Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 r_squared wrote:
I think the time for protesting diminished public freedoms is if the legislation is still extant once the pandemic is past.
I'm more than happy to protest the infringement at that point.

It's too late by then.. The laws have been passed and precedents are set. Granted, there are sunset clauses, but given the government's performance with this bill, and previous historical examples, I think we have good grounds to predict that they will not simply be wiped away.

Well, your protests are too late now then, because the legislation is in place already.
However, legislation is not final and can be reviewed amended or withdrawn depending on the political impetuous.

Don't think that you're the only one who recognises the threat of hasty infringements, we have. We've just decided that we're prioritising our lives and those of our families over an ephemeral legal threat in the future.

We're not blind fools, we know what's happening. We've made a choice to support the actions that are being carried our at the moment. I think your problem is more with being told what to do, rather that the actual infringements themselves with which you already stated that you actually agree with.

That's a rather odd position to take for someone in the military mate.

But that’s not what people are saying.

The main issue this time is that the virus has a long incubation, where no symptoms show.

Previously, as mentioned a few pages ago, I was commuting to and from London, five days a week. That involved a coach journey, and being in an office with air conditioning ducts, with roughly 3,000 other people (not accounting for other businesses in the same building).

That’s.....that’s a lot of possible contact. Just one infected person in those circumstances could spread it to god knows how many.

Now? Well, there’s my flatmate, but we tend to stick to our relevant rooms(we get on fine, just both pretty quiet), and a trip to the supermarket a couple of times a week.

My potential vectors are massively reduced. So if, right now, I’m infected but it’s incubating? The spread will be inherently reduced.

As I mentioned above? It’s about damage limitation. Ensuring the health service and the finite resources associated aren’t overwhelmed, which keeps the mortality rate (and not just virus related) down.

This is why I really can’t shake the feeling you’re just on a wind up here.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I was certain that laws against knowingly spreading diseases already existed even before the outbreak.

Knowingly yes, but you need proof that the person knowingly and maliciously spread it, which is pretty much impossible in these circumstances, or with any disease that can be asymptomatic.

Simply saying that people in a crowd are spreading a virus, is completely unfounded, unless there's someone with a proven positive test wandering around.

Which would be swell if we could actually test everyone at once, but we can't, so clearly the best course of action to save lives is to prevent people from gathering.

I've addressed that one before, in the military, orders must be legal. This is going back to the whole thing about police overreach, which has been done to death, and the media has covered it plenty, hopefully enough to shame the rest of them into sorting their acts out.

I have no real objection to authority, but I maintain a healthy questioning attitude to all governments and their policies, as should everyone, regardless whether its a government you support of not (I generally support bj government) its what our libertarian philosophies are built upon.

What this doesn't mean, as some seem to suggest, is that because of these views, I don't care about the current situation, or am not taking it seriously, Which is absurd. Of course I do. I have grandparents, and my dad is over 70. I don't want to see them die.

But as a functioning human, I'm able to be concerned about multiple issues simultaneously, and like to think that I can weigh them up against one another.

I'm reading an increasing number of articles of how the virus attacks blood cells, heart failure associated with the virus, and blood clotting.

Here's one of them, where victims under 50 with no medical history are suffering blood-clot strokes from the virus.
https://thehill.com/homenews/news/494140-doctors-warn-coronavirus-causing-sudden-strokes-in-younger-patients

MDG you're not seeing what I'm saying. I agree with you. I understand the seriousness, and understand the measures to reduce contact. At no point did I say I believed those people in the article how ever many pages ago it was were right to do so, or that I would do it, I just said that criminalising them is an absurd and unobtainable prospect.

 ced1106 wrote:
I'm reading an increasing number of articles of how the virus attacks blood cells, heart failure associated with the virus, and blood clotting.

Here's one of them, where victims under 50 with no medical history are suffering blood-clot strokes from the virus.
https://thehill.com/homenews/news/494140-doctors-warn-coronavirus-causing-sudden-strokes-in-younger-patients

Well feth me then, beeing genetically allready predestined for this ...

But....you still have to follow the Order, trusting that your Superior has a greater knowledge of the situation. You don’t receive the order, then pick it apart, surely?

