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.

GoatboyBeta wrote:
Its a sad truth that anything relying on large numbers of people exercising good judgment and consideration for others is doomed to fail. Way too many people are treating this like an extended Sunday instead of a public health crisis.

Actually, I think large numbers of people are doing the right thing, it's just that the numbers involved are SO large as to render the tiny minority a huge problem.

We hear regularly about all the people taking it too seriously and panic buying talcum powder and floor polish, and all the people not taking it seriously enough, but I suspect the truth is that all those shots of empty streets suggests that most people are acting responsibly and taking it seriously without overreacting.

 Azreal13 wrote:


Actually, I think large numbers of people are doing the right thing, it's just that the numbers involved are SO large as to render the tiny minority a huge problem.

We hear regularly about all the people taking it too seriously and panic buying talcum powder and floor polish, and all the people not taking it seriously enough, but I suspect the truth is that all those shots of empty streets suggests that most people are acting responsibly and taking it seriously without overreacting.

Your probably right. But its hard not to be cynical when someone laughs in your face when you tell them tyre foam is not an essential purchase and they should go home.

One problem is interpretation of essential - it varies from person to person quite considerably.

Especially when the vast majority of people are not used to living with the "pure" essentials of life. To them they'd consider going out for a meal; to the park etc... as quite essential normal things in life. Heck even here on the forum most of us are still looking for hobby supplies (though I'd wager many are mail-ordering rather than travelling).


Edit - heck consider exercise. Many consider it very important and essential to healthy living. Yet gyms, parks, exercise groups - they've all shut down. If left to their own devices people would still have classed them as "essential" even if it meant getting in a closed room and changing room etc.. with everyone else. The person running would meanwhile consider it essential because its their work that pays their income which pays for their rent and food.


So yes without enforcement even the interpretation of very clear instructions can get very muddy and confusing.

 Azreal13 wrote:

GoatboyBeta wrote:
Its a sad truth that anything relying on large numbers of people exercising good judgment and consideration for others is doomed to fail. Way too many people are treating this like an extended Sunday instead of a public health crisis.

Actually, I think large numbers of people are doing the right thing, it's just that the numbers involved are SO large as to render the tiny minority a huge problem.

I feel like what it really is is people going "ah, with everyone panicking that its the end of the world, I bet nobody is going to go to x park, I'll go and have it all to myself", except they aren't reckoning with the idea that they aren't as clever or as unique as they think and as they are having that exact thought, so are a million other people. Then they show up and bandwagon mentality sets in "wow, its busier than I expected, but everyone else is here and they look like they are having a good time... it can't be that bad an idea if this many people are here, I wouldn't want to miss out on the fun..."

 Azreal13 wrote:


While portions of the general public continue to behave like morons, we have to accept that the state has no choice but to tar us all with that same brush.

Hard pass on that mentality. I have never been a fan of the "A and B are fighting over the toy? No one gets it!" When C through Z are waiting for their turn. I hated it when I was young and had hoped grownups would fight for themselves with a little more efficacy than the kiddos who weren't jerks.

 Scrabb wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:


While portions of the general public continue to behave like morons, we have to accept that the state has no choice but to tar us all with that same brush.

Hard pass on that mentality. I have never been a fan of the "A and B are fighting over the toy? No one gets it!" When C through Z are waiting for their turn. I hated it when I was young and had hoped grownups would fight for themselves with a little more efficacy than the kiddos who weren't jerks.

Unfortunately, we're dealing with something a little bit more important than a toy.

I hated being held back after school because one kid in the class wouldn't behave. If my life and the lives of countless others depended on it, however, I may have been rather more understanding.

It's all-round a crap state of affairs, but I reckon the point is that everyone survives to hold governments and officials accountable for abuses of power that occurred. No point in trying to defend the civil liberties of dead people.

I don't like having to wonder if I'll be stopped by police for doing something that's broadly been allowed in a way they personally feel isn't. I don't like the idea of trying to convince anyone that I'm shopping for essentials, or that I actually am out for my one bout of exercise and my house is literally still in view. I just happen to not like the idea of lots of people being dead a little bit more.

Broadly speaking: You are most likely to stopped and asked about your travel destination if you are travelling on a major main road out of a city/town/village centre. Or on a motorway/dual carriage way.

It appears that you have less risk of being stopped when travelling relatively locally. As much as I like to rage against our pitiful police service even the worst of them are aware of out of town shopping centres and supermarkets.

Travelling in a vehicle liveried up as 'Non Essential Business Inc' will probably see you pulled as a precaution.

The chances of being pulled are still relatively slim.

The point of the travel restrictions is to reduce spread of the virus. If a bunch of people from say Oxford, Reading and Henley all drive to Lidl in Wallingford, then obviously it increases the risk of spreading the virus between all those different areas.

This social distancing thing is not working around here so I've gone over to the anti-social distancing practice to stop the spread. Come to 2 metres I tell you to feth off, closer than 2 metres I hit you and blame it on self defence.

I'll take 'Things that didn't happen' for 20, Alex.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Broadly speaking: You are most likely to stopped and asked about your travel destination if you are travelling on a major main road out of a city/town/village centre. Or on a motorway/dual carriage way.

It appears that you have less risk of being stopped when travelling relatively locally. As much as I like to rage against our pitiful police service even the worst of them are aware of out of town shopping centres and supermarkets.

Travelling in a vehicle liveried up as 'Non Essential Business Inc' will probably see you pulled as a precaution.

The chances of being pulled are still relatively slim.t

Yeah I figured that's the case and I'll probably be fairly safe in the Oxfordshire Countryside, but it's the principle. Like I said, the police shouldn't be poking around in regular citizens business without good reason. I don't believe it's the police job to determine whether what an adult decides to do is necessary or not in broad situations like this. And what are they going to do when I can't prove where I'm going? And what is their objective standard for a necessary journey, because a law has to be definitive, it can't be based on someone's opinions.

So for example, emergency power states that people shouldn't be gathering in groups. Great, that's straight forward. You know what that means, its enforceable.

But then what defines a necessary journey? Because as others have said, people have different interpretations of that, and there are millions of scenarios where you could be going somewhere for whatever reason
.
I don't really understand the whole 'unnecessary travel' thing anyway, except perhaps to try and reduce road accidents to relieve pressure on the health service. If someone wants to drive to the countryside to exercise, why shouldn't they? Surely that's better than everyone walking or running round the towns where you're more likely to come into contact with people.

Then you've got people saying you need to exercise as quickly as possible and get back home or I'm going to grass you up. It's like people want to be trapped in their homes.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Broadly speaking: You are most likely to stopped and asked about your travel destination if you are travelling on a major main road out of a city/town/village centre. Or on a motorway/dual carriage way.

It appears that you have less risk of being stopped when travelling relatively locally. As much as I like to rage against our pitiful police service even the worst of them are aware of out of town shopping centres and supermarkets.

Travelling in a vehicle liveried up as 'Non Essential Business Inc' will probably see you pulled as a precaution.

The chances of being pulled are still relatively slim.t

Yeah I figured that's the case and I'll probably be fairly safe in the Oxfordshire Countryside, but it's the principle. Like I said, the police shouldn't be poking around in regular citizens business without good reason. I don't believe it's the police job to determine whether what an adult decides to do is necessary or not in broad situations like this. And what are they going to do when I can't prove where I'm going? And what is their objective standard for a necessary journey, because a law has to be definitive, it can't be based on someone's opinions.

A deadly disease is not a good reason to avoid over stretching of an allready overloaded healthcare system in order to avoid complete collapse of said system and therefore deaths?
Also a lack systematic controll over emergency rights via legitimatcy mechanics or legal mechanics is an issue atm only really happening to you. And as much as i am sympathtic to what you state, beeing a proponent of a weak state comparatively to the society he governs, i doubt that this is the point were one should go commit to a hill just yet.

So for example, emergency power states that people shouldn't be gathering in groups. Great, that's straight forward. You know what that means, its enforceable.

But then what defines a necessary journey? Because as others have said, people have different interpretations of that, and there are millions of scenarios where you could be going somewhere for whatever reason
.
I don't really understand the whole 'unnecessary travel' thing anyway, except perhaps to try and reduce road accidents to relieve pressure on the health service. If someone wants to drive to the countryside to exercise, why shouldn't they? Surely that's better than everyone walking or running round the towns where you're more likely to come into contact with people.

You forgot the want infront of that.To preface, i come from a region that constantly goes on the warpath with the federal government over centralisation issues. But even as ardent as i am a proponent for decentralisation and legitimacy and legal procedure of emergency empowerment, realise that in this crisis, there only works collective action in order to prevent a collapse, including sacrificing ones liberties for a minescule temporary moment. Fun fact, the local police force was proud on the fact that the unrully and anti authorithy Kanton i live in is actually behaving outstandingly, which is something hillarious contextualised with the constant rebelious masses generally associated here. If even we manage then surely you can aswell.

Then you've got people saying you need to exercise as quickly as possible and get back home or I'm going to grass you up. It's like people want to be trapped in their homes.

With understandable reason, allbeit i don't understand what excercise duration has to do with the potential exposure if one would actually enforce the 2m rule.

no, I mean I dont understand it. if you want to drive somewhere more remote to exercise, that shouldnt be a problem. If you want to go for a drive in your classic car or your motorbike, simply for the joy of it, whats the problem with that? youre not coming into contact with anyone, and you're looking after your wellbeing.

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
no, I mean I dont understand it. if you want to drive somewhere more remote to exercise, that shouldnt be a problem. If you want to go for a drive in your classic car or your motorbike, simply for the joy of it, whats the problem with that? youre not coming into contact with anyone, and you're looking after your wellbeing.

The problem is that police can't spend all day following you to make sure that you're telling the truth.


Also what if you break down part way and have to walk to a nearby house to use the phone (because you wound up in a mobile deadzone or your classic car hasn't got a charging port and the phone just died). Suddenly you're increasing the chance of infection whilst you were undertaking a non-necessary action (driving your car around for fun). Sure you can break down on the way to the shops too, but at least by cutting down the number of trips to only the essentials you reduce your risks.

the staying in thing seems to have sunk in down in my corner of the shire

some very grumpy looking Ducks in the middle of the village this morning clearly looking for the human Bread distribution manager, normally they live down by the playpark and oldies community centre ensuring a near endless supply, just hope it doesnt lead to a turf way with the seagulls

I’d back the ducks, but I don’t fancy eating Seagull?

Just been to the hardware store. managed to get everything I need. picked up some flower seeds and compost, aswell as superglue and sandpaper (modelling essentials)

The vegetable seed pack section was desolated... people mustve gone full blitz spirit and be trying to grow their own, which is great, but annoying as I wanted to try growing some onions.

The newsagent in my local town is still open too, and stocks GW!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
no, I mean I dont understand it. if you want to drive somewhere more remote to exercise, that shouldnt be a problem. If you want to go for a drive in your classic car or your motorbike, simply for the joy of it, whats the problem with that? youre not coming into contact with anyone, and you're looking after your wellbeing.

The problem is that police can't spend all day following you to make sure that you're telling the truth.


Also what if you break down part way and have to walk to a nearby house to use the phone (because you wound up in a mobile deadzone or your classic car hasn't got a charging port and the phone just died). Suddenly you're increasing the chance of infection whilst you were undertaking a non-necessary action (driving your car around for fun). Sure you can break down on the way to the shops too, but at least by cutting down the number of trips to only the essentials you reduce your risks.

Exactly..so why bother in the first place? if I get turned around, I'm just going to go a different way.

And what if I break my leg out running or cycling? theres plenty of people out doing that.

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
the staying in thing seems to have sunk in down in my corner of the shire

In the ghetto here the message has not gotten through. People are still out playing bball.

I do not want to take the thread back in a political direction, but ... there is always the issue of balancing freedom with govenment control. It seems that China's strategy, which was highly authoritarian as usual to put it mildly, was much more effective than the actions of Western countries. If you are dead you are not free, or are you?

 Rolsheen wrