Covid-19 the unlockdown
Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation
- EACLucifer
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 4177
- Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
- Location: In Sumerian Haze
Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown
Apparently it's fine. We'll know they are contact tracers and not scammers because "they'll sound professional" - according to the execrable Harries. It's not like there's already scammers out there pretending to be contact tracers...oh wait, there are.
Nothing is going to break trust in contact tracing down quicker than people reporting getting scammed by fake contact tracers. It is essential this works, and there are established methods for this in use all over the place.
Nothing is going to break trust in contact tracing down quicker than people reporting getting scammed by fake contact tracers. It is essential this works, and there are established methods for this in use all over the place.
Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown
"So, have you been in contact with anyone who might be vulnerable, any elderly people in particular? I'll need you to give me their phone numbers, as we'll need to contact them.EACLucifer wrote: ↑Sun May 31, 2020 8:15 pmApparently it's fine. We'll know they are contact tracers and not scammers because "they'll sound professional" - according to the execrable Harries. It's not like there's already scammers out there pretending to be contact tracers...oh wait, there are.
Nothing is going to break trust in contact tracing down quicker than people reporting getting scammed by fake contact tracers. It is essential this works, and there are established methods for this in use all over the place.
Thanks"
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ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn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!
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn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!
- bob sterman
- Dorkwood
- Posts: 1123
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:25 pm
- Location: Location Location
Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown
Also - in order to trace the people you came into contact with in queues could you please read out your credit card number so we can be sure which shops you visited?Gfamily wrote: ↑Sun May 31, 2020 8:20 pm"So, have you been in contact with anyone who might be vulnerable, any elderly people in particular? I'll need you to give me their phone numbers, as we'll need to contact them.EACLucifer wrote: ↑Sun May 31, 2020 8:15 pmApparently it's fine. We'll know they are contact tracers and not scammers because "they'll sound professional" - according to the execrable Harries. It's not like there's already scammers out there pretending to be contact tracers...oh wait, there are.
Nothing is going to break trust in contact tracing down quicker than people reporting getting scammed by fake contact tracers. It is essential this works, and there are established methods for this in use all over the place.
Thanks"
Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown
Probably tons of links, whether friendship or financial.
Was it Hancock who appointed Dido Harding to head up the Track, Test and Trace programme? That would be Dido Harding the Tory peer, married to a Tory MP, and a board member at the Jockey Club.
Then there's the likes of Philip Davies... https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... ured-delay https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ew-in-2016 https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... stry-links
Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown
A simple way to prove a call about contact tracing is genuine and not a scam would be to give out a public number for the service, and then have people call that to confirm they were legitimately contacted. I'd like to think that our lizard overlords have thought of that, but I'm not overly confident...
I'm not seeing why everyone is so worried about PHE having access to the same sort of data the NHS routinely handles, though. They are both, in effect, branches of government. Is PHE more likely to do something nefarious with the data? If so, why?
And while I'm not massively concerned about health services collecting and keeping the sort of data they need to function, I am pretty concerned about it being passed on to third parties that are commercial companies. Which has already happened -- Palantir and a couple of other tech firms were given access to 111 data to help monitor cases/plan where services might be needed. (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52053565)
So if you want to complain about that, I'll agree with you.
(Also, I'm not convinced that the not one, not two, but four different sofware companies my GPs have used to set up various online services like appointment booking, repeat prescriptions and access to blood tests and records over the last couple of years, including right before this broke an online triage system called eConsult, are all secure or reliable or not passing data on.I am fully expecting there to be a scandal involving patient data leaking out of the NHS via something like that at some point.)
I rather expect the NHS to keep my records -- including name, dob, address, symptoms etc etc -- for as long as I'm alive and might need them so keeping health data for 20 years does not seem excessive to me. (I'd be happy to see those back Xrays I had 25 years ago turn up again, actually....) There are longitudinal studies that follow patients for decades, and as coronavirus is a novel thing and we're already seeing some indication it might have effects beyond the initial bout of illness there are good reasons to allow for following patients up over a couple of decades if that turns out to be needed.Millennie Al wrote: ↑Sun May 31, 2020 1:49 amI don't see any irony there at all. In one case the data is being retained far beyond any reasonable time in which a health crisis could justify it, while in the other vital data is missing, even for statistical purposes, when it is needed in the very short term.
I'm not seeing why everyone is so worried about PHE having access to the same sort of data the NHS routinely handles, though. They are both, in effect, branches of government. Is PHE more likely to do something nefarious with the data? If so, why?
And while I'm not massively concerned about health services collecting and keeping the sort of data they need to function, I am pretty concerned about it being passed on to third parties that are commercial companies. Which has already happened -- Palantir and a couple of other tech firms were given access to 111 data to help monitor cases/plan where services might be needed. (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-52053565)
So if you want to complain about that, I'll agree with you.
(Also, I'm not convinced that the not one, not two, but four different sofware companies my GPs have used to set up various online services like appointment booking, repeat prescriptions and access to blood tests and records over the last couple of years, including right before this broke an online triage system called eConsult, are all secure or reliable or not passing data on.I am fully expecting there to be a scandal involving patient data leaking out of the NHS via something like that at some point.)
-
- After Pie
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am
Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown
For the elderly and vulnerable, scammers have a way around that which is well known.
Well then I expect you'll object to the contact tracing records as they are not held by the NHS.I rather expect the NHS to keep my records -- including name, dob, address, symptoms etc etc -- for as long as I'm alive and might need them so keeping health data for 20 years does not seem excessive to me. (I'd be happy to see those back Xrays I had 25 years ago turn up again, actually....)Millennie Al wrote: ↑Sun May 31, 2020 1:49 amI don't see any irony there at all. In one case the data is being retained far beyond any reasonable time in which a health crisis could justify it, while in the other vital data is missing, even for statistical purposes, when it is needed in the very short term.
Do they include patients without (or even contrary to) their consent?There are longitudinal studies that follow patients for decades
It is one thing for the NHS (or any medical organisation) to hold my health records for my benefit: it is a completely different thing for those health records to be held and used for the benefit of others.
- Woodchopper
- Princess POW
- Posts: 7057
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am
Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown
One use for a specific contact tracing app would be for it to be used to authenticate the identity of tracers.
- EACLucifer
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 4177
- Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
- Location: In Sumerian Haze
Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown
ADPH Presidential Blog: A time for steady leadership, careful preparation and measured steps
The Association of Directors of Public Health have opposed the Government's reopening plans.
The Association of Directors of Public Health have opposed the Government's reopening plans.
The ADPH is calling for full implementation of all Phase 2 measures to be delayed until further consideration of the ongoing trends in infection rates and the R level gives more confidence about what the impact of these will be.
The only way out of lockdown is to transition to other means of controlling the virus. Despite this being obvious throughout, government approaches have been half arsed since before the lockdown. The lockdown should have been considered a last resort, a desperate measure to buy time, paid for by the enormous sacrifices made by the public. The government have wasted the time that sacrifice bought.The risk of a spike in cases and deaths – and of the social and economic impact if we have to return to stricter lockdown measures – cannot be overstated; this needs to be understood not only by the public but also by the Government.
- shpalman
- Princess POW
- Posts: 8241
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
- Location: One step beyond
- Contact:
Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown
They were half arsed before the lockdown ("sing happy birthday twice") and in fact they were half-arsed instead of the lockdown, which if it had have been implemented sooner could have been shorter.EACLucifer wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 8:32 amADPH Presidential Blog: A time for steady leadership, careful preparation and measured steps
The Association of Directors of Public Health have opposed the Government's reopening plans.