Only if it’s wildly and obviously illegal (like, I dunno, “Private, I order you to drop kick that bairn over that wall”, ridiculousness for effect)

If it’s ‘attack this position’, then......you have to follow it, trusting that the order is legitimate, no?

I mean, I get the whole “I VAS ONLY FOLLOWINK ORDERS” is a weak defence when they’re obviously and clearly immoral.

But here? It’s basically “squad, Orders are to enforce a lockdown of this street. Residents are to be confined to their houses, barring an hours exercise each day”.

That’s......not illegal. It’s not immoral. It’s not illogical.

I'm not drawing a direct comparison. It's the principle. So that illegal order you used as an example, is in my mind equivalent in legal validity to the police using their new powers to harass, detain and charge people, not in accordance with the new laws, and sometimes contrary to current human rights laws.

An attack order is legal, provided it follows RoE and LoAC. and is fine..A legitimate law being enforced, is also fine, until it's wrongly enforced, or unnecessarily targets those who are innocent of any crime. The new laws also have to be proportionate, and legally sound. If anything, you have the benefit of being able to pick apart and examine the potential legalities or lack thereof of any laws, thanks to the fact that they are published and freely available to look at. There are plenty of lawyers questioning the scope of the new laws and guidelines.


https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2020/04/21/a-disproportionate-interference-the-coronavirus-regulations-and-the-echr-francis-hoar/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
Have a read through that. It mostly outlines the things that concern me.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, we're not confined to our houses? And I'd certainly be concerned if the military were enforcing it!

Just an equivalent example

https://www.google.com/amp/s/inews.co.uk/culture/books/boris-johnson-conspiracy-to-murder-ppe-failings-philip-pullman-blog-2543867%3famp

It seems people here aren't the only ones calling for ridiculous charges to be brought against people though. Slightly off the rails fantasy writer Philip pullman weighs in again...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Just an equivalent example

If a superior ordered me to imprison British civilllians in their houses, I would refuse as the order would be illegal.

Rather depends.

If it’s just down to general bureaucracy being slow off the mark?

If it is indeed down to pointless ideology based on a pack of lies sold four years ago by people who felt they could say whatever because they’d never win and thus never have to make good on it? That is negligence. Wilful, deliberate negligence.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I've addressed that one before, in the military, orders must be legal. This is going back to the whole thing about police overreach, which has been done to death, and the media has covered it plenty, hopefully enough to shame the rest of them into sorting their acts out.

I have no real objection to authority, but I maintain a healthy questioning attitude to all governments and their policies, as should everyone, regardless whether its a government you support of not (I generally support bj government) its what our libertarian philosophies are built upon.

We're not a country built on Libertarian philosophies, what makes you think that?
The legislation that has been released is also legal, not brilliant but perfectly legal. For the minute. I'm not getting into military orders and legality as I don't think it's relevant here.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

What this doesn't mean, as some seem to suggest, is that because of these views, I don't care about the current situation, or am not taking it seriously, Which is absurd. Of course I do. I have grandparents, and my dad is over 70. I don't want to see them

But as a functioning human, I'm able to be concerned about multiple issues simultaneously, and like to think that I can weigh them up against one another.

So, please do us the service of recognising that we can also see multiple issues and apply appropriate priorities depending on our general viewpoint. Because you keep going on and on about how you feel the law is being overeached, it seems like you think we don't understand. We do, we just agree that it is appropriate for the moment. You obviously do not. We get that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
....https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2020/04/21/a-disproportionate-interference-the-coronavirus-regulations-and-the-echr-francis-hoar/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
Have a read through that. It mostly outlines the things that concern me....

While the measures are subject to review every 21 days, the decision of the Secretary of State is absolute and subject only to judicial review. Unlike regulations passed under the Civil Contingencies Act, Parliament has no right to scrutinise the Regulations until they expire after six months.

It's clear that these are temporary restrictions, even if he objects to the lack of scrutiny.

I also believe that he has used a fatality rate of between 0.1 and 1% as the base for proportionality. The link he produces is to a Guardian article which mentions a single report by Stanford. In that same sentence there's a quoted death rate of 4.1%.
He's clearly selected only one source which supports his argument which isnt particularly convincing. He should link straight to the actual study, which is also, at the moment, not peer reviewed. So he's a little off the blocks for that.

