Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[Bairn Necessities]

Just now, JTS98 said:

Never disputed that.

But it doesn't address what I said.

Do I know whether we're going to save 1000 people and kill 2000 by stopping people exercising? No. 

Do I know that there's no need for responsible people to stop exercising? Yes. 

[Guest JTS98]

2 minutes ago, virginton said:

There's no problem here that the truncheon can't solve, your rap lecture is rejected then.

There is though, because by the time you hit them with the truncheon, the damage is probably already done.

This isn't best solved by hitting people, it's best solved by making them stay at home by giving them a completely unambiguous message.

[cyderspaceman]

25 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

I think the problem here is that no two people tend to see many things the same way.

You ask two people to cook a medium-rare steak and you'll get two differently cooked steaks. You ask two people to make a paper plane and you'll get two slightly different paper planes.

You ask two people to judge for themselves whether they are being safe in a situation like this, and you'll get two different views. The problem with that is that the people who aren't being safe enough are a health hazard for the whole of society. Allowing them to behave recklessly is simply a public danger and will cost lives.

With that in mind, everyone should refrain from stuff that encourages everyone to be outside. This has already been the experience elsewhere, and the evidence of last weekend in the UK suggests that the British public also need to be told to go home and stay home with no ifs and buts and mibbies and excuses.

If the dafties continue being dafties, more people will die. That means everyone has to sacrifice.

Telling people that going running is ok means that some people hear 'going out with my pals is ok'. And it snowballs from there. That must be cut off.

You are correct. I'm wrong. Cheerio.

Edited March 23, 2020 by cyderspaceman

[Guest JTS98]

2 minutes ago, Bairn Necessities said:

Do I know whether we're going to save 1000 people and kill 2000 by stopping people exercising? No. 

Do I know that there's no need for responsible people to stop exercising? Yes. 

But you accept that responsible people being allowed to exercise will mean more irresponsible people do things they shouldn't do?

Because that's what happens.

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, cyderspaceman said:

You are correct. We are wrong. Cheerio.

What part of it do you dispute?

Do you think the evidence of last weekend shows that it's helpful or unhelpful to have the British public believe that it's ok to be outside?

[Bairn Necessities]

Just now, JTS98 said:

But you accept that responsible people being allowed to exercise will mean more irresponsible people do things they shouldn't do?

Because that's what happens.

I don't accept that at all. Someone seeing me in the middle of a field doesn't make them say 'here,  let's all have a bevvy at Janet's..ill get on the blower '

[Guest JTS98]

2 minutes ago, Bairn Necessities said:

I don't accept that at all. Someone seeing me in the middle of a field doesn't make them say 'here,  let's all have a bevvy at Janet's..ill get on the blower '

People seeing other people outside, and hearing that their pals have been outside, and talking about being outside all normalises the idea that being outside is ok.

I'm not sure how at this stage of what is happening in the world around us you can possibly still think that's ok.

You can say that you are reasonable and sensible all you like, but you don't exist in isolation. We are as strong as the weakest members of the group in this situation. People thinking it's ok to be outside will kill people.

[Granny Danger]

The tediousness of JTS98’s post is growing faster than the virus.

I’d try to map it out but I’d probably make an arse of it.

 

[Dons_1988]

Surely there could be an enforcement happy medium whereby anyone congregating gets arrested/charged/dispersed whatever, and an individual out for a run is left to it?

Obviously there's an enforcement issue but the threat of legal action would deter people.

[Tight minge]

I won't post my stockpile but I bought my neighbour's store's stock of beer on Saturday - 5 cases.  We are on lockdown now and all alcohol sales are banned. I'm pretty much the only one who buys that particular brand so I have no guilt (well, not much).  
I'm not proud that I was able to walk across the road, ask for the 5 cases and hand over the money  but I was pretty chuffed I was able to carry them over the road 2 at a time - 24 bottles per case!   

Really poor show by yourself!

You write that but don’t say which brand! Clearly not Red Horse of Gold Eagle if you are the only one drinking it. San Mig Extra dry?

[ICTChris]

I think a lot of people look at rules and regulations as something to get round rather than something to follow strictly.  My wife and mother-in-law want to keep her seeing us and our son and we met up in an open park at the weekend, we kept apart and away from other people and each other but it was difficult.  She has suggested that she come round to ours but go straight into the garden and see our son there, keeping two metres away at all times - I'm not sure how manageable that will be.

I think eventually we are going to have to say that she just can't come and see us.  Her partner is over 70 and is also chafing at the rules.  Older people are stuck in their ways, they have routines and find it hard to change them and that's going to be one of the most challanging things about this situation.

[Guest JTS98]

2 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

Surely there could be an enforcement happy medium whereby anyone congregating gets arrested/charged/dispersed whatever, and an individual out for a run is left to it?

Obviously there's an enforcement issue but the threat of legal action would deter people.

That's what was tried first here. The problem is that people observe the other people around them and take their cues from them.

