Although given we have the highest death total in Europe I think the possibility of this situation ‘ending well’ is pretty much fucked.

It’s not a handful though, it’s one of the usual suspects being utterly obtuse regarding it, what @Rammy Blue is doing is perfectly acceptable and there’s no ambiguity at all.

 

[inchy14]

Read what hancock said,at least he was clear on those two bits,it is no skin off my nose but dont call me thick and stupid if you can't do what he has told him to do

Then stop acting thick or stupid.
He’s taken necessary items to a vulnerable relative, he’s not been in the same household, he’s dropped goods off.

 

[meltonblue]

Just to be clear, as I’ve seen a few people refer to it as guidance, the reason people are calling for more clarity on certain aspects is it’s as much a legal document. It isn’t just about making sure people are following guidance, it’s that they aren’t breaking any laws.

I don’t envy the police at all right now.

 

[Tim of the Oak]

The Labour spokespeople whom were caught off guard by Rishi Sinai extending the 80 percent furlough scheme until October, really need to change their script. The likes of Annaliese Dodds rattling on about when the scheme will end etc (as if it is inadequate) is just amateur hour, especially when the package of support is likely to see our Country £300bn in debt.

Rather then pretending they weren’t caught off guard. Just change the record.

 

[Nightmare Walking]

Is there any news on those vulnerable/aged/shielded self isolating for 12 weeks?
We are currently looking after two people, doing the shopping prescriptions etc.
What was the original end date?
I'm not saying at the end that's it, they can come out. I just haven't heard any plans/instructions for them etc.

It is currently due to end on the 30th June mate. I have had a txt off the government. If I can get down off these seroids and get myself well, then I will be going back to work on that date. I am only shielded due to my medication. Once I can get it down and If I manage to come out of this flare, then I should be ok. For other people I expect it will run into next year.
No news provided as of yet but the first phase of shielding is definitely due to end on 30th June.

 

[Chippy_boy]

To be honest every country has dealt with it in the exact same way, we've all been blindsided by it but that's because the virus and its spread was so poorly understood. Back in March we were all sat in our houses thinking this wasn't a threat, I was one of them. Yet meanwhile it was spreading around us like wildfire, far beyond predictions.

I can remember watching a massive military operation of planes landing at Brize Norton only a couple of months ago with people led off by folk in Hazmat suits! Little did they know that in all likeliness the greater threat was sat on the tube in London where it was being passed around person to person with ease.

They reckon 10% have had it in London, 10%!!! That's 6000 infected in a capacity Etihad.

Basically the lockdown was imposed too slowly however that is the nature of this virus. The Asian countries are ahead of us on this because they've done it before, they're used to outbreaks, wearing masks in public and abiding by rules which includes the use of apps etc for state tracking. Here the first response to a COVID-19 tracking app is an army of lawyers preventing it's use because of privacy laws!

I just don't think there was anything anyone could of done without the gift of foresight. Obviously the politically entwined are more than happy to point out how a Labour government or whatever would have this all nipped in the bud by now.... Yes that's a Labour government that would be advised to do the same thing by the same scientific community advising this government.

There's lots I agree with here but some of the observations / judgements we can make now are not hindsight. Many, many people saw this coming ages back. Even in early March, what was about to unfold in the UK was obvious and yet nothing was done, no actions taken until much later. And the wearing of masks in public is so obviously a necessity and yet we belligerently refused to accept it. These two mistakes alone have probably resulted in thousands of unnecessary deaths - perhaps tens of thousands. Our having more deaths than Italy, considering the advance warning we had, is really shameful.

How brilliant do you have to be to see that our late and weak lockdown measures compared to France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Denmark, Australia, New Zealand etc etc etc are the reasons we've fared worse? I mean it's obvious isn't it. And now we are coming out of lockdown too soon as well. This is also obvious.

 

[shemnel]

Just to be clear, as I’ve seen a few people refer to it as guidance, the reason people are calling for more clarity on certain aspects is it’s as much a legal document. It isn’t just about making sure people are following guidance, it’s that they aren’t breaking any laws.

I don’t envy the police at all right now.

true enough, guidance backed up by legal consequences is an odd mixture

 

[Mon Autre]

exactly what my second point is about - the guidance doc does not say whether it is you and you alone that meets one other person (and vice versa) or if it is your household that gets to meet one other person. If it's the former, that's actually pretty clear (but sadly quite restrictive, but there we are) but if it's the latter then you can get the permutations i'm talking about. Just a few more words in that extracted para would have helped.

It's definitely the former. If somebody can't meet more than one person from outside of their household then any meet up that involves your mum meeting you AND your wife, is in breach of the guidance.