I'm not convinced that there's anything in there to be overtly concerned about. If in 6 months these restrictions are still in place, and the virus has been dealt with, then I feel that's the time to deal with it.

 ScarletRose wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 ScarletRose wrote:

I can't really engage with your example, because it's not particularly good. If someone pulls a load of people off a cliff, that's not their right, it's a crime, so it's really irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant, it's the exact point - when one person endangers others under the guise of "freedummmm!!!!" it's not their right - as you said.

You can't engage with it because it undermines your position.

The old phrase was "a person's right to swing their fist ends where another person's nose begins", unfortunately we live in a day and age where idiots subscribe to "my freedom to swing my fist is absolute and if you try to stop me I'll shoot you with my AR-15"

No, knowingly killing a bunch of people and yourself is not freedom, it's a crime. I can't really say it any other way. It's an irrelevant example.

Knowingly gathering in close quarters when a pandemic is going on and knowingly objecting to safety measures that save lives, is knowingly killing people. That's why it's a perfect example and why this attempt at deflection is really revealing.

These people protesting in groups are only exposing themselves. They're not going into the homes of those who choose to stay isolated, so they're not exposing anybody who isn't participating in the event.

You'd have to prove that someone was infected, knew they were infected, and was maliciously attempting to infect someone for any sort of crime to be committed here.

Ultimately, freedom > safety in the long term. If rights can be ignored when they're inconvenient then they're not rights at all.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
They RISK spreading the virus. And from there, society RISKS the virus spreading ever further.

Look at the infection information. Just, take a look at it. Digest it. See the risk. Understand why these gatherings are frankly bloody stupid.

And already shown to be more than just a risk.

But hey for him his freedom matters more than life of others. As long as his life is not bothered no limit on how many dies. 1? Fine. 1000? No problem. 1000000? Keep 'em coming!

There's people who look at big picture and people who look just themselves.

 Grey Templar wrote:

These people protesting in groups are only exposing themselves. They're not going into the homes of those who choose to stay isolated, so they're not exposing anybody who isn't participating in the event.

This is ridiculously naïve. Do they have families at home? Do they go shopping? Do they use public transport? Anyone infected at a protest will almost certainly have multiple opportunities to pass on the infection to others.

An ad popping up for me on Dakka and other places.

Yes please by all means put your spit and mucus onto our flag, that seems right and properly patriotic thing to do and not at all a violation of the flag code.

Do people really buy this? And if they do, do they really think it shows a love of country?

Slipspace wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Data from other nations are best treated skeptically at best

In what way? And more importantly why?

US people think US only as particularly trustworthy. In practice especially for past few years US is rather dubious source if you want actual facts.

Almost.

Americans think only sources THEY AGREE WITH are trustworthy, and there's almost always an element of political bias and partisan identity in it.

To be fair, that's not just an American trait.

With the way our media works in the UK, especially TV news which is required by law to be impartial and non-partisan (unlike our print media) we quite often get the comical situation of both sides of a political divide claiming the BBC, for example, is biased against them at the same time. Mostly, though, the UK approach to TV news seems to work quite well. At least when I was studying journalism the BBC was seen as among the most reliable and balanced news sources. That was almost 20 years ago now so attitudes within the industry may have changed but I haven't detected anything like that from friends within the news media industry.

In my experience* the BBC world service is extremely well regarded, but the UK service is held to be fairly average (though excellent by state news standards).

*from friends and relatives that are journalists, some of whom work for international agencies in places where media bias is extreme and so their tolerance for spin is pretty high.

queen_annes_revenge wrote:

queen_annes_revenge wrote:

Mario wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
[You might aswell say that people who do extreme sports shouldn't have their injuries repaired, because, well they chose to do that activity.

If their injuries were infectious and would affect others then I'd say yes, give their victims priority.

It's a good thing medical practice works on a triage basis and not on your lines then isn't it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Oddly enough on the EXTREEEEEEEEEME WOOOOOO RADICAL! Sports? Most travel insurance policies don’t cover them, or injuries relating to them.

True, but the NHS will still treat them.

This is an odd thread of argument from someone who was recently advocating private healthcare recently and pitching it as a preferable system they would embrace if they didn't have to also pay NI. In your preferred system, then, what you are presenting here as an absurd logical conclusion is the norn: unless you're paying an enormous fee, you're not getting your snowboarding injury fixed precisely because it's your own fault.

