COVID-19 Police state

Covid-19 discussion, bring your own statistics
Post Reply
User avatar
jimbob
Dorkwood
Posts: 1446
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: COVID-19 Police state

Post by jimbob » Sun Apr 05, 2020 7:26 pm

lpm wrote:
Sun Apr 05, 2020 7:18 pm
Jeez. I thought the Queen would just waffle on with platitudes. But when she threatened to go to Green Park and kick sunbathers in the nuts! This is the kind on enforcing we need.
Beautiful
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

User avatar
Opti
Snowbonk
Posts: 481
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 11:21 pm
Location: Nearly got a proper home.

Re: COVID-19 Police state

Post by Opti » Sun Apr 05, 2020 7:55 pm

lpm wrote:
Sun Apr 05, 2020 7:18 pm
Jeez. I thought the Queen would just waffle on with platitudes. But when she threatened to go to Green Park and kick sunbathers in the nuts! This is the kind on enforcing we need.
Nicked.
He cannot be killed by conventional weapons. True. He and Mrs Opti are wicked cool.

User avatar
shpalman
After Pie
Posts: 1827
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond

Re: COVID-19 Police state

Post by shpalman » Sun Apr 05, 2020 7:58 pm

(nothing to see here, move along)
molto tricky

Millennie Al
Fuzzable
Posts: 260
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: COVID-19 Police state

Post by Millennie Al » Mon Apr 06, 2020 3:49 am

lpm wrote:
Sun Apr 05, 2020 9:44 am
At yesterday’s briefing Gove was asked why ventilator capacity could be exceeded. We all know the answer to this:

NHS capacity is too low

- government under-investment for a generation
- 10 years of austerity worsening every metric
- coming into the crisis in Jan 2020 with almost no free beds
There are many fine points which I have deleted, but these few just reflect political bias. No health service runs at 1%, 10% or even 50% capacity. To do so would be a gross misuse of public money. In January there were 4123 adult critical care beds in England, of which 80% were occupied. That means about 700 were free. This is a perfectly reasonable number, but it would be hopelessly inadequate in the face of a huge increase in demand, as would any other aspect of medicine. If 10,000 more people got seriously ill with any disease that would be a problem - for example if food contamination caused very widespread food poisoning. It is not reasonable to expect that we should cope with illness by being ready to handle a vast increase in treatment.
Infection rate is too high

- government thinking voluntary distancing and hand washing was the answer
- government deliberately letting the rate rise in early March to get herd immunity, the chief scientific adviser saying on 13 March ”one of the key things we need to do is build up some kind of herd immunity”
I think your only mistake here is in the phrase "government thinking". As they say, never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence. It looks to me like the goverment was not thinking, disorganised and, to the extent that they took scientific advice, were far too eager to seek out advice that provided reassurance rather than facing the statistical reality proven correct in Wuhan. The "herd immunity" thing sounds exactly like the rationalisation that someone would use to explain why they have chosen a foolish strategy rather than something they mad them choose that strategy in the first place.
Covid-19 - Don't catch it: don't spread it.

User avatar
lpm
After Pie
Posts: 1627
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm
Location: IMPEACH AND EXTERMINATE

Re: COVID-19 Police state

Post by lpm » Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:44 am

Millennie Al wrote:
Mon Apr 06, 2020 3:49 am
lpm wrote:
Sun Apr 05, 2020 9:44 am
At yesterday’s briefing Gove was asked why ventilator capacity could be exceeded. We all know the answer to this:

NHS capacity is too low

- government under-investment for a generation
- 10 years of austerity worsening every metric
- coming into the crisis in Jan 2020 with almost no free beds
There are many fine points which I have deleted, but these few just reflect political bias. No health service runs at 1%, 10% or even 50% capacity. To do so would be a gross misuse of public money. In January there were 4123 adult critical care beds in England, of which 80% were occupied. That means about 700 were free. This is a perfectly reasonable number, but it would be hopelessly inadequate in the face of a huge increase in demand, as would any other aspect of medicine. If 10,000 more people got seriously ill with any disease that would be a problem - for example if food contamination caused very widespread food poisoning. It is not reasonable to expect that we should cope with illness by being ready to handle a vast increase in treatment.
There are 14,000 fewer UK beds than 10 years ago and half the number of beds of 30 years ago - even though demand for beds is far higher due to the aging population. Only 70% of patients entering A&E get treated within the 4 hour time target, when the target is 95%. There is not spare physical space to isolate infectious patients and there is an existing shortfall of trained staff.

