COVID-19 Police state

Covid-19 discussion, bring your own statistics
Post Reply
nezumi
Snowbonk
Posts: 418
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2020 1:43 pm
Location: UK

Re: COVID-19 Police state

Post by nezumi » Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:48 pm


User avatar
Martin_B
Catbabel
Posts: 745
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:20 pm
Location: Perth, WA

Re: COVID-19 Police state

Post by Martin_B » Wed Jan 27, 2021 12:43 am

nezumi wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:48 pm
This reality was brought to you by Monty Python.
Although police officers can also be fined for not having hair cuts. I have family who used to be in the police and male officers could be fined for having long hair, with female officers fined if their hair wasn't tidy. I don't know if these rules are still in force, but police officers are (or were) supposed to maintain a presentable appearance.
"My interest is in the future, because I'm going to spend the rest of my life there"

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Light of Blast
Posts: 5241
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: nadir of brie

Re: COVID-19 Police state

Post by Bird on a Fire » Wed Jan 27, 2021 3:12 pm

Martin_B wrote:
Wed Jan 27, 2021 12:43 am
nezumi wrote:
Tue Jan 26, 2021 10:48 pm
This reality was brought to you by Monty Python.
Although police officers can also be fined for not having hair cuts. I have family who used to be in the police and male officers could be fined for having long hair, with female officers fined if their hair wasn't tidy. I don't know if these rules are still in force, but police officers are (or were) supposed to maintain a presentable appearance.
Here's the current rules, AFAICT:
Hair
Uniformed staff
Wear your hair so that it is cut or secured above the collar and ears and is neat and tidy. It should not present a health and safety hazard. Any hair accessory must be plain in design and black or navy blue in colour. Extreme and vivid hair colouring is not permitted. Do not dye it in conspicuously unnatural colours.
For police officers and other operational uniformed staff, pigtails and ponytails are unacceptable due to officer safety implications.
Non-uniformed staff
Ensure your appearance reflects the same high standard required of all other members of the force, dependent on working environment (if the role is not one which requires face-to-face contact with the public, there is room for discretion).

Facial hair
Facial hair should be neat and tidy. Do not dye it in conspicuously unnatural colours.
An unshaven/stubbly appearance is unacceptable unless you are growing a beard or moustache. This does not apply where there is a genuine medical reason not to shave.
From https://recruit.college.police.uk/Offic ... ument.docx (nb - word doc)

So they've got rid of the gender-based discrimination, and now there is no need for any cops to break rules during lockdown to get a haircut.
He has the grace of a swan, the wisdom of an owl, and the eye of an eagle—ladies and gentlemen, this man is for the birds!

User avatar
shpalman
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond

Re: COVID-19 Police state

Post by shpalman » Sun Jan 31, 2021 11:28 am

molto tricky

User avatar
shpalman
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond

Re: COVID-19 Police state

Post by shpalman » Sun Jan 31, 2021 7:00 pm

shpalman wrote:
Sun Jan 10, 2021 3:13 pm
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Sun Jan 10, 2021 2:37 pm
OTOH if some people really really really can't not meet their friends it's much better that they do so walking around in the countryside than sneakily in each another's houses.

The actual risk of transmission from a countryside stroll is still pretty close to 0 unless you're holding hands and snogging while you do it, so it depends on whether cracking down on walkers would result in (a) closer obedience to the spirit of the law or (b) riskier forms of rule-breaking.
They're now going for walks nearer where they live, and that's allowed, and in the photo it looks pleasant enough and there's nobody else there.

They weren't originally stopped when they were walking around, they were stopped when they'd got out of their cars having driven to a place.

One thing to ask yourself is always "what if everyone else also did this?" i.e. you can't drive to a place which is quiet because everyone else knows they're not allowed to drive to it.

You don't want that the law ends up having to be increasingly specific and cock-sh.tty because the public and the police are in a race to see who can arrive at zero common sense first.
I can't go to the park anymore because everyone else also goes to the park, there needs to be new rules to stop me* going to the park
molto tricky

Millennie Al
Snowbonk
Posts: 539
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: COVID-19 Police state

Post by Millennie Al » Mon Feb 01, 2021 3:26 am

We should be getting to the point where the restrictions can be supported by specific evidence, and discarding those lacking in evidence. It seems that outdoor transmission is so unlikely that it is not appropriate to restrict people going outdoors and doing most things there. The only danger that has much support at all is getting close to people and speaking to them.

Outdoor Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and Other Respiratory Viruses: A Systematic Review (https://doi.org/10.1093/infdis/jiaa742) suggests that "outdoor" transmission cases tend to occur very rarely and even then some such cases may not be really outdoor at all - they might be causes by getting to the outdoor location or some other similar factor (e.g. the outdoor transmission at a holiday camp where people travelled there together and slept in the shared cabins).
Covid-19 - Don't catch it: don't spread it.

User avatar
shpalman
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond

Re: COVID-19 Police state

Post by shpalman » Mon Feb 08, 2021 5:58 pm

molto tricky


User avatar
Grumble
After Pie
Posts: 1734
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm

Re: COVID-19 Police state

Post by Grumble » Thu Feb 18, 2021 11:07 pm

Makes you wonder if some people turn to crime in order to get away from their family in the first place.
I know this is vitriol, no solution, spleen venting, but I feel better having screamed, don’t you?

User avatar
lpm
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2787
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: COVID-19 Police state

Post by lpm » Thu Feb 18, 2021 11:14 pm

I've known quite a few people who work late at the office, presenting themselves as workaholics. When really they can't stand bath time and story time and all that.
What ever happened to that Trump guy, you know, the one who was president for a bit?

User avatar
Gfamily
After Pie
Posts: 2236
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 pm
Location: NW England

Re: COVID-19 Police state

Post by Gfamily » Thu Feb 18, 2021 11:58 pm

lpm wrote:
Thu Feb 18, 2021 11:14 pm
I've known quite a few men who work late at the office, presenting themselves as workaholics. When really they can't stand bath time and story time and all that.
FIFwhatIassumeyoumeant
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!

User avatar
shpalman
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond

Re: COVID-19 Police state

Post by shpalman » Fri Feb 19, 2021 9:01 am

molto tricky

Lew Dolby
Fuzzable
Posts: 283
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:59 pm
Location: Shropshire - Welsh Borders

Re: COVID-19 Police state

Post by Lew Dolby » Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:43 am

but they didn't know that at the time !!
If you bring you kids up to think for themselves, you can't complain when they do

User avatar
shpalman
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond

Re: COVID-19 Police state

Post by shpalman » Fri Feb 19, 2021 11:46 am

Lew Dolby wrote:
Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:43 am
but they didn't know that at the time !!
and we wouldn't know it know, had the British public not decided to conduct a mass experiment.
molto tricky

User avatar
Fishnut
Catbabel
Posts: 879
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: COVID-19 Police state

Post by Fishnut » Fri Feb 19, 2021 12:00 pm

Lew Dolby wrote:
Fri Feb 19, 2021 10:43 am
but they didn't know that at the time !!
Er, but they did.
We had a lot of existing knowledge even when the pandemic began about respiratory viruses and how they transmit in general, and everything directs us to the conditions in people’s homes and workplaces.” [said Dr Müge Çevik, a lecturer in infectious diseases and medical virology at the University of St Andrews]...

“This is not a subtle picture,” he said. “The published studies were already quite clear at the time … but after the reaction to my comment I am now concerned that this is not fully understood and maybe this is something the politicians do need to factor more into their thinking. As they make their plans to get us out of this, maybe they do need to be reappraised of where the risks really lie.” [my emphasis]
it's okay to say "I don't know"

Lew Dolby
Fuzzable
Posts: 283
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:59 pm
Location: Shropshire - Welsh Borders

Re: COVID-19 Police state

Post by Lew Dolby » Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:37 pm

but I'd be prepared to wager a small amount that the people actually on the beaches didn't know that and only knew the government advice to stay distanced.
If you bring you kids up to think for themselves, you can't complain when they do

User avatar
Fishnut
Catbabel
Posts: 879
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: COVID-19 Police state

Post by Fishnut » Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:58 pm

Lew Dolby wrote:
Fri Feb 19, 2021 2:37 pm
but I'd be prepared to wager a small amount that the people actually on the beaches didn't know that and only knew the government advice to stay distanced.
Maybe, but the government had every opportunity to know their advice was unnecessarily draconian in outdoor situations. So either they hadn't bothered to listen to the experts and read the evidence, or they had but decided that they would ignore it. Neither option paints them in a particularly good light.

I have no problem with the government advising people against travelling far or visiting popular spots. I can understand why they'd choose to shut amenities like public toilets. But calling people going to the beach a "superspreader event" is fearmongering. And given how little they care about the people actually at risk it feels more like an attempt to deflect attention than actually caring about whether or not people get sick.
it's okay to say "I don't know"

User avatar
shpalman
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3605
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond

Re: COVID-19 Police state

Post by shpalman » Fri Feb 19, 2021 5:39 pm

If a group of people who live together anyway all go to the beach, and there are lots of other family groups there, I think it's relatively unlikely that someone in one group will catch it from another group. The groups just don't interact that closely.

However, going outside to meet up with someone who isn't from your household would be a different thing. Especially if you spend the time e.g. sitting at a pub garden table with them.
molto tricky

User avatar
Turdly
Stargoon
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 5:07 pm
Location: High Peak/Sheffield

Re: COVID-19 Police state

Post by Turdly » Thu Mar 04, 2021 9:55 pm

briefly Stephanie's favourite user

Post Reply