Lockdown For The Over 70

[browndmb]

Re the rules on lockdown for the over70 — are they allowed to go shopping for food? A couple next door go once a week to a supermarket and get enough supplies to last the week and that is their only outing. They keep in good health

[maggiebee]

Not looking for any praise Bobbi (but thank you). There are thousands of us doing this around the country and I salute each and every one of them. I keep very good health so do what I can.

[ABSpareEditor]

I have moved this thread into the category "Current Affairs".

[pastafreak]

But...who looks in current affairs? Maybe society and culture would be better. Just a thought.

[ABSpareEditor]

OK. I have moved this thread into the category "Society & Culture".

[pastafreak]

Thank you Ed :))

[dannyk13]

woofie.My original letter from the NHS identifying me as extremely valuable includes the following two passages:-
You should not leave your home
You should not go out for shopping, leisure or travel.
Would call that advice?

[lankeela]

Extremely valuable? Is that because you are saving money during lockdown?

[jno]

it's hard to know what to call all this, Dannyk. Early on, Hancock said the rules - however you characterise them - were instructions, not requests



Some seem to have the status of legal offences that bring instant fines, others don't. I think this is part of the general waffle surrounding Britain's response: nobody knows for sure what they're supposed to be doing, or who's got the authority to decide. (Watching Cummings' escapades is no help.) What you got in your letter certainly sound like instructions; but will anyone enforce them if you ignore them?

[dannyk13]

DOH ^vulnerable^ not valuable, although I am valuable(as the bank of Dad, grandad & great grandad)

[woofgang]

yes I would call it advice.....strong advice.

[Gromit]

The Guidelines are only Advice, and are not enfocible rules or laws. Not complying is not illegal, and you are not committing a criminal offence. Except the Government have given themselves discretionary powers to outlaw stuff on a whim. So whatever you do, you might falk foul of the Coronavirus Act 2020.

This Act allows the government the power to limit or suspend public gatherings, to detain individuals suspected to be infected by COVID-19, and to intervene or relax regulations in a range of sectors to limit transmission of the disease, ease the burden on public health services, and assist healthcare workers and the economically affected.

And that is where the confusion starts. You may be acting legally but not obey a new regulation.

[New Judge]

//You should not leave your home
You should not go out for shopping, leisure or travel.
Would call that advice?//

Yes I would. It's "should not" not "must not." The Highway Code illustrates the difference clearly. "Must/Must Not" is backed up by legislation; "Should/Should not" is advisory only.

But my point is that unless you follow the legislation as it is changed and published (as I do because I'm that way inclined) there is bound to be confusion between "Must Nots" and "Should Nots". This entire affair has been riddled with such confusion. There is a thread on another forum I use which is discussing the practice of some Train Operating Companies (TOCs) who insist that their services are for "essential travel only." There is not such stipulation in any legislation and they are acting illegally. They have no right to restrict their services in such a way. London's Mayor Khan tried it early on by declaring that TfL services were for "essential workers only" and he was told to remove such a declaration.

The line between instructions and advice has been deliberately blurred and there are still some people around who believe they are not permitted to venture beyond their front door. And that's disgraceful.

[Gromit]

NJ

In such an important circumstance, it should have been made abundantly clear, and idiot proof.
But as has been demonstrated many times, the Government themselves don’t understand their own diktats.

[woofgang]

Gromit, the Cornona Virus Act 2020 does not make any difference based on the age of adults.

[Gromit]

Woofgang.
It doesn’t.
The Government just say the over 70s (even very healthy ones), are strongly advised to "take particular care", but it doesn’t specify what that is. Which is why some older people are staying in, when they are allowed to go out.
Confusing.

[Cloverjo]

Yes, very confusing. I’ve been shopping for my 80 year old dad as we thought he wasn’t allowed out. I’ve been standing on the path 2 metres away to chat briefly.
Now we find it’s all fine and he could have gone out himself. We got a bit fed up with these ‘rules’ and ‘advice’ so I went inside his house to fix his computer today.

[andres]

If we had all carried on as normal in going out regardless of age I think that there would have been a lot more deaths.

[Apc2604]

I am over 70 with health issues so I have shielded. Not because of having a letter ( ì haven't)or taking advice Just because it's common sense. I would care if I never went into any shops any more. Shopping to me is so boring!

[New Judge]

//I would care if I never went into any shops any more.//

You might do if you had nothing left to eat or drink.

[Peter Pedant]

// I'm over 70 and I take as little notice of the lockdown as I can get away with. It's all cobblers.//

seems to be a Mank trait - the same up the road in a slum called Newton Heath
the only rule is that there are NO rules - - - BUT
mank is meant to a spike area and no one er knows why ...

do the shopping and follow the rules - specifically when queuing to pay

those trying to shield are pretty stir-crazy by now