This was a warm winter and the flu season started early then fizzled out early. It was the easiest winter for years for the NHS - and even so bed occupancy was 95% in London in February before Covid cases hit the system. Planners say 85% is the ideal capacity level. When it comes to ICU beds, Spain has 15% more than us, Italy 25% more, France 50% more and Germany 200% more. Some other countries do run at the 50%-75% capacity level, many more run at the 75%-85% level, and the UK is an outlier running in normal times at the 85% to 95% level.

The NHS cannot cope with a difficult flu year. Above you state 10,000 more patients as "not reasonable to expect that we should cope with". But a moderate flu year every five years sees 10,000 to 20,000 more people in hospital and a once every 20 years flu epidemic could be 60,000 more hospital patients. These elevated levels are a normal health service requirement - yet you yourself have acknowledged the NHS is not ready to handle this sort of increase in treatment. This is without even getting to capacity for pandemics.

We build huge spare capacity in other areas to protect British citizens. Only 25% of Trident defenses are actively in use, there are 2,000 tanks sitting idle waiting to be used, there are a hundred Typhoons sitting in hangers ready in case they are needed in the next 30 years. This huge spare capacity in protection of the citizens is not a "gross misuse of public money"? But a health services running at 80% with 20% spare capacity would be a "gross misuse of public money"?
Infection rate is too high

- government thinking voluntary distancing and hand washing was the answer
- government deliberately letting the rate rise in early March to get herd immunity, the chief scientific adviser saying on 13 March ”one of the key things we need to do is build up some kind of herd immunity”
I think your only mistake here is in the phrase "government thinking". As they say, never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence. It looks to me like the goverment was not thinking, disorganised and, to the extent that they took scientific advice, were far too eager to seek out advice that provided reassurance rather than facing the statistical reality proven correct in Wuhan. The "herd immunity" thing sounds exactly like the rationalisation that someone would use to explain why they have chosen a foolish strategy rather than something they mad them choose that strategy in the first place.
It was not an isolated instance of citing herd immunity. It was said many times, in different forms, for example a lengthy explanation from the CMO that the second wave in the autumn would be much larger if a highly effective lockdown happened now.
I'll miss him after he's died in the pandemic

User avatar
individualmember
Fuzzable
Posts: 359
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:26 pm

Re: COVID-19 Police state

Post by individualmember » Mon Apr 06, 2020 11:18 am

In my business there was a huge move to casualisation in the 1990s and early 2000s, businesses which employed people like me moved over to staffing at a minimum level and topping up the numbers with freelancers as the work demands. Which is all well and good when there are plenty of people like me, with a decade or more of experience, around to call upon. But those freelancers have to be around when the bigger jobs come up.

I don’t see it as being a reasonable way to run a health service, it’s not as easy to rapidly expand the facilities and call in casual workers when the skills and experience aren’t sloshing around the population unused and available. It only makes sense to me to staff/equip a healthcare facility to cope with a bit above the average demand (although how much of a bit is arguable and I’m not really in a position to have an opinion on that).

Millennie Al
Fuzzable
Posts: 260
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: COVID-19 Police state

Post by Millennie Al » Thu Apr 09, 2020 2:31 am

lpm wrote:
Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:44 am

There are 14,000 fewer UK beds than 10 years ago and half the number of beds of 30 years ago - even though demand for beds is far higher due to the aging population. Only 70% of patients entering A&E get treated within the 4 hour time target, when the target is 95%. There is not spare physical space to isolate infectious patients and there is an existing shortfall of trained staff.

This was a warm winter and the flu season started early then fizzled out early. It was the easiest winter for years for the NHS - and even so bed occupancy was 95% in London in February before Covid cases hit the system. Planners say 85% is the ideal capacity level. When it comes to ICU beds, Spain has 15% more than us, Italy 25% more, France 50% more and Germany 200% more. Some other countries do run at the 50%-75% capacity level, many more run at the 75%-85% level, and the UK is an outlier running in normal times at the 85% to 95% level.

