ChatterBank2 mins ago
Covid Easing?
40 Answers
Today’s reports suggest covid hospitalisations are slowing (albeit very slightly). Does this mean that the lockdown is beginning to take effect?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by eve1974. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//Clarion, your point about visors is good, why then i this not being enforced?//
Possibly because like a great deal in the government’s constant attempts to enhance their legislation by providing conflicting guidance, the legislation says no such thing as “ A face visor or shield may be worn in addition to a face covering but not instead of one. This is because face visors or shields do not adequately cover the nose and mouth.” The legislation simply says this when providing interpretation of the law:
“face covering” means a covering of any type which covers a person’s nose and mouth”
It doesn’t say anything about “adequately” (so there is no need for a court to rule on what is adequate and what is not). It just says “covers”. Provided it is large enough a visor will cover the wearer’s nose and mouth. Once again, the government will wail “Ah, but that’s not what we meant.” That being the case they should legislate for what they mean and not expect people to read their minds.
Possibly because like a great deal in the government’s constant attempts to enhance their legislation by providing conflicting guidance, the legislation says no such thing as “ A face visor or shield may be worn in addition to a face covering but not instead of one. This is because face visors or shields do not adequately cover the nose and mouth.” The legislation simply says this when providing interpretation of the law:
“face covering” means a covering of any type which covers a person’s nose and mouth”
It doesn’t say anything about “adequately” (so there is no need for a court to rule on what is adequate and what is not). It just says “covers”. Provided it is large enough a visor will cover the wearer’s nose and mouth. Once again, the government will wail “Ah, but that’s not what we meant.” That being the case they should legislate for what they mean and not expect people to read their minds.
It's reported by top experts that Gulls are suffering badly in the lockdown - most have had little or no chips for months which is damaging to their plumage and hence flying ability, plus a lack of ice cream has affected their eyesight...we must act quickly to avert tragedy, so accordingly I have set up a charity called "Gullable" to save these endangered creatures from extinction. Hopefully we can have up to fifty shops open within two months, depending on the level of volunteers. I will put details in mid-afternoon TV ads just as soon as I get my SPECIAL Grant through from Mr Sunak, so keep part of your pension aside and watch for details of how to contribute. Meantime you may also want to consider leaving a legacy to this fine cause.
Nb. A donation of some nice central London offices would also be appreciated.
Nb. A donation of some nice central London offices would also be appreciated.
//Sounds like a waffle on a common sense issue to me!!//
I'd agree - provided people were not threatened with criminal sanctions for not breaking the law. If you like the idea of being landed with a fixed penalty for complying with the law and doing nothing illegal then good luck to you. That's what happened to the two ladies in Derbyshire a week or so back and I didn't find it very funny. In fact I found it rather disturbing.
I'd agree - provided people were not threatened with criminal sanctions for not breaking the law. If you like the idea of being landed with a fixed penalty for complying with the law and doing nothing illegal then good luck to you. That's what happened to the two ladies in Derbyshire a week or so back and I didn't find it very funny. In fact I found it rather disturbing.
//I'd agree - provided people were not threatened with criminal sanctions for not breaking the law. If you like the idea of being landed with a fixed penalty for complying with the law and doing nothing illegal then good luck to you. That's what happened to the two ladies in Derbyshire a week or so back and I didn't find it very funny. In fact I found it rather disturbing/
There are more people wearing visors than taking a 5 mile drive for excercise surely you cant seriously suggest a person wearing a visor is likely to be stopped can you?? You waffle on about the police and laws and quote this and that, the police have a very difficult job as it is enforcing this and people partying at all hours certainly doesnt help or ease the situation, people need to adhere to the rules of lockdown and protect and help the NHS, I dont see you condemning law breakers or people not adhering to what they should be doing!!
There are more people wearing visors than taking a 5 mile drive for excercise surely you cant seriously suggest a person wearing a visor is likely to be stopped can you?? You waffle on about the police and laws and quote this and that, the police have a very difficult job as it is enforcing this and people partying at all hours certainly doesnt help or ease the situation, people need to adhere to the rules of lockdown and protect and help the NHS, I dont see you condemning law breakers or people not adhering to what they should be doing!!
