Crosswords3 mins ago
What Hope Of Ending The Pandemic?
When people act like this I despair!
https:/
Snowflakes who can't/won't cook?
https:/
Snowflakes who can't/won't cook?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by diddlydo. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
And for every one of those incidents there are dozens, if not hundreds of accidents in the home involving slips, trips, cuts, burns, scalds, lacerations, head injuries and electrical shocks. The home is the most dangerous place for most people to be. If people want to remain safe they should go out.
I’m sure the families of the 100,000+ people who have died will be comforted by the fact that the word essential only appears 4 times in the covid legislation. Should warm the cockles of the hearts of the people working on the frontline in the NHS, those that have lost their jobs and those struggling on furlough. But you carry on with your not picking because all you seem to have given up is meals in a restaurant and a couple of foreign holidays.
so,
last paragraph.
Leaving home
You must not leave, or be outside of your home except where necessary. You may leave the home to:
shop for basic necessities, for you or a vulnerable person
go to work, or provide voluntary or charitable services, if you cannot reasonably do so from home
exercise with your household (or support bubble) or one other person (in which case you should stay 2m apart). Exercise should be limited to once per day, and you should not travel outside your local area.
meet your support bubble or childcare bubble where necessary, but only if you are legally permitted to form one
seek medical assistance or avoid injury, illness or risk of harm (including domestic abuse)
attend education or childcare - for those eligible
If you do leave home for a permitted reason, you should always stay in your local area - unless it is necessary to go further, for example to go to work.
stay in your local area...
last paragraph.
Leaving home
You must not leave, or be outside of your home except where necessary. You may leave the home to:
shop for basic necessities, for you or a vulnerable person
go to work, or provide voluntary or charitable services, if you cannot reasonably do so from home
exercise with your household (or support bubble) or one other person (in which case you should stay 2m apart). Exercise should be limited to once per day, and you should not travel outside your local area.
meet your support bubble or childcare bubble where necessary, but only if you are legally permitted to form one
seek medical assistance or avoid injury, illness or risk of harm (including domestic abuse)
attend education or childcare - for those eligible
If you do leave home for a permitted reason, you should always stay in your local area - unless it is necessary to go further, for example to go to work.
stay in your local area...
//I’m sure the families of the 100,000+ people who have died will be comforted by the fact that the word essential only appears 4 times in the covid legislation. Should warm the cockles of the hearts of the people working on the frontline in the NHS, those that have lost their jobs and those struggling on furlough.//
You're missing the point. This question is headed "What hope of Ending the Pandemic?" The legislation I mentioned is not designed to warm the cockles of the hearts of frontline health staff nor to comfort the bereaved. It is allegedly designed to help end the pandemic. As it stands it does not forbid the type of actions we see mentioned. It might help more if it did prohibit unnecessary journeys and it only allowed people to shop for essential goods. But it doesn't. What it has done is to encourage the police - no doubt coached by their senior officers - to hassle people by exceeding their powers and that's no way to bring people onside so that they may actually help end the pandemic. Police should not act unlawfully, Covid or not.
You're missing the point. This question is headed "What hope of Ending the Pandemic?" The legislation I mentioned is not designed to warm the cockles of the hearts of frontline health staff nor to comfort the bereaved. It is allegedly designed to help end the pandemic. As it stands it does not forbid the type of actions we see mentioned. It might help more if it did prohibit unnecessary journeys and it only allowed people to shop for essential goods. But it doesn't. What it has done is to encourage the police - no doubt coached by their senior officers - to hassle people by exceeding their powers and that's no way to bring people onside so that they may actually help end the pandemic. Police should not act unlawfully, Covid or not.
//last paragraph.
Leaving home
You must not leave, or be outside of your home except where necessary. You may leave the home to: etc//
That's "guidance", webbo, not law. Guidance is not enforceable.
The big problem with this is that either by accident or (more probably) design the two have been deliberately conflated. There is no mention of "necessities" in the law nor none of "local" or anything like it. It's simply what the government thinks you should do and the police are enforcing their thoughts with the threat of criminal sanctions. That's not the way this country operates.
Leaving home
You must not leave, or be outside of your home except where necessary. You may leave the home to: etc//
That's "guidance", webbo, not law. Guidance is not enforceable.
The big problem with this is that either by accident or (more probably) design the two have been deliberately conflated. There is no mention of "necessities" in the law nor none of "local" or anything like it. It's simply what the government thinks you should do and the police are enforcing their thoughts with the threat of criminal sanctions. That's not the way this country operates.
The more people continue to push the boundaries and test the system to breaking point with their silly ploys to get round any guidance then the longer the pandemic will be with us.
That would be fine if it only affected them but it doesn't, it affects all of us.
Still, as long as they get their fresh pinta or a roast dinner in the next county that's OK isn't it?
That would be fine if it only affected them but it doesn't, it affects all of us.
Still, as long as they get their fresh pinta or a roast dinner in the next county that's OK isn't it?
No, you’re missing the point. The title is ‘what hope of ending the pandemic’, not how much armchair sitting, nit picking, police blaming can we do on one thread. It’s really quite simple, there is no hope of ending the pandemic whilst people flout the guidance/rules/legislation/whatever you want to call it.
//Some like judge are overthinking it and missing the point//
I'm over thinking nothing. There are already "temporary" measures which it seems might become permanent. When this is over (or as over as it ever will be) I don't want to see the police enforcing the thoughts of the government (and to a lesser degree the "Twittersphere"). That is where this will lead and if you're happy with that good luck to you. As I've said before, I think some of things people are doing are selfish and irresponsible. But you don't face criminal sanctions for being selfish and irresponsible. If the government wants that it must legislate for it.
I'm over thinking nothing. There are already "temporary" measures which it seems might become permanent. When this is over (or as over as it ever will be) I don't want to see the police enforcing the thoughts of the government (and to a lesser degree the "Twittersphere"). That is where this will lead and if you're happy with that good luck to you. As I've said before, I think some of things people are doing are selfish and irresponsible. But you don't face criminal sanctions for being selfish and irresponsible. If the government wants that it must legislate for it.
//No, you’re missing the point.?
Am not sure if that was for me sherrardk but thought a was agreeing with you.
Judge, am not talking about criminal sanctions. Am talking about people defending those who are doing things like driving 130 miles for a takeaway or 20 miles for just milk milk to test eyesight or any other excuse people come up with to justify things that are clearly not the right thing to do.
Yes it would be better if it were in law temporarly but a can see that there are practical difficulties in getting legislation through fast enough
Am not sure if that was for me sherrardk but thought a was agreeing with you.
Judge, am not talking about criminal sanctions. Am talking about people defending those who are doing things like driving 130 miles for a takeaway or 20 miles for just milk milk to test eyesight or any other excuse people come up with to justify things that are clearly not the right thing to do.
Yes it would be better if it were in law temporarly but a can see that there are practical difficulties in getting legislation through fast enough
Sorry Bob, not aimed at you, aimed at NJ and fcc and any one else who thinks it’s ok to carry on doing what ever you want because it’s not ‘law’ and if you can drive 5 miles why not 50, and how how come you can drive 50 miles for a vaccine but not for a pint of farm fresh milk, or a Sunday lunch because mummy wouldn’t make one.
This is incredibly irritating and deserves every condemnation, but I don't think despairing about it, in the sense of thinking that this will make it impossible to end the pandemic, is right. The far more important and significant factor is the severity and extent of the lockdown regulations. Strictly speaking, even those aren't enough to "end" the pandemic, at least not any time soon, but the present lockdown has had a sharp effect in reducing case numbers, vastly dominating over the effects of imperfect or non-compliance.
Don't let stories like this discourage you, or lead you to think that all our efforts are pointless. They aren't; we can and will beat this, and we don't need literally everybody to comply with Government guidelines in order to beat this. It's the same with the vaccination programme. Although I think there's no concrete evidence for Covid-19 to demonstrate this, past experience shows that herd immunity only requires in the region of 80-90% of people to be immune in order for the entire population to be effectively protected.
Don't let stories like this discourage you, or lead you to think that all our efforts are pointless. They aren't; we can and will beat this, and we don't need literally everybody to comply with Government guidelines in order to beat this. It's the same with the vaccination programme. Although I think there's no concrete evidence for Covid-19 to demonstrate this, past experience shows that herd immunity only requires in the region of 80-90% of people to be immune in order for the entire population to be effectively protected.
//..aimed at NJ and fcc and any one else who thinks it’s ok to carry on doing what ever you want because it’s not ‘law’//
I didn’t say I thought it was OK. I have specifically said, both within this question and others, that I believe some of the things a lot of people seem to be doing are stupid, irresponsible and selfish. But in this country we don’t threaten people with criminal sanctions for being stupid, irresponsible or selfish (if we did a sizeable proportion of the population would be up before the Beak). We (should) only do that when they have broken the law.
I have grave fears for the rule of law in the UK. I don’t have a fear of law breakers running amok on the streets. I have fears of police officers running amok among the population. As I’ve said, the government’s thoughts are currently being imposed by the police on people as if they were law. Some measures have been introduced which eat at the very heart of the protections people should have from an over-zealous (to be kind) or a tyrannical (to be less so) State.
//we can and will beat this,//
No we won’t, Jim. We’ll devise a way of living with it as we have with all other endemic diseases. Just how long it will take the government to accept that we will not beat it and set forth instead on a strategy that enables us to live with it is anybody’s guess. I say that because the goalposts continually shift. Initially the lockdown measures were to protect the NHS. When that was achieved it was to buy time until a vaccine was rolled out. Now that is happening the population is being softened up for a prolonged lockdown until no more mutations are present in the country (and good luck with that since that’s precisely what all viruses do). Eventually it will have to be accepted that we must live with it (and the way the country is restricted at present is not “living”). Meantime it seems we’re in for a long wait. Hopefully the money will run out before people die in droves from other untreated ailments or we all go off our rockers.
I didn’t say I thought it was OK. I have specifically said, both within this question and others, that I believe some of the things a lot of people seem to be doing are stupid, irresponsible and selfish. But in this country we don’t threaten people with criminal sanctions for being stupid, irresponsible or selfish (if we did a sizeable proportion of the population would be up before the Beak). We (should) only do that when they have broken the law.
I have grave fears for the rule of law in the UK. I don’t have a fear of law breakers running amok on the streets. I have fears of police officers running amok among the population. As I’ve said, the government’s thoughts are currently being imposed by the police on people as if they were law. Some measures have been introduced which eat at the very heart of the protections people should have from an over-zealous (to be kind) or a tyrannical (to be less so) State.
//we can and will beat this,//
No we won’t, Jim. We’ll devise a way of living with it as we have with all other endemic diseases. Just how long it will take the government to accept that we will not beat it and set forth instead on a strategy that enables us to live with it is anybody’s guess. I say that because the goalposts continually shift. Initially the lockdown measures were to protect the NHS. When that was achieved it was to buy time until a vaccine was rolled out. Now that is happening the population is being softened up for a prolonged lockdown until no more mutations are present in the country (and good luck with that since that’s precisely what all viruses do). Eventually it will have to be accepted that we must live with it (and the way the country is restricted at present is not “living”). Meantime it seems we’re in for a long wait. Hopefully the money will run out before people die in droves from other untreated ailments or we all go off our rockers.
Defeatist nonsense. We've already scored two victories over the germ community, with several more in the offing (guinea worm disease and polio are among the next two to be permanently eradicated); and even if total victory is difficult or impossible then bringing a dangerous killer under control is still possible -- see, eg, Measles/Diptheria/Cholera etc. I don't see why Covid will be an exception and I don't see that we have to concede just yet. It's true that defeating this one may prove more difficult and more costly than most, but why should that stop us from trying?
Well, Jim, I'm just comparing it with other viral respiratory diseases. If you take "ordinary" 'flu as an example, nobody has ever suggested it will be entirely eliminated and we live with about 20k deaths a year from it in the UK - even with a vaccine. Trying to "eliminate" a coronavirus is akin to squeezing a balloon. As you squash one side, mutations emerge on the other.
However, I'm more concerned with a shorter timescale than those taken to almost eliminate the diseases you mention. I think the polio vaccine was developed some time in the 1950s and IIRC it was still occurring in the UK in the 1970s. We need the schools and the pubs open a little sooner than that.
However, I'm more concerned with a shorter timescale than those taken to almost eliminate the diseases you mention. I think the polio vaccine was developed some time in the 1950s and IIRC it was still occurring in the UK in the 1970s. We need the schools and the pubs open a little sooner than that.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank14 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles26 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles30 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles32 mins ago
Body & Soul62 mins ago