The ADPH is calling for full implementation of all Phase 2 measures to be delayed until further consideration of the ongoing trends in infection rates and the R level gives more confidence about what the impact of these will be.The only way out of lockdown is to transition to other means of controlling the virus. Despite this being obvious throughout, government approaches have been half arsed since before the lockdown. The lockdown should have been considered a last resort, a desperate measure to buy time, paid for by the enormous sacrifices made by the public. The government have wasted the time that sacrifice bought.The risk of a spike in cases and deaths – and of the social and economic impact if we have to return to stricter lockdown measures – cannot be overstated; this needs to be understood not only by the public but also by the Government.
So I think it should have been a case of lockdown first (not as a "last resort") and then figure out what to actually do during that bought time. Whereas the government messed about during that extra time, locked down anyway but too late, and is now trying to lift it too early, having completely lost public confidence. I certainly have no confidence in the test-and-trace capability, neither the test part nor the trace part.
I don't have the feeling that the government have learnt anything from the experience in March and April. They seem to be just thinking "f.ck it, were past the peak" as if that peak was a feature of the virus getting weaker or due to the population picking up immunity and not the result of the extremely strenuous lockdown.
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
- EACLucifer
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 4177
- Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
- Location: In Sumerian Haze
Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown
Completely agreed.shpalman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 9:43 amThey were half arsed before the lockdown ("sing happy birthday twice") and in fact they were half-arsed instead of the lockdown, which if it had have been implemented sooner could have been shorter.EACLucifer wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 8:32 amADPH Presidential Blog: A time for steady leadership, careful preparation and measured steps
The Association of Directors of Public Health have opposed the Government's reopening plans.
The ADPH is calling for full implementation of all Phase 2 measures to be delayed until further consideration of the ongoing trends in infection rates and the R level gives more confidence about what the impact of these will be.The only way out of lockdown is to transition to other means of controlling the virus. Despite this being obvious throughout, government approaches have been half arsed since before the lockdown. The lockdown should have been considered a last resort, a desperate measure to buy time, paid for by the enormous sacrifices made by the public. The government have wasted the time that sacrifice bought.The risk of a spike in cases and deaths – and of the social and economic impact if we have to return to stricter lockdown measures – cannot be overstated; this needs to be understood not only by the public but also by the Government.
So I think it should have been a case of lockdown first (not as a "last resort") and then figure out what to actually do during that bought time. Whereas the government messed about during that extra time, locked down anyway but too late, and is now trying to lift it too early, having completely lost public confidence. I certainly have no confidence in the test-and-trace capability, neither the test part nor the trace part.
I don't have the feeling that the government have learnt anything from the experience in March and April. They seem to be just thinking "f.ck it, were past the peak" as if that peak was a feature of the virus getting weaker or due to the population picking up immunity and not the result of the extremely strenuous lockdown.
Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown
Pretty much the first thing I recall Keir Starmer say after he became leader was to call for more open discussion from the government on how the lockdown was going to be eased. But instead we're getting it half-arsed and botched.
Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown
A point about horse racing opening up - is it possibly relevant that Newmarket is in Matt Hancock's constituency?
- EACLucifer
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 4177
- Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
- Location: In Sumerian Haze
Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown
That and he appears to get a whole bunch of money from the horse racing industry
Here's his entry in the register of members interests. Not had the time to go through it in detail, but a lot of people are suggesting the amount of money he's received from the industry over the last couple of years runs into six figures.
Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown
True. So wait half an hour after hanging up before you contact the NHS. Or use a different phone or do it on line if those options are available.Millennie Al wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 1:23 amFor the elderly and vulnerable, scammers have a way around that which is well known.
And remember that if you botch the exit, the carnival of reaction may be coming to a town near you.
Fintan O'Toole
Fintan O'Toole
Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown
You're talking about the technique of pretending to hang up then pretending to answer as the legitimate contact point when the victim dials the number.Millennie Al wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 1:23 amFor the elderly and vulnerable, scammers have a way around that which is well known.
The solution to that is fairly straightforward, at least for people who are sufficiently on the ball to think they ought to seek confirmation: If you get a call that might be such a scam, call someone you know first, before you call the public contact tracing number. That's good advice to give any elderly parent who might get calls they're unsure about: call me first for reassurance.
