Demolition of contaminated buildings? Why?

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
Post Reply
User avatar
Brightonian
Dorkwood
Posts: 1429
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:16 pm
Location: Usually UK, often France and Ireland

Demolition of contaminated buildings? Why?

Post by Brightonian » Thu Aug 06, 2020 8:56 am

From this news story:
The document, released by the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, informs councils that under the Public Health (Disease Control) Act 1984, they can ask a magistrate “to impose restrictions or requirements for closing off contaminated premises; close public spaces in the local authority area; retain a means of transport or a mobile structure; disinfect or decontaminate the premises; or order that a building, means of transport or structure be destroyed ”.
If the virus doesn't survive out of the body for more than a few days, why not just leave a building empty for that amount of time instead of demolishing? Or indeed why bother doing deep cleans of buildings, buses etc. - just leave them idle for a while.

PeteB
Clardic Fug
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 1:02 pm

Re: Demolition of contaminated buildings? Why?

Post by PeteB » Thu Aug 06, 2020 9:03 am

Dead Cat

User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 8242
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Re: Demolition of contaminated buildings? Why?

Post by shpalman » Thu Aug 06, 2020 9:19 am

The "Public Health (Disease Control) Act 1984" obviously pre-dates covid and is general enough to cover all sorts of different diseases.

But "get your patrons to wear f.cking masks or we knock your f.cking pub down" might not have done anything about this demonstration of limited mental capacity to simultaneously retain multiple pieces of information in working memory for rational decision making.
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk

User avatar
Brightonian
Dorkwood
Posts: 1429
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:16 pm
Location: Usually UK, often France and Ireland

Re: Demolition of contaminated buildings? Why?

Post by Brightonian » Thu Aug 06, 2020 10:35 am

shpalman wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 9:19 am
The "Public Health (Disease Control) Act 1984" obviously pre-dates covid and is general enough to cover all sorts of different diseases.
Good point. I originally came across the news story via a fragment of a Telegraph article which I now cannot access at all except for its headline: "Councils can demolish contaminated buildings under powers to stop second coronavirus wave". Several other news outlets have the same story, such as this one which even more strongly implies that councils are being told they can demolish coronavirus-contaminated buildings. So I just wonder what got briefed by the government.

Anyway, I've been puzzled for a while whenever I read about councils etc. doing deep cleans in response to the coronavirus - surely pointless if you can just wait a few days.

User avatar
Boustrophedon
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2860
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:58 pm
Location: Lincolnshire Wolds

Re: Demolition of contaminated buildings? Why?

Post by Boustrophedon » Thu Aug 06, 2020 11:09 am

This is only used for things like anthrax that form resistant spores. Even then I can find no record of any demolitions, even on farms where there has been an outbreak. Hysterical nonsense.
Hjulet snurrar men hamstern är död.

User avatar
Gfamily
Light of Blast
Posts: 5180
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 pm
Location: NW England

Re: Demolition of contaminated buildings? Why?

Post by Gfamily » Thu Aug 06, 2020 11:28 am

Boustrophedon wrote:
Thu Aug 06, 2020 11:09 am
This is only used for things like anthrax that form resistant spores. Even then I can find no record of any demolitions, even on farms where there has been an outbreak. Hysterical nonsense.
Wasn't the Skripal's house demolished following the Salisbury poisoning?

But yes, in this instance a hysterical distraction
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!

Post Reply