Fortunately, most people that think socialised healthcare is good think that's obscene.

The NHS’s only shortcomings are a lack of funding and perhaps too many non medical managers in the middle and top tiers. I wouldn’t trade it for the world.

Some criticise it as being on its way to becoming the new state religion, and thus beyond criticism. I don’t know about this, but if that’s true, we could do a lot worse for such a thing I’m sure.

Just putting my thoughts out there...

tneva82 wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
They RISK spreading the virus. And from there, society RISKS the virus spreading ever further.

Look at the infection information. Just, take a look at it. Digest it. See the risk. Understand why these gatherings are frankly bloody stupid.

And already shown to be more than just a risk.

But hey for him his freedom matters more than life of others. As long as his life is not bothered no limit on how many dies. 1? Fine. 1000? No problem. 1000000? Keep 'em coming!

There's people who look at big picture and people who look just themselves.

'What this doesn't mean, as some seem to suggest, is that because of these views, I don't care about the current situation, or am not taking it seriously, Which is absurd. Of course I do. I have grandparents, and my dad is over 70. I don't want to see them die.'

but you keep grinding that organ mate.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
The NHS’s only shortcomings are a lack of funding and perhaps too many non medical managers in the middle and top tiers. I wouldn’t trade it for the world.

Some criticise it as being on its way to becoming the new state religion, and thus beyond criticism. I don’t know about this, but if that’s true, we could do a lot worse for such a thing I’m sure.

Just putting my thoughts out there...

Honestly, a state religion which says "Everyone shall receive healthcare free at point of use" as its guiding tenet doesn't sound so bad to me

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
An ad popping up for me on Dakka and other places.

Yes please by all means put your spit and mucus onto our flag, that seems right and properly patriotic thing to do and not at all a violation of the flag code.

Do people really buy this? And if they do, do they really think it shows a love of country?

Yes, Patriots are funnily enough the people who do disrespect the flag the most. Alot of stuff done blatantly ignores the flag code.
Like wearing it as part of clothing or flying it horizantaly, or putting it on really anything that isn't a flag pole.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
The NHS’s only shortcomings are a lack of funding and perhaps too many non medical managers in the middle and top tiers. I wouldn’t trade it for the world.

Some criticise it as being on its way to becoming the new state religion, and thus beyond criticism. I don’t know about this, but if that’s true, we could do a lot worse for such a thing I’m sure.

Just putting my thoughts out there...

Honestly, a state religion which says "Everyone shall receive healthcare free at point of use" as its guiding tenet doesn't sound so bad to me

A cult following "reason" is still a cult though.

But i guess as far as cults go this one has some decent effects.

 r_squared wrote:
I think the time for protesting diminished public freedoms is if the legislation is still extant once the pandemic is past.
I'm more than happy to protest the infringement at that point.

legislation and amendments passed thus far relating to the lockdown end 6 months from the 26th March 2020

see :

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/447/pdfs/uksiem_20200447_en.pdf

this relates to the amendments made on the 21st of April

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/447/made

key note summary via : https://twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1252926100302430208
https://twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1252933793188581377/photo/1
https://twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1252933793188581377/photo/2
https://twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1252933793188581377/photo/3
https://twitter.com/AdamWagner1/status/1252933793188581377/photo/4


-- sucks if you are 18 now then eh ?

of course that said

https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/orders-in-council/
https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/orders-of-council/

so it would not be impossible for these laws to be continually "reapproved" -- so to speak -- or altered further without the hassle of something like democratic approval.

Then we get into the fun and games of things like the Henry VIII clauses et al thrown around during the Brexit departure issues.

Thats the problem. the NHS has been made into this divine power that we praise with the weekly clap and pot banging. its quite funny that we've reverted to a primitive form of worship akin to those performed by our ancient ancestors, for our new deity, or should I say one of our new deities.

thats why I don't partake of the weekly clap for the NHS. that, aswell as the fact that its really just a form of self satisfying virtue signalling.

In before I'm accused of not caring for NHS workers...

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
Thats the problem. the NHS has been made into this divine power that we praise with the weekly clap and pot banging. its quite funny that we've reverted to a primitive form of worship akin to those performed by our ancient ancestors, for our new deity, or should I say one of our new deities.

thats why I don't partake of the weekly clap for the NHS. that, aswell as the fact that its really just a form of self satisfying virtue signalling.