Chris ///However the number of new cases reported each day is now falling, suggesting that the lockdown is starting take effect.///
Maybe those numbers are falling because the younger ones can have it and not even know they have?
A young 20yr old man I know of had no symptoms but found out he had been in the company of someone who had the virus so he went to get tested and was positive. His girlfriend, again no symptoms decided to get tested too, and she was positive. So it seems the young ones have it but don't know as they have no symptoms, so that wouldn't be reported. So if they don't know they have it and don't isolate, they then pass it on to others who do get the symptoms and are hospitalised or worse.
Maybe those numbers are falling because the younger ones can have it and not even know they have?
A young 20yr old man I know of had no symptoms but found out he had been in the company of someone who had the virus so he went to get tested and was positive. His girlfriend, again no symptoms decided to get tested too, and she was positive. So it seems the young ones have it but don't know as they have no symptoms, so that wouldn't be reported. So if they don't know they have it and don't isolate, they then pass it on to others who do get the symptoms and are hospitalised or worse.
hi eve
as usual we dont know
the first thing is in real time, and with a time series,
1. the data may be noisy ( random - think climate temps)
2. altho you can tell a bill "up-oops-down" when you see and it is already there, having it form from data is much more difficult - is this a turn down or a blip down?
3. wait and see and it gets more obvious
4. lots o f chance to say - - well I always said from various know-alls
5. lots of silence from know-alls who just called it wrong this time
and I dont think much has changed
BUT - the doctors as ever have no idea what happens why
My own view - ter daah - is that vaccination will stop it dead! that is have far more effect than they thought.
but I am an optimist - (and is seen in Diphtheria, but the last time I said that all the ABers who had read "I am Rosie's sore froat" went ya ya ya and blah blah blah - blimey. theres no money in prediction
as usual we dont know
the first thing is in real time, and with a time series,
1. the data may be noisy ( random - think climate temps)
2. altho you can tell a bill "up-oops-down" when you see and it is already there, having it form from data is much more difficult - is this a turn down or a blip down?
3. wait and see and it gets more obvious
4. lots o f chance to say - - well I always said from various know-alls
5. lots of silence from know-alls who just called it wrong this time
and I dont think much has changed
BUT - the doctors as ever have no idea what happens why
My own view - ter daah - is that vaccination will stop it dead! that is have far more effect than they thought.
but I am an optimist - (and is seen in Diphtheria, but the last time I said that all the ABers who had read "I am Rosie's sore froat" went ya ya ya and blah blah blah - blimey. theres no money in prediction
and barsel - did I tell you my mum?
she was positive on the right tonsil
and negative on the left
and the doctors "had never seen anyfing like it"
30% are carrier and or subclinical and this being picked up by large scale testing
the big three signs - temp, cough and er the other
only identifies 30%
we have known all this for a bout a year
she was positive on the right tonsil
and negative on the left
and the doctors "had never seen anyfing like it"
30% are carrier and or subclinical and this being picked up by large scale testing
the big three signs - temp, cough and er the other
only identifies 30%
we have known all this for a bout a year
// I am wondering if Covid threads will still be going on on AB for that long!//
up same old same old
My guinea pig was off colour and I didnt want to bother and pay the vet so I rang up my GP on the emergency number and
Hi Doc how you doin old cack?.......
and he said send it to the others at Porton Down or step on it
now why did he say that ABers, what you fink
I dunno I reely dont
oh yes the AB covid threads will always be with us in some form or another ....
up same old same old
My guinea pig was off colour and I didnt want to bother and pay the vet so I rang up my GP on the emergency number and
Hi Doc how you doin old cack?.......
and he said send it to the others at Porton Down or step on it
now why did he say that ABers, what you fink
I dunno I reely dont
oh yes the AB covid threads will always be with us in some form or another ....
//There are more people wearing visors than taking a 5 mile drive for excercise surely you cant seriously suggest a person wearing a visor is likely to be stopped can you??//
I don’t suggest that either should be stopped because neither is breaking the law.