- shpalman
- Princess POW
- Posts: 8241
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
- Location: One step beyond
- Contact:
Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown
I agree with you (EACL) that having to have everything locked down for months is an extremely unsubtle and disruptive way to deal with the situation, but it may be that once the number of infections, and the number of new infections per day, reaches a certain level it's the only thing you can do.
However with a bit of experience it would be nice to know if there were alternatives, to maintain the situation at a manageable level while letting life go on in as normal way as possible.
This may have to mean, for example, that certain leisure activities remain restricted while commercial activities are allowed to go ahead even if in terms of the infection rates the leisure activities have a relatively minor influence; this is just because those things are luxuries but lead to a lot of human contact. And I say this from the point of view of someone who has had his particular favourite recent leisure activity completely shut down for months, and who knows people whose primary income is from that. (It's not exactly the same thing but there was a bit of "how come you're allowed to go to the supermarket where people are shut in a confined space but not allowed to go to the park" to which the answer is that whatever mental health impact there would be on people from not being able to go to the park [something which was originally allowed until people took the piss and spoiled it for everyone] doesn't compare to what would happen if people were not able to buy food for two months). I freely admit that social dancing should be one of the last things considered safe to start doing, and in fact I'm surprised and relieved that (touch wood) I haven't seen a disaster unfolding on my social media, given the scene has such a range of ages and I know a few health professionals.
(I'm also aware that I'm in a much, much better position in all sorts of ways than a lot of people right now, despite living in what has generally been one of the "hottest" areas of Europe for covid. The situation in England worries me much more than the situation in Lombardy.)
One question I saw asked, without seeing an obvious answer, was who are the people still getting infected in England right now? In Italy for example a massive proportion of infections was in care homes. Lombardy made the mistake which England then went on to make, of sending covid-positive cases into care homes to make space in hospitals, while assuming that the field hospitals would need fully functioning ICU-level beds, so by the time they were ready they weren't really needed. For the next wave, you should isolate your suspected covid cases in the field hospitals where you'd only need fingertip oxygen saturation monitors and maybe CPAP masks. This would also reduce transmission within families, which was also significant.
But anyway my point is that if the virus is mainly circulating in care homes or hospitals then a general lockdown of the whole population doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Maybe hardly anyone ever caught the virus in the park or on the beach from a stranger. On the other hand, big sporting or musical events in which there's a big noisy crowd might be relatively dangerous.
The original SAGE modelling indicated that banning big events would make relatively little difference, but that wasn't based on a disease which had significant proportion of mild or asymptomatic carriers who could spread it by shouting. ("Everyone knows" that when you get real influenza, as opposed to a common cold, you probably don't feel like going to a big event or even getting out of bed.)
It may be the case that transmission is dominated by a relatively few 'superspreaders' (even if the text actually suggests that it's situations in which there is particularly dense interaction which cause more cases). But weirdly I think rules which are too precisely targeted get harder to follow, because people think they can get arbitrarily close to whatever it is which is forbidden, leading to an increase in the epidemiological risk, while thinking that they aren't technically ("akshully") breaking the rule. People need to understand the spirit of the rule; the virus doesn't give a sh.t. I'm not optimistic.
However with a bit of experience it would be nice to know if there were alternatives, to maintain the situation at a manageable level while letting life go on in as normal way as possible.
This may have to mean, for example, that certain leisure activities remain restricted while commercial activities are allowed to go ahead even if in terms of the infection rates the leisure activities have a relatively minor influence; this is just because those things are luxuries but lead to a lot of human contact. And I say this from the point of view of someone who has had his particular favourite recent leisure activity completely shut down for months, and who knows people whose primary income is from that. (It's not exactly the same thing but there was a bit of "how come you're allowed to go to the supermarket where people are shut in a confined space but not allowed to go to the park" to which the answer is that whatever mental health impact there would be on people from not being able to go to the park [something which was originally allowed until people took the piss and spoiled it for everyone] doesn't compare to what would happen if people were not able to buy food for two months). I freely admit that social dancing should be one of the last things considered safe to start doing, and in fact I'm surprised and relieved that (touch wood) I haven't seen a disaster unfolding on my social media, given the scene has such a range of ages and I know a few health professionals.