The NHS cannot cope with a difficult flu year. Above you state 10,000 more patients as "not reasonable to expect that we should cope with". But a moderate flu year every five years sees 10,000 to 20,000 more people in hospital and a once every 20 years flu epidemic could be 60,000 more hospital patients. These elevated levels are a normal health service requirement - yet you yourself have acknowledged the NHS is not ready to handle this sort of increase in treatment. This is without even getting to capacity for pandemics.
If the problem is caused by insufficient capcity, then we can look at international comparisons and make predictions. Here are some figures:
The Countries With The Most Critical Care Beds Per Capita from which we conclude that, against Covid-19, China must perform very badly, the UK fairly badly, Italy much better, Germany pretty well, and the USA very well indeed (over five times as many critical care beds). Of course we know from the news that this is completely wrong. China has done extremely well, getting the problem under control and now no longer needing mass lockdown, while the USA is looking extremely bad. Your point might be very valid in an argument about coping with an ordinary flu season, or other ailments, but they are not relevant to Covid-19. You simply cannot cope with exponential growth. It must be stopped outside the health system.
We build huge spare capacity in other areas to protect British citizens. Only 25% of Trident defenses are actively in use, there are 2,000 tanks sitting idle waiting to be used, there are a hundred Typhoons sitting in hangers ready in case they are needed in the next 30 years. This huge spare capacity in protection of the citizens is not a "gross misuse of public money"? But a health services running at 80% with 20% spare capacity would be a "gross misuse of public money"?
Depending on how you look at it, either 100% or 0% of Trident defenses are in use. They act as a deterrent, so are a bit like insurance. Your insurance is fully in use even if you don't claim on it. Alternatively, you could say they are 0% used as they have never been deployed in war. In either case, if we compare submarines 30 years ago to hospital beds, the number have fallen from 25 to 10, so that's an even bigger decline.
The "herd immunity" thing sounds exactly like the rationalisation that someone would use to explain why they have chosen a foolish strategy rather than something they mad them choose that strategy in the first place.
It was not an isolated instance of citing herd immunity. It was said many times, in different forms, for example a lengthy explanation from the CMO that the second wave in the autumn would be much larger if a highly effective lockdown happened now.
Lots of false things end up being said many times in dofferent forms (e.g. MMR vs autism, power cables or mobile phone masts vs various ailments). That doesn't tell us anything about their origin.
Covid-19 - Don't catch it: don't spread it.

User avatar
TopBadger
Stargoon
Posts: 113
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:33 pm
Location: Halfway up

Re: COVID-19 Police state

Post by TopBadger » Thu Apr 09, 2020 1:46 pm

Police reportedly fining people for non-essential shopping (trips out for booze).

People that got caught should have said they were exercising and just happened to pop to shops whilst out.
You can't polish a turd...
unless its Lion or Osterich poo... http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbus ... -turd.html

User avatar
Grumble
Catbabel
Posts: 982
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm

Re: COVID-19 Police state

Post by Grumble » Thu Apr 09, 2020 2:40 pm

TopBadger wrote:
Thu Apr 09, 2020 1:46 pm
Police reportedly fining people for non-essential shopping (trips out for booze).

People that got caught should have said they were exercising and just happened to pop to shops whilst out.
How can that be non-essential but off-licences be essential shops?
I know this is vitriol, no solution, spleen venting, but I feel better having screamed, don’t you?

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Stummy Beige
Posts: 3494
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: nadir of brie

Re: COVID-19 Police state

Post by Bird on a Fire » Thu Apr 09, 2020 2:59 pm

Grumble wrote:
Thu Apr 09, 2020 2:40 pm
TopBadger wrote:
Thu Apr 09, 2020 1:46 pm
Police reportedly fining people for non-essential shopping (trips out for booze).

People that got caught should have said they were exercising and just happened to pop to shops whilst out.
How can that be non-essential but off-licences be essential shops?
There's this problem of confusing messaging again.

Although, don't most off licences in the UK also sell other foods and drink?

And I suppose if you're actually an alcoholic booze counts as an essential, because withdrawal could kill you. So maybe the police are only fining responsible drinkers and infrequent binge drinkers, and leaving addicts alone.
Born at 356.32 ppm CO2 #ShowYourStripes

User avatar
Grumble
Catbabel
Posts: 982
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:03 pm

Re: COVID-19 Police state

Post by Grumble » Thu Apr 09, 2020 3:00 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Thu Apr 09, 2020 2:59 pm
Grumble wrote:
Thu Apr 09, 2020 2:40 pm
TopBadger wrote:
Thu Apr 09, 2020 1:46 pm
Police reportedly fining people for non-essential shopping (trips out for booze).

People that got caught should have said they were exercising and just happened to pop to shops whilst out.
How can that be non-essential but off-licences be essential shops?
There's this problem of confusing messaging again.

Although, don't most off licences in the UK also sell other foods and drink?

And I suppose if you're actually an alcoholic booze counts as an essential, because withdrawal could kill you. So maybe the police are only fining responsible drinkers and infrequent binge drinkers, and leaving addicts alone.
Not normally much foods apart from snacks and sweets.
I know this is vitriol, no solution, spleen venting, but I feel better having screamed, don’t you?

User avatar
shpalman
After Pie
Posts: 1827
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond

Re: COVID-19 Police state

Post by shpalman » Thu Apr 09, 2020 3:16 pm

In the supermarket here, certain shelves are taped off as being non-essential. The idea being to stop people going there just for that, I suppose.

You can buy alcohol but not slippers, for example. Or, as much food as you like, but not plastic containers for putting portions in the freezer.

It doesn't make a huge amount of sense to me, to be honest.

Disposable masks were being handed out at the entrance even if everybody was wearing some sort of mask already. Well, some were wearing them better than others.
2020-04-09 09.53.37.jpg
2020-04-09 09.53.37.jpg (478.97 KiB) Viewed 910 times
(not pictured - the guy I saw wearing his on his forehead, or the guy behind me smoking a cigarette)
molto tricky

User avatar
Stranger Mouse
Clardic Fug
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 1:23 pm

Re: COVID-19 Police state

Post by Stranger Mouse » Fri Apr 10, 2020 11:58 am

I would be in support of some police brutality for this waste of blood and organs

https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/08/woman-ar ... -12526402/
A caterpillar does all the work but the butterfly gets all the publicity.

User avatar
Fishnut
Snowbonk
Posts: 553
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm

Re: COVID-19 Police state

Post by Fishnut » Fri Apr 10, 2020 1:08 pm

Stranger Mouse wrote:
Fri Apr 10, 2020 11:58 am
I would be in support of some police brutality for this waste of blood and organs

https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/08/woman-ar ... -12526402/
Why? She's by herself, she's not going up to people and coughing over them, she's just sat down. Last time I looked smoking and drinking weren't illegal, or even mentioned in the legislation they're trying to prosecute her under. There's nothing in it that specifies what type of exercise is to be taken or how long that exercise should last. And the legislation is there to reduce transmission of the virus. Nothing I can see that she did increases the chances of transmission. The photo of the officers in the article, however, don't appear to be following social distancing guidelines.

User avatar
Stranger Mouse
Clardic Fug
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 1:23 pm

Re: COVID-19 Police state

Post by Stranger Mouse » Fri Apr 10, 2020 1:38 pm

Fishnut wrote:
Fri Apr 10, 2020 1:08 pm
Stranger Mouse wrote:
Fri Apr 10, 2020 11:58 am
I would be in support of some police brutality for this waste of blood and organs

https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/08/woman-ar ... -12526402/
Why? She's by herself, she's not going up to people and coughing over them, she's just sat down. Last time I looked smoking and drinking weren't illegal, or even mentioned in the legislation they're trying to prosecute her under. There's nothing in it that specifies what type of exercise is to be taken or how long that exercise should last. And the legislation is there to reduce transmission of the virus. Nothing I can see that she did increases the chances of transmission. The photo of the officers in the article, however, don't appear to be following social distancing guidelines.
Because she's breaking the law and wasting police time with her ridiculous f.cking b.llsh.t just to get the attention which she was unable to get with her 5G conspiracy theories and increasing the risk that the rest of us who are following the rules will be given an extended or stricter lock down. f.ck her and everyone who thinks like her. If you watch the full video on YouTube she has the "if I get it I get it" attitude whu h would be fine if there wasn't the chance that some innocent nurse or doctor may have to risk their lives trying to save her. She's an absolute pile of shite.
A caterpillar does all the work but the butterfly gets all the publicity.

User avatar
Fishnut
Snowbonk
Posts: 553
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm

Re: COVID-19 Police state

Post by Fishnut » Fri Apr 10, 2020 2:42 pm

I watched the video. I heard a woman quite calmly having a disagreement on the interpretation of the legislation, a disagreement the officer acknowledged as legitimate. There wasn't anything about 5G. It came across to me as someone making a peaceful protest about poorly written legislation and the potential for police overreach.

I made a transcript in case I'd missed something.
Officer: we spoke about 45 minutes or so ago...
Lady: we did, yes
Officer: how're you doing?
Lady: I'm fine thank you officer, how are you?
Officer: I'm very well thank you for asking. So when we spoke earlier, I'd said, I'd asked you why you were out, you said you were exercising mentally.
Lady: I am, yes.
Officer: OK. I said, well, I don't think that's in the spirit of what's happening.
Lady: well, in the spirit of social distancing, I'm sat her on my own. I'm not infecting anyone. That's the actual spirit
Officer: Do you know who else [wind prevents me from hearing the rest]
Lady: I don't know, and quite frankly, I'm not afraid to be honest. If I catch something I catch it, I'm only infecting myself. No-one's sat near me.
Officer: Well that's because I've just moved everyone else on.
Lady: That's good, yeah
Officer: ok. Right, so what I'm gonna ask is, would you be willing to go home.
Lady: I am willing to go home once the sun sets, yes.
Officer: ok, well you've been sat here for about an hour or so
Lady: I have, yeah, indeed, exercising mentally
Officer: I know, which is not one of the valid reasons to be out
Lady: Well it is, valid reason "exercising once a day" is a valid reason under the law
Officer: What our disagreement is about is whether this is exercising mentally...
Lady: it is, yes
Officer: [unclear] or physically
Lady: well I'm sorry but the law doesn't specify what form the exercise has to take
Officer: it doesn't
Lady: well there you go, I'm within my rights to exercise mentally, once a day, outdoors, for as long as I like.
Officer: And this is where the disagreement is gonna arise.
Lady: right, ok, so the letter of the law, what does it say?
Officer: exercising
Lady: right, which I'm doing, yes, I'm meditating here by the lake, by the river
Officer: My interpretation of it is that it's physical exercise
Lady: But that's your interpretation, that's not what the law says is it.

Break

Officer: So what I don't want to do is go over the top, at all..
Lady: Good
Officer: As I say, we spoke earlier...
Lady: We did, yeah
Officer: You've been out for about an hour or more now
Lady: I have, yeah
Officer: You've been smoking and drinking?
Lady: Er, yes I have been, yep
Officer: Alright, and we've had this disagreement over what is the definition of exercise
Lady: of exercise, yes, we have, yeah
Officer: so
Lady: it's not defined in law
Officer: If you're not gonna make your way home now, or, as you said, to the shops, or otherwise, if you're gonna continue to sit here, then..
Lady: minding my own business and social distancing? For an 'on the record' there's nobody around me here at all [pans her camera around to show only the two police officers anywhere near her) I'm sat here entirely on my own
Officer: [says something concurrently with her panning that I can't make out
Lady: yep
Officer: So can I continue to speak please?
Lady: yep
Officer: so if you don't move on I'm gonna have to take action. That action will come [uncleared] issue you with a fixed penalty..
Lady: I'm sorry but I won't accept a fixed penalty notice
Officer: OK. Were you not to accept a fixed penalty notice..
Lady: you can place me under arrest and take me to the station
Officer: ok
Lady: go right ahead, do that
Officer: so before I do that though..
Lady: I'm not going to accept a fixed penalty notice..
Officer: I know...
Lady: because I'm not breaking the law
Officer: you just said that, ok. But before we go down the route of arrest, I really do wanna check to make sure there is no other lawful reason why you might be out of your house.
Lady: I'm out shopping!
Officer: you're not
Lady: I'm going shopping on the way home!
Officer: now?
Lady: no! I said I want to stay here for sunset
Officer: Ok. Is there...
Lady: I'm going to stay here, look, there's the sun, it's very low in the sky
Officer: Madam, is there any other reason why, is there anything happening at home that might cause you to be out?
Lady: I wouldn't know because I'm not there
Officer: OK. There's no welfare issues or anything like that.
Lady: er, indeed not, not that I'm aware of
Officer: ok