//You waffle on about the police and laws and quote this and that,…//
Yes I do. Sorry if you view it as waffle but, as inconvenient as it may seem, what people may and may not do in the UK is subject to the law, not to what the police or the government think people should be doing. Time and again on here people demonstrate their misunderstanding of the law. That’s not particularly important. But time and again there are reports of the police administering summary justice against people who have not broken the law. That is important. I don’t want to see this country descend into a police state. Last week Lord Sumption, a former Supreme Court judge, explained what he believed to be a “police state.” Among other qualities, he quoted it as “a state in which individuals are answerable to the police for their routine acts of daily life and one where the police and not the law decide what is allowed.” This is my concern. Many people seem to be willing to accept this because of “the emergency”. I'm not. The danger with accepting things which are outside the norm on a temporary basis is that they have a habit of becoming permanent. If you allow the police to decide who is and is not complying with the government’s musings on Covid measures, how long before they do so in other matters? Imagine this: “Travelling at 65mph, sir? Well the government obviously intended you to drive safely when they drafted the speeding laws. It was a bit damp and misty, so we’ll offer you a fixed penalty for speeding.”
I fully support the police in any legitimate attempts they make in upholding the law. I do not support them when they try to impose their own versions of the law which have no basis. The public is perfectly free to follow the guidance published by the government or to go beyond it if they wish. But the police are not free to persecute people who comply with the law whilst not necessarily following the guidance.
I don’t suggest that either should be stopped because neither is breaking the law.
//You waffle on about the police and laws and quote this and that,…//
Yes I do. Sorry if you view it as waffle but, as inconvenient as it may seem, what people may and may not do in the UK is subject to the law, not to what the police or the government think people should be doing. Time and again on here people demonstrate their misunderstanding of the law. That’s not particularly important. But time and again there are reports of the police administering summary justice against people who have not broken the law. That is important. I don’t want to see this country descend into a police state. Last week Lord Sumption, a former Supreme Court judge, explained what he believed to be a “police state.” Among other qualities, he quoted it as “a state in which individuals are answerable to the police for their routine acts of daily life and one where the police and not the law decide what is allowed.” This is my concern. Many people seem to be willing to accept this because of “the emergency”. I'm not. The danger with accepting things which are outside the norm on a temporary basis is that they have a habit of becoming permanent. If you allow the police to decide who is and is not complying with the government’s musings on Covid measures, how long before they do so in other matters? Imagine this: “Travelling at 65mph, sir? Well the government obviously intended you to drive safely when they drafted the speeding laws. It was a bit damp and misty, so we’ll offer you a fixed penalty for speeding.”
I fully support the police in any legitimate attempts they make in upholding the law. I do not support them when they try to impose their own versions of the law which have no basis. The public is perfectly free to follow the guidance published by the government or to go beyond it if they wish. But the police are not free to persecute people who comply with the law whilst not necessarily following the guidance.
10cs: "I sometimes think people don't like to see the facts. TTT talks about the EUSSR but doesn't like the truth when it's blindingly obvious. What do you want TTT? Pravda style facts? What's wrong with the graph that Canary posted? " - nothing wrong at all but why does canary and the anti British just cherry pick one side of the argument, I was merely balancing it up by saying that we are miles ahead of the EUSSR in vaccinations.
it seems rather obvious to me that when Dom drove to Barnard Castle, he didnt endanger anyones public health
ditto the ladies who drove and drove and then walked and walked - they didnt booga-looga on the way, did they?
so it boils down to
do you want to obey rules from the Min, bearing in mind a possible fineif not - and none of this 'babies will die' stuff
[oh, by the way I think there is a law or reg that says judges cant use two "not"s in the same sentence]
ditto the ladies who drove and drove and then walked and walked - they didnt booga-looga on the way, did they?
so it boils down to
do you want to obey rules from the Min, bearing in mind a possible fineif not - and none of this 'babies will die' stuff
[oh, by the way I think there is a law or reg that says judges cant use two "not"s in the same sentence]
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Crosswords20 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles27 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles42 mins ago