In before I'm accused of not caring for NHS workers...

It's a form of self satisfaction, but its also a means to have people feel like they are doing something. One of the most frustrating things about this is that the best thing most people can do is to stay at home and do nothing. That's very hard for a lot of people to come to terms with mentally - that the best thing is nothing. Most people are used to action and doing something for an achievement. The clapping is just a venting point. It's also means to try and provide some sense of unity, especially in urban areas where many people are already very distant to their locals and family. Remember a lot of people are very isolated in this situation so a united clapping, even for one evening a week, provides some sense that they aren't alone in a physical sense.

It's nothing bad and yes it achieves nothing in a physical resources sense, but it does reinforce many points.

It's like the "how to wash your hands" guide. The information itself is nearly pointless as most people know how to wash; however the guide allows for a reminder to drive home the point not how you do it, but that you should do it and do it more often.



As for the whole primitive reversion, eh its not as if clapping is something we've not done for generations. We clap at the threatre and at the school plays; a particularly good film might even get it; we clap at sporting events and parties. Clapping is just part of normal modern life.

You might be surprised how few people did know how to wash their hands properly.

I’ve always put my relatively illness free life down to a solid immune system. And whilst I do tend to bounce back on the odd occasions I do get ill? I was also taught from a really, really young age to wash my hands as the NHS now demonstrates.

So perhaps it was just that very basic hygiene, and not fortunate genes*


* though I do have fortunate genes. Dad and Brother are both bald, and I’ve a thick head of luxurious long curly hair

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
You might be surprised how few people did know how to wash their hands properly.

Ask someone who's just washed their hands whether they actually washed their hands and its likely they will be offended that you question them being able to carry out a simple task.

This is the problem with "common sense" and "everybody knows". It turns out that common sense might be common but it doesn't make sense when subject to critical study. Ever been to the dentist and they put the dye on your teeth to show where you missed brushing? They do the same for washing hands and most people almost completely miss the thumbs and the little fingers. That person who just "washed their hands" actually only partially did the job but is completely unaware of their lack of competence in carrying out this simple task.

This is the reason people can't necessarily be trusted to do straightforward things without training or oversight. The requirements to do the straightforward things properly do not necessarily make sense without an understanding that's beyond a ley-person's immediate knowledge.

Hence we have people packing guns protesting the shutdowns. It isn't that they haven't got a clue - it's the fact they haven't got a clue about how much they haven't got a clue.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
You might be surprised how few people did know how to wash their hands properly.

I’ve always put my relatively illness free life down to a solid immune system. And whilst I do tend to bounce back on the odd occasions I do get ill? I was also taught from a really, really young age to wash my hands as the NHS now demonstrates.

So perhaps it was just that very basic hygiene, and not fortunate genes*


* though I do have fortunate genes. Dad and Brother are both bald, and I’ve a thick head of luxurious long curly hair :P

Chlopf uf Holz Grotsnik, Chlopf uf Holz.

What isn't there yet might still happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Henry wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
You might be surprised how few people did know how to wash their hands properly.

Ask someone who's just washed their hands whether they actually washed their hands and its likely they will be offended that you question them being able to carry out a simple task.

This is the problem with "common sense" and "everybody knows". It turns out that common sense might be common but it doesn't make sense when subject to critical study. Ever been to the dentist and they put the dye on your teeth to show where you missed brushing? They do the same for washing hands and most people almost completely miss the thumbs and the little fingers. That person who just "washed their hands" actually only partially did the job but is completely unaware of their lack of competence in carrying out this simple task.

This is the reason people can't necessarily be trusted to do straightforward things without training or oversight. The requirements to do the straightforward things properly do not necessarily make sense without an understanding that's beyond a ley-person's immediate knowledge.

Hence we have people packing guns protesting the shutdowns. It isn't that they haven't got a clue - it's the fact they haven't got a clue about how much they haven't got a clue.

For one, why need for gun. for two, why not atleast use the social distance guidelines atleast that way you don't turn into the next hotspot of collapse off medical system. For three, anecdotal, but you'd be surprised at upper education toilets, for people claiming to be the intelectual elite, some sure have gakky general hygiene and manners.....