break

Lady: I'm not going to willingly give you my details, you're going to have to place me under arrest and take me to the station where I can get proper legal representation
Officer: ok [unclear]
Lady: yep
Officer: Ok, could you let me speak please
Lady: yep
Officer: ok, so I'll be reporting you for the offence
Lady: go ahead
Officer: of failure to comply with the Health Protection Coronavirus..
Lady: ah sorry, yeah but I'm...
Officer: [unclear] I'll give you a chance to reply, I will, ok, so it's going to be a [unclear] offence. I propose to do that by issuing you a fixed penalty notice, ok, it can be dealt with here, and it can be dealt with now, ok. The issuing of a fixed penalty notice, you do have the right to appeal it..
Lady: ah, I'm sorry, but I'm not even going to accept it

Break

Officer: So in order for me to report you, I'm going to require your name and address.
Lady: I'm sorry, but I.. Is that a request or that a demand Officer?
Officer: wha? I need your name and address
Lady: Is it a request, or is it a demand?
Officer: well, in this light, it's a demand
Lady: what, so is it, you're allowed to demand under the law, are you? Or request?
Officer: In order for me to issue you a fixed penalty notice...
Lady: I'm not going to accept that
Officer: I know but let me get through it, I need your name and address. Should you..
Lady: I'm unwilling to give that to you officer
Officer: Should you be unwilling to give it, then I will have to ascertain your name and address in another way
Lady: OK, go right ahead
Officer: which is going to be by arresting you
Lady: yep! Please do so.
Officer: ok
Lady: I'm happy
Officer: So with the time at 13 minutes past 6, I'll be arresting you. The arrest is under section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act [not sure if I heard that right] ok
Lady: uh huh
Officer: in that I require your name and address in order to process you for the offence of coronavirus [muffled]
Lady: right, are you going to place me in handcuffs now?
Officer: no, I'm not!
Lady: well, I think you need to
Officer: are you going to [unclear]
Lady: no! I'm not, I'm a peaceful person. I'm sat on this bench, by this river, minding my own business, I'm socially distanced. I'm not infecting anyone around me, there is nobody around me.

break (now at the police van with 4 officers in view
Lady: gosh, all of you officers just for me! I should be flattered really.
Another officer: [unclear]
Lady: er no, I'm out exercising. It's not... that's a lawful excuse
Another officer: [putting his hand in front of the lens] you've been arrested now, ok. So we're going to take all you [unclear]
Lady: sorry?
The same officer as last time: Just listen! Relax!
Lady: I am relaxed.
The same officer as last time: you'll get all your property [ends]
The wasting of police time seems to be on the police. I can't see that this is any different to telling people they aren't allowed to buy Easter eggs or snooping through shopping trolleys.

User avatar
Stranger Mouse
Clardic Fug
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 1:23 pm

Re: COVID-19 Police state

Post by Stranger Mouse » Fri Apr 10, 2020 2:48 pm

You are wrong. She deserves to burn in Hell.
A caterpillar does all the work but the butterfly gets all the publicity.

User avatar
Fishnut
Snowbonk
Posts: 553
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm

Re: COVID-19 Police state

Post by Fishnut » Fri Apr 10, 2020 2:51 pm

Stranger Mouse wrote:
Fri Apr 10, 2020 2:48 pm
You are wrong. She deserves to burn in Hell.
Great argument there, well evidenced. You've certainly convinced me.

User avatar
Stranger Mouse
Clardic Fug
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 1:23 pm

Re: COVID-19 Police state

Post by Stranger Mouse » Fri Apr 10, 2020 2:57 pm

Fishnut wrote:
Fri Apr 10, 2020 2:51 pm
Stranger Mouse wrote:
Fri Apr 10, 2020 2:48 pm
You are wrong. She deserves to burn in Hell.
Great argument there, well evidenced. You've certainly convinced me.
Why should I waste time trying to convince someone who accepts the argument that sitting on a bench drinking and smoking for extended periods counts as exercise. You are either trolling and arguing in bad faith or delusional. Either way I have no interest in generating a multi page derail over this nonsense.

There's been plenty of heavy handed police nonsense recently and this wasn't it.
A caterpillar does all the work but the butterfly gets all the publicity.