There were people jogging at the park right in the middle of Kuala Lumpur, so this led to a group of South American backpackers thinking the park was open and having a picnic in the park. The police had to move them on, and they weren't happy because they could see people running and were annoyed that they couldn't have their picnic.

People base their behaviour on how others are behaving.

There were loads of examples of this in the first few days here.

So, exercise was banned and compliance has gone from an estimated 60% to an estimated 92%. This will save lives.

Ambiguity has to be removed.

[vikingTON]

11 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

There is though, because by the time you hit them with the truncheon, the damage is probably already done.

This isn't best solved by hitting people, it's best solved by making them stay at home by giving them a completely unambiguous message.

You massively overestimate the magical power of an unambiguous message, given that we do not live in a quasi-military tinpot state like your beloved Malaysia. The best solution here is in fact

i) a straightforward and balanced message that the public can reasonably follow, paired with

ii) a truncheon to the face for those too thick or selfish to follow it.

[Dons_1988]

1 minute ago, JTS98 said:

That's what was tried first here. The problem is that people observe the other people around them and take their cues from them.

There were people jogging at the park right in the middle of Kuala Lumpur, so this led to a group of South American backpackers thinking the park was open and having a picnic in the park. The police had to move them on, and they weren't happy because they could see people running and were annoyed that they couldn't have their picnic.

People base their behaviour on how others are behaving.

There were loads of examples of this in the first few days here.

So, exercise was banned and compliance has gone from an estimated 60% to an estimated 92%. This will save lives.

Ambiguity has to be removed.

There's nothing ambiguous about saying if you congregate in groups in public you will be prosecuted.

[Guest JTS98]

1 minute ago, virginton said:

You massively overestimate the magical power of an unambiguous message, given that we do not live in a quasi-military tinpot state like your beloved Malaysia. The best solution here is in fact

i) a straightforward and balanced message that the public can reasonably follow, paired with

ii) a truncheon to the face for those too thick or selfish to follow it.

I've lived in Malaysia for years and never seen a soldier, so not sure what you're basing that on.

The message was ambiguous, 60% complied. The message was made clear. 92% comply.

Minimal arrests. Public information does the trick.

[Tight minge]

Where I am it wouldn't work , doesn't work - we are on Day 2 of lockdown and people are already ignoring the rules i.e. 2+ family members going out together - passing through security with no more than a friendly wave  -no permits shown, nothing.  The culture here is that rules are to be obeyed by the poor and therefore, if the security guard is poorer than you then he/she cannot stop you going about your business, nor will he/she try to.  
Lockdowns work great in obedient cultures, otherwise not so much.
Strangely enough the ban on alcohol sales was strictly implemented from Day 1 with no exception - go figure. 

I think the ban on alcohol is ‘ingrained’ because of its regular enforcement at every election.

You have described the place pretty well there. I do hope that the virus doesn’t hit rural Philippines or Indonesia as if it does, it will be carnage!

[Guest JTS98]

2 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

There's nothing ambiguous about saying if you congregate in groups in public you will be prosecuted.

Course there is.

For starters, if you live in a small village somewhere, it just won't be true. Secondly, people will look at others around them and say 'Well, they're doing that, so it's ok if I do this'. Boundaries will be stretched.

Just tell people to stay at home. That's what the authorities want, so they should just say it.

 

[Savage Henry]

In terms of exercise I live on the edge of a village which backs onto a giant woods. I'll go out there when I'm better because outside time is important, there is nobody about even during the summer and the paths are quite established that should I see anyone I can stay well clear or call out.

^^^ Not taking into account the possibility of being killed by a yeti, IMO.

[Bairn Necessities]

4 minutes ago, JTS98 said:

Course there is.

For starters, if you live in a small village somewhere, it just won't be true. Secondly, people will look at others around them and say 'Well, they're doing that, so it's ok if I do this'. Boundaries will be stretched.

Just tell people to stay at home. That's what the authorities want, so they should just say it.

 

But our authorities absolutely don't want that. Because they understand the massive negatives on health this creates.

Thats why they've continually promoted exercise throughout. Including our public health experts 

'Not conflicting at all. You can leave home for exercise, supplies and essential work and travel if you are asymptomatic and not high risk.'

Source - the boay Leitch

Edited March 23, 2020 by Bairn Necessities

[GordonS]

1 hour ago, Jacksgranda said:

Just listening to Radio Ulster - health care workers begging - begging - us to stay at home. Or they will be completely overwhelmed, and people who wouldn't have died (of this) will die.

Make of that what you will.

This won't be popular but... they're wrong. They're experts in medicine, not in public health.

Jason Leitch (National Clinical Director for those who haven't had the pleasure) tweeted yesterday that he had gone for a 5k run. The mantra that nobody should go out is not the guidance from the people who actually know this stuff, and it should be firmly rejected.

Unless you're in a high risk group, go for a walk, run or cycle, as long as you keep the 2 metre gap and don't touch anything. It's not difficult.

I've now seen politicians pandering to this "Stay Indoors" pish because they know it's what the public want them to say, but it's drivel. This isn't nuclear fall-out.