(I'm also aware that I'm in a much, much better position in all sorts of ways than a lot of people right now, despite living in what has generally been one of the "hottest" areas of Europe for covid. The situation in England worries me much more than the situation in Lombardy.)
One question I saw asked, without seeing an obvious answer, was who are the people still getting infected in England right now? In Italy for example a massive proportion of infections was in care homes. Lombardy made the mistake which England then went on to make, of sending covid-positive cases into care homes to make space in hospitals, while assuming that the field hospitals would need fully functioning ICU-level beds, so by the time they were ready they weren't really needed. For the next wave, you should isolate your suspected covid cases in the field hospitals where you'd only need fingertip oxygen saturation monitors and maybe CPAP masks. This would also reduce transmission within families, which was also significant.
But anyway my point is that if the virus is mainly circulating in care homes or hospitals then a general lockdown of the whole population doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Maybe hardly anyone ever caught the virus in the park or on the beach from a stranger. On the other hand, big sporting or musical events in which there's a big noisy crowd might be relatively dangerous.
The original SAGE modelling indicated that banning big events would make relatively little difference, but that wasn't based on a disease which had significant proportion of mild or asymptomatic carriers who could spread it by shouting. ("Everyone knows" that when you get real influenza, as opposed to a common cold, you probably don't feel like going to a big event or even getting out of bed.)
It may be the case that transmission is dominated by a relatively few 'superspreaders' (even if the text actually suggests that it's situations in which there is particularly dense interaction which cause more cases). But weirdly I think rules which are too precisely targeted get harder to follow, because people think they can get arbitrarily close to whatever it is which is forbidden, leading to an increase in the epidemiological risk, while thinking that they aren't technically ("akshully") breaking the rule. People need to understand the spirit of the rule; the virus doesn't give a sh.t. I'm not optimistic.
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown
Does anyone know of a simple checklist that contains details like this, that could be printed off and left near the phone of friends and relatives who might be vulnerable.Martin Y wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 11:07 amYou're talking about the technique of pretending to hang up then pretending to answer as the legitimate contact point when the victim dials the number.Millennie Al wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 1:23 amFor the elderly and vulnerable, scammers have a way around that which is well known.
The solution to that is fairly straightforward, at least for people who are sufficiently on the ball to think they ought to seek confirmation: If you get a call that might be such a scam, call someone you know first, before you call the public contact tracing number. That's good advice to give any elderly parent who might get calls they're unsure about: call me first for reassurance.
Something that will remind them while they are still on a call to look out for things that should make them suspicious.
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!
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!
-
- After Pie
- Posts: 2029
- Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2019 1:23 pm
Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown
Good analysisshpalman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 11:09 amI agree with you (EACL) that having to have everything locked down for months is an extremely unsubtle and disruptive way to deal with the situation, but it may be that once the number of infections, and the number of new infections per day, reaches a certain level it's the only thing you can do.
However with a bit of experience it would be nice to know if there were alternatives, to maintain the situation at a manageable level while letting life go on in as normal way as possible.
This may have to mean, for example, that certain leisure activities remain restricted while commercial activities are allowed to go ahead even if in terms of the infection rates the leisure activities have a relatively minor influence; this is just because those things are luxuries but lead to a lot of human contact. And I say this from the point of view of someone who has had his particular favourite recent leisure activity completely shut down for months, and who knows people whose primary income is from that. (It's not exactly the same thing but there was a bit of "how come you're allowed to go to the supermarket where people are shut in a confined space but not allowed to go to the park" to which the answer is that whatever mental health impact there would be on people from not being able to go to the park [something which was originally allowed until people took the piss and spoiled it for everyone] doesn't compare to what would happen if people were not able to buy food for two months). I freely admit that social dancing should be one of the last things considered safe to start doing, and in fact I'm surprised and relieved that (touch wood) I haven't seen a disaster unfolding on my social media, given the scene has such a range of ages and I know a few health professionals.