User avatar
Stephanie
After Pie
Posts: 1620
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:38 pm
Location: clinging tenaciously to your buttocks

Re: COVID-19 Police state

Post by Stephanie » Fri Apr 10, 2020 3:04 pm

I don't think that's what Fishnut is saying at all. But the law isn't clear on what exercise is. It also doesn't specify how long you should be out, or how many times.

Indeed, there's guidance on mental health that suggests getting out in the sunshine, from what I understand.

So I'm struggling to see why you think the woman deserves violence. That seems rather extreme.
"I got a flu virus named after me 'cause I kissed a bat on a dare."

User avatar
dyqik
After Pie
Posts: 2213
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: COVID-19 Police state

Post by dyqik » Fri Apr 10, 2020 3:05 pm

Stranger Mouse wrote:
Fri Apr 10, 2020 2:57 pm
Fishnut wrote:
Fri Apr 10, 2020 2:51 pm
Stranger Mouse wrote:
Fri Apr 10, 2020 2:48 pm
You are wrong. She deserves to burn in Hell.
Great argument there, well evidenced. You've certainly convinced me.
Why should I waste time trying to convince someone who accepts the argument that sitting on a bench drinking and smoking for extended periods counts as exercise. You are either trolling and arguing in bad faith or delusional. Either way I have no interest in generating a multi page derail over this nonsense.

There's been plenty of heavy handed police nonsense recently and this wasn't it.
This is heavy handed police nonsense. You are advocating police brutality against someone who is causing no harm to anyone.

User avatar
Fishnut
Snowbonk
Posts: 553
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm

Re: COVID-19 Police state

Post by Fishnut » Fri Apr 10, 2020 3:06 pm

The legislation is to prevent social interaction to slow the spread of coronavirus. As David Allen Green says,
The Regulations are made under public health legislation, and not public order legislation, and this distinction is important.
She was doing nothing that was a public health risk.

Sitting on a park bench smoking may not be 'exercise' but buying booze, chocolates and pot noodles aren't 'basic necessities' either. And sitting on a bench by yourself is risking a lot fewer people than going into a supermarket.

User avatar
Stranger Mouse
Clardic Fug
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 1:23 pm

Re: COVID-19 Police state

Post by Stranger Mouse » Fri Apr 10, 2020 3:10 pm

dyqik wrote:
Fri Apr 10, 2020 3:05 pm
Stranger Mouse wrote:
Fri Apr 10, 2020 2:57 pm
Fishnut wrote:
Fri Apr 10, 2020 2:51 pm


Great argument there, well evidenced. You've certainly convinced me.
Why should I waste time trying to convince someone who accepts the argument that sitting on a bench drinking and smoking for extended periods counts as exercise. You are either trolling and arguing in bad faith or delusional. Either way I have no interest in generating a multi page derail over this nonsense.

There's been plenty of heavy handed police nonsense recently and this wasn't it.
This is heavy handed police nonsense. You are advocating police brutality against someone who is causing no harm to anyone.
For the avoidance of doubt my original comment about police brutality was, of course, tongue in cheek.
A caterpillar does all the work but the butterfly gets all the publicity.

User avatar
Stranger Mouse
Clardic Fug
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2019 1:23 pm

Re: COVID-19 Police state

Post by Stranger Mouse » Fri Apr 10, 2020 3:17 pm

Stephanie wrote:
Fri Apr 10, 2020 3:04 pm
I don't think that's what Fishnut is saying at all. But the law isn't clear on what exercise is. It also doesn't specify how long you should be out, or how many times.

Indeed, there's guidance on mental health that suggests getting out in the sunshine, from what I understand.

So I'm struggling to see why you think the woman deserves violence. That seems rather extreme.
I do not think she deserves violence. I made a tongue in cheek comment to that effect which I now regret because it will no doubt lead to dozens of "how were to know that you were not being serious" etc which I find tedious.
A caterpillar does all the work but the butterfly gets all the publicity.

User avatar
Stephanie
After Pie
Posts: 1620
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:38 pm
Location: clinging tenaciously to your buttocks

Re: COVID-19 Police state

Post by Stephanie » Fri Apr 10, 2020 3:23 pm

No, it makes no difference to me, but I'm flagging because we have rules here about comments like that.

I'd much rather you engaged with Fishnut's argument rather than assuming she was arguing in bad faith.
"I got a flu virus named after me 'cause I kissed a bat on a dare."

Post Reply