Scrutable

Bird on a Fire wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 4:20 pm

lpm wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 3:22 pm Believe me, we're all pretty distraught over on our forum, lickable.science. The debates we have. Some people say cars all taste the same, except for the orange ones. Others claim they can identify makes and colours blindford. Oh, the taste of a silver Rav4 on a summers day! And wow, a light blue Honda Jazz in winter when they're gritting the roads - the added salty tang! And the rare old classics - if you ever see a Talbot Alpine at a classic cars show do not miss your chance.

I super lolled at this.

I was reminded of the taste of the squished insects you used to find on a Buggetti.

And the mintyness of a Polo

I got a lift in the boot of a Honda Jazz once. My friend had been boasting of its capacious bootspace, and lo and behold five of us needed a lift and there were only 4 seats.

I wouldn't describe it as a comfortable journey, but the interior microfibre carpet was certainly tasty, and the grit slides right off it like a dream.

Hungary looks pretty close to going full-on fash right now.

A crisis exposes both leaders and systems. The US looks bad, because it has an abysmal leader, but its systems of checks and balances and distribution of power places limits on how much damage an abysmal leader can do. Orban's the kind of man who was clearly always looking for an opportunity to become a dictator. Worryingly, it seems he has found it.

Bird on a Fire wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 4:30 pm I got a lift in the boot of a Honda Jazz once. My friend had been boasting of its capacious bootspace, and lo and behold five of us needed a lift and there were only 4 seats.

I wouldn't describe it as a comfortable journey, but the interior microfibre carpet was certainly tasty, and the grit slides right off it like a dream.

Stuart Maconie describes a similar journey in one of his books.

And there's an episode of Last of the Summer Wine where Barry takes Glenda for a ride in the boot of his car. But he had a good excuse - he was trying to trace the exact location of a squeak in the rear suspension...

Gfamily wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 4:23 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 4:20 pm

lpm wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 3:22 pm Believe me, we're all pretty distraught over on our forum, lickable.science. The debates we have. Some people say cars all taste the same, except for the orange ones. Others claim they can identify makes and colours blindford. Oh, the taste of a silver Rav4 on a summers day! And wow, a light blue Honda Jazz in winter when they're gritting the roads - the added salty tang! And the rare old classics - if you ever see a Talbot Alpine at a classic cars show do not miss your chance.

I super lolled at this.

I was reminded of the taste of the squished insects you used to find on a Buggetti.

And the mintyness of a Polo

There is of course an XKCD for that


The point is of course that due to the Gov lack of clarity people push the edges of what they think should be reasonable. Driving out to somewhere to exercise is not reasonable*. We've been told that. We know that. But it seems like it ought to be reasonable so people do it, and the police are stuck in the frying pan of enforcing correct but poorly worded guidelines for everyone's good.



*in case you haven't understood yet you can get long-lived transmission on hard surfaces and isolation of communities is most important. Driving to common locations risks spreading across the natural breaks the countryside provides. Why won't someone think of the farmers.

Gfamily wrote: Wed Apr 01, 2020 4:23 pm And the mintyness of a Polo

science_fox wrote: Thu Apr 02, 2020 9:16 am

The point is of course that due to the Gov lack of clarity people push the edges of what they think should be reasonable. Driving out to somewhere to exercise is not reasonable*. We've been told that. We know that. But it seems like it ought to be reasonable so people do it, and the police are stuck in the frying pan of enforcing correct but poorly worded guidelines for everyone's good.



*in case you haven't understood yet you can get long-lived transmission on hard surfaces and isolation of communities is most important. Driving to common locations risks spreading across the natural breaks the countryside provides. Why won't someone think of the farmers.

The argument I've heard is that if you have a car accident it puts more strain on the emergency services, but aren't you more likely to have an accident in the home?

Trinucleus wrote: Thu Apr 02, 2020 6:26 pm

science_fox wrote: Thu Apr 02, 2020 9:16 am

The point is of course that due to the Gov lack of clarity people push the edges of what they think should be reasonable. Driving out to somewhere to exercise is not reasonable*. We've been told that. We know that. But it seems like it ought to be reasonable so people do it, and the police are stuck in the frying pan of enforcing correct but poorly worded guidelines for everyone's good.



*in case you haven't understood yet you can get long-lived transmission on hard surfaces and isolation of communities is most important. Driving to common locations risks spreading across the natural breaks the countryside provides. Why won't someone think of the farmers.

The argument I've heard is that if you have a car accident it puts more strain on the emergency services, but aren't you more likely to have an accident in the home?

You are, but I suspect you are less likely to have an accident that needs treatment with an intensive care bed. ETA one issue with even a relatively mild traffic accident would be the need to be in close contact with people - eg swapping insurance details, at the garage to get repairs etc

Trinucleus wrote: Thu Apr 02, 2020 6:26 pm

science_fox wrote: Thu Apr 02, 2020 9:16 am

The point is of course that due to the Gov lack of clarity people push the edges of what they think should be reasonable. Driving out to somewhere to exercise is not reasonable*. We've been told that. We know that. But it seems like it ought to be reasonable so people do it, and the police are stuck in the frying pan of enforcing correct but poorly worded guidelines for everyone's good.



*in case you haven't understood yet you can get long-lived transmission on hard surfaces and isolation of communities is most important. Driving to common locations risks spreading across the natural breaks the countryside provides. Why won't someone think of the farmers.

The argument I've heard is that if you have a car accident it puts more strain on the emergency services, but aren't you more likely to have an accident in the home?

I've always assumed that's because people spend lots of time there, never been sure if that factoid accounts for that.

I bet the DIY accident rate is going up steeply (maybe not exponentially though)

I came here to post this, but I'm also still laughing at lpm's post.

Anyway, more seriously...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/c ... 44186.html

Stephanie wrote: Thu Apr 02, 2020 8:41 pm I came here to post this, but I'm also still laughing at lpm's post.

Anyway, more seriously...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/c ... 44186.html

That is ridiculous and I'm glad about the outcome.

From the Watford Observer article referred to on the COVID-19 thread, but it seems more appropriate here:

A council source said hundreds of people were gathering at the park, with temperatures reaching 15°C, to enjoy the sun and picnic, despite the government last night urging residents to stay home during the coronavirus pandemic.

and

[I am fairly sure "hundreds" refers to the gathering not the picknicking. And note the sly "were gathering" as if it was some kind of pre-meditated collective action like a rave.]

As the law does not prevent travel to exercise (this has been confirmed by ministers), then it is possible that everyone in the park arrived there legally, was being legal whilst there (not getting closer than 2m other than with household members and so on). Apart from the picknickers, obviously. You can fit a lot of people into a park yet keep 2m apart, a small group every 10m is a quite a crowd, yet there is still room for movement whilst keeping to the rule. Blaming everyone because they all decided to go to the same place is pathetic. It wasn't a pre-arranged event sake, it just happened. This is an entirely predictable consequence of the looseness of the restrictions.

More from the article:

The mayor of Watford, Peter Taylor, blasted the ‘inconsiderate’ park goers and called for people to take greater responsibility during this moment of crisis.

He said: “Not only are you endangering your own life, but you are putting the lives of other people at risk. This is an incredibly serious situation for Watford and for the country.”

Mr Taylor added: “Given the severity of this situation people need to follow the NHS advice about social distancing and only doing one hour of physical activity a day.

[Note the complete absence of any evidence that anyone present was not complying with either of those requirements. The pic-nickers were not complying with the one about only leaving home for certain purposes, pic-nicking not being one of them and not being a "reasonable excuse" as required by the Regulations*.]

No Mr Taylor, your council and the local Police are endangering life by not using the powers you have to prevent entirely predictable health risks from occuring. There are powers to close off areas, why not just use them and be honest about why, ie say "because of the popularity of this place we are closing [it/its car park] to minimise the risk of infection occurring".

There is no need to blame people's conduct and claim such actions are only necessary because of people "flouting the law", as some kind of collective punishment for the misconduct of a few reckless fools (good story though that is). Yet there seems to be a compulsion to relate such actions to misconduct. I guess the Police and official mentality may be stuck in that kind of paradigm because most similar powers do have the risk of unlawful action as their basis, rather than the risk of infection. Possibly there is also a rather naive assumption that infection risk can only arise if there is actual breaking of the rules, so examples of the latter are needed to provide a basis for finding the former. There may have been a few naughty people there, but most people were doubtless behaving themselves, and if there was an increased infection risk it almost certainly arose from the collective (and lawful) proximity of so many people not from the unlawful actions of a few of them in eating their lunch. Making people feel guilty is going to be counter-productive, treat people like children and they will be more likely to behave childishly.

This highlights the looseness of the actual provisions and the mealy-mouthed nature of official statements. It has been blindingly obvious such incidents would occur, and they have occurred. Just repeating "stay at home" doesn't cut it, especially if accompanied by a parrotting of the various reasons people can leave home. It is the sort of evasion that gives politicians a bad name. Why not credit people with some intelligence and ask them to exercise judgment in deciding whether to go somewhere else, or go home if the destination is crowded, and close off obvious pressure points using existing powers. If that doesn't work, make the rules tighter. Blaming people for not complying with the rules you decided not to make is pathetic.

*I can't be arsed to address the barrack-room lawyers' points about the statutory wording requiring a particular reason for leaving home, so a later-acquired reason can justify any activity once you have left.

JUST f.cking STAY AT HOME. We have no option here in Spain and it seems to be working. At least people are JUST f.cking STAYING AT HOME. It's not difficult, it's just inconvenient. Especially when you have a beach 100m away. But just jog on.

What about leaving home to go to work? How does JUST f.cking STAY AT HOME fit with the UK policy of keeping workplaces open, schools open and takeaways open?

f.ck the economy, we'll rebuild it. So that it works for the many, not the few.

So you're saying individuals required to go to work by their employer should instead quit and stay at home?

greyspoke wrote: Sat Apr 04, 2020 5:46 pm From the Watford Observer article referred to on the COVID-19 thread, but it seems more appropriate here:

A council source said hundreds of people were gathering at the park, with temperatures reaching 15°C, to enjoy the sun and picnic, despite the government last night urging residents to stay home during the coronavirus pandemic.

and

[I am fairly sure "hundreds" refers to the gathering not the picknicking. And note the sly "were gathering" as if it was some kind of pre-meditated collective action like a rave.]

As the law does not prevent travel to exercise (this has been confirmed by ministers), then it is possible that everyone in the park arrived there legally, was being legal whilst there (not getting closer than 2m other than with household members and so on). Apart from the picknickers, obviously. You can fit a lot of people into a park yet keep 2m apart, a small group every 10m is a quite a crowd, yet there is still room for movement whilst keeping to the rule. Blaming everyone because they all decided to go to the same place is pathetic. It wasn't a pre-arranged event sake, it just happened. This is an entirely predictable consequence of the looseness of the restrictions.

Alternatively, the news article stated that the car park was completely full. The car park has 217 spaces. I don't know exactly when the article was written, but it was posted here at 1420 BST. I'll assume that it took a few hours for the car park to be closed and for the article to be written and posted here, and I'll assume that few people would turn up before breakfast on a Saturday. I'll also assume that a typical car holds between one and five people.

If so that means that:

a) Circa 217 cars each containing between 1-5 people arrived at the car park within about 2-3 hours. I doubt that all of those people could leave the car park and maintain a 2 meter distance between themselves and other groups.

b) About 109 cars arrived at the car park when it was over half full, and the the people in those cars decided to park anyway rather than leave and go somewhere else. None of them appear to have thought "looks a bit crowded here, lets turn around".

Certainly, you can't blame people for individually deciding to go to the park.

But someone who turns up to a crowded car park and decides to park there anyway doesn't appear to be taking social distancing very seriously.

So why can't there be official guidance on parking? That is my point, people are allowed to do things, but rather than being given any practical guidance on how to do it, they are accused of breaking rules (that they probably didn't in fact break) when they do. Alternatively just close the f.cking car park before the inevitable happens rather than waiting for it to happen first. Admittedly, it would be a lot simpler to ban motorised travel for exercise purposes. But that isn't the way it is, and again the messaging just p.ssy-foots around it.

Also, a full car park is full of cars. I am not sure how people should relate that to social distancing, or whether they should be expected to see a contagion risk in vehicles (assuming they aren't going to lick them).

Woodchopper wrote: Sat Apr 04, 2020 7:22 pm

greyspoke wrote: Sat Apr 04, 2020 5:46 pm From the Watford Observer article referred to on the COVID-19 thread, but it seems more appropriate here:

A council source said hundreds of people were gathering at the park, with temperatures reaching 15°C, to enjoy the sun and picnic, despite the government last night urging residents to stay home during the coronavirus pandemic.

and

[I am fairly sure "hundreds" refers to the gathering not the picknicking. And note the sly "were gathering" as if it was some kind of pre-meditated collective action like a rave.]

As the law does not prevent travel to exercise (this has been confirmed by ministers), then it is possible that everyone in the park arrived there legally, was being legal whilst there (not getting closer than 2m other than with household members and so on). Apart from the picknickers, obviously. You can fit a lot of people into a park yet keep 2m apart, a small group every 10m is a quite a crowd, yet there is still room for movement whilst keeping to the rule. Blaming everyone because they all decided to go to the same place is pathetic. It wasn't a pre-arranged event sake, it just happened. This is an entirely predictable consequence of the looseness of the restrictions.

Alternatively, the news article stated that the car park was completely full. The car park has 217 spaces. I don't know exactly when the article was written, but it was posted here at 1420 BST. I'll assume that it took a few hours for the car park to be closed and for the article to be written and posted here, and I'll assume that few people would turn up before breakfast on a Saturday. I'll also assume that a typical car holds between one and five people.

If so that means that:

a) Circa 217 cars each containing between 1-5 people arrived at the car park within about 2-3 hours. I doubt that all of those people could leave the car park and maintain a 2 meter distance between themselves and other groups.

b) About 109 cars arrived at the car park when it was over half full, and the the people in those cars decided to park anyway rather than leave and go somewhere else. None of them appear to have thought "looks a bit crowded here, lets turn around".

Certainly, you can't blame people for individually deciding to go to the park.

But someone who turns up to a crowded car park and decides to park there anyway doesn't appear to be taking social distancing very seriously.

But I think there's a problem with your reasoning here:

Even if every one of the 217 cars held 5 people, that's only 1085 people. Cassiobury Park is 190 acres, or about 770,000 m2. That gives everyone 700 m2 each (assuming equally spaced) or nearly an acre per group of car occupants. That's hardly crowded*, and people who know the park will know this. You may have to walk past other people go get to an uncrowded spot, but how long are you allowed to reduce the social distancing gap? If you walk down the pavement and someone is walking the other way, you can't always stay 2 m apart, but the time of the reduced gap is seconds. Walking past other groups who are exercising in the park will also take mere seconds.

Does this increase your risk? Yes, but probably by only a minute amount. That said, people aren't always very good at assessing personal risk.

[* Yes, I know many other people may turn up by walking.]

People round here are taking to the roads/ grass to maintain distance. I avoid narrow tracks and passageways where the end isn't visible.

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
- complacent government response in Feb 2020
- government eventually sending an email wondering if anyone could make more ventilators on 16 March
- lack of PPE causing loss of capacity via illnesses and deaths of NHS staff

Infection rate is too high

- complacent government response in Feb 2020
- government thinking voluntary distancing and hand washing was the answer
- government abandoned test and trace on 12 March
- 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”
- government keeping pubs, football grounds, theatres, cinemas, events open - even while responsible citizens were voluntarily shutting and cancelling events
- keeping schools open as a deliberate way to keep infections going among the least vulnerable group - even while responsible citizens were voluntarily stopping their children from going
- government only entering the current partial lock down on Monday 23 March, two weeks after Italy, even though Italy had already shown us they were too late
- to this day government keeping public transport running to take employees to work, with people still being required to keep working if their employer demands and they cannot work from home, keeping schools partially open, not releasing prisoners from overcrowded prisons, keeping flights coming in from New York and USA without screening, keeping non-essential shopping partially going

But what was the response to the question of why ventilator capacity could be exceeded? It will be exceeded if “people do not self isolate properly”.

This is the same sh.t they pulled with climate change and it works. The blame for climate change was shoved down onto individuals. It’s the fault of people flying to Benidorm and not putting their recycling in the correct bins, it’s most definitely not the fault of the fossil fuel economy and government failure.

There’s a concerted government and tabloid drive on right now – to dodge the blame and point the finger at individuals. Nurses are not dying because the government is too incompetent to give them PPE, they are dying because you sunbathed in a park. Frail old people are not being denied ventilators due to underfunding of the NHS, they are dying because you drove to a shop to buy easter eggs.

It stinks. The horrific death toll is due to the government’s actions – which were partly gross negligence and partly deliberate running-hot to protect the economy. Shout back at them when they put the blame on individuals walking in the countryside. Don’t clap along with them when they celebrate NHS staff risking their lives without PPE. Keep the focus lasered-in on where it should be – that this is still only a partial lockdown with thousands of new infections being driven by people forced to mingle in the workplace, those people being mostly poorly paid, minorities and the powerless.

And remember how many thousands of lives we the public have saved by voluntarily acting many days earlier than the government demanded.

On the other hand people who walk down supermarket aisles with their trolleys side by side should be sent to the chair.

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
- complacent government response in Feb 2020
- government eventually sending an email wondering if anyone could make more ventilators on 16 March
- lack of PPE causing loss of capacity via illnesses and deaths of NHS staff

Infection rate is too high

- complacent government response in Feb 2020
- government thinking voluntary distancing and hand washing was the answer
- government abandoned test and trace on 12 March
- 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”
- government keeping pubs, football grounds, theatres, cinemas, events open - even while responsible citizens were voluntarily shutting and cancelling events
- keeping schools open as a deliberate way to keep infections going among the least vulnerable group - even while responsible citizens were voluntarily stopping their children from going
- government only entering the current partial lock down on Monday 23 March, two weeks after Italy, even though Italy had already shown us they were too late
- to this day government keeping public transport running to take employees to work, with people still being required to keep working if their employer demands and they cannot work from home, keeping schools partially open, not releasing prisoners from overcrowded prisons, keeping flights coming in from New York and USA without screening, keeping non-essential shopping partially going

But what was the response to the question of why ventilator capacity could be exceeded? It will be exceeded if “people do not self isolate properly”.

This is the same sh.t they pulled with climate change and it works. The blame for climate change was shoved down onto individuals. It’s the fault of people flying to Benidorm and not putting their recycling in the correct bins, it’s most definitely not the fault of the fossil fuel economy and government failure.

There’s a concerted government and tabloid drive on right now – to dodge the blame and point the finger at individuals. Nurses are not dying because the government is too incompetent to give them PPE, they are dying because you sunbathed in a park. Frail old people are not being denied ventilators due to underfunding of the NHS, they are dying because you drove to a shop to buy easter eggs.

It stinks. The horrific death toll is due to the government’s actions – which were partly gross negligence and partly deliberate running-hot to protect the economy. Shout back at them when they put the blame on individuals walking in the countryside. Don’t clap along with them when they celebrate NHS staff risking their lives without PPE. Keep the focus lasered-in on where it should be – that this is still only a partial lockdown with thousands of new infections being driven by people forced to mingle in the workplace, those people being mostly poorly paid, minorities and the powerless.

And remember how many thousands of lives we the public have saved by voluntarily acting many days earlier than the government demanded.

Can I steal this to post on FB?