(I'm also aware that I'm in a much, much better position in all sorts of ways than a lot of people right now, despite living in what has generally been one of the "hottest" areas of Europe for covid. The situation in England worries me much more than the situation in Lombardy.)
One question I saw asked, without seeing an obvious answer, was who are the people still getting infected in England right now? In Italy for example a massive proportion of infections was in care homes. Lombardy made the mistake which England then went on to make, of sending covid-positive cases into care homes to make space in hospitals, while assuming that the field hospitals would need fully functioning ICU-level beds, so by the time they were ready they weren't really needed. For the next wave, you should isolate your suspected covid cases in the field hospitals where you'd only need fingertip oxygen saturation monitors and maybe CPAP masks. This would also reduce transmission within families, which was also significant.
But anyway my point is that if the virus is mainly circulating in care homes or hospitals then a general lockdown of the whole population doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Maybe hardly anyone ever caught the virus in the park or on the beach from a stranger. On the other hand, big sporting or musical events in which there's a big noisy crowd might be relatively dangerous.
The original SAGE modelling indicated that banning big events would make relatively little difference, but that wasn't based on a disease which had significant proportion of mild or asymptomatic carriers who could spread it by shouting. ("Everyone knows" that when you get real influenza, as opposed to a common cold, you probably don't feel like going to a big event or even getting out of bed.)
It may be the case that transmission is dominated by a relatively few 'superspreaders' (even if the text actually suggests that it's situations in which there is particularly dense interaction which cause more cases). But weirdly I think rules which are too precisely targeted get harder to follow, because people think they can get arbitrarily close to whatever it is which is forbidden, leading to an increase in the epidemiological risk, while thinking that they aren't technically ("akshully") breaking the rule. People need to understand the spirit of the rule; the virus doesn't give a sh.t. I'm not optimistic.
Masking forever
Putin is a monster.
Russian socialism will rise again
Putin is a monster.
Russian socialism will rise again
Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown
Analysis of Covid-19 in sewage as a potential metric for managing the end of the lockdown, some nice graphs etc:
https://www.kwrwater.nl/en/actueel/sewa ... or-corona/
https://www.kwrwater.nl/en/actueel/sewa ... or-corona/
- Woodchopper
- Princess POW
- Posts: 7057
- Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am
Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown
plodder wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 4:30 pmAnalysis of Covid-19 in sewage as a potential metric for managing the end of the lockdown, some nice graphs etc:
https://www.kwrwater.nl/en/actueel/sewa ... or-corona/
Possibly the same research as covered here: https://twitter.com/steamtraen/status/1 ... 17315?s=21
- shpalman
- Princess POW
- Posts: 8241
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
- Location: One step beyond
- Contact:
Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown
https://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news ... nt-4180965
When during the lockdown was that actually allowed?
When during the lockdown was that actually allowed?
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
- Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10137
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown
According to the article, the difference is that you're now committing an offence even if you're the one at home; previously, only the person traveling was breaking the rules (and there was clearly an unwritten exception for cummings).shpalman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 7:07 pmhttps://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news ... nt-4180965
When during the lockdown was that actually allowed?
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
- shpalman
- Princess POW
- Posts: 8241
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
- Location: One step beyond
- Contact:
Re: Covid-19 the unlockdown
Wasn't Neil Ferguson the one staying at home when Antonia Staats came over to shag him or was it the other way around?Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 9:01 pmAccording to the article, the difference is that you're now committing an offence even if you're the one at home; previously, only the person traveling was breaking the rules (and there was clearly an unwritten exception for cummings).shpalman wrote: ↑Mon Jun 01, 2020 7:07 pmhttps://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news ... nt-4180965
When during the lockdown was that actually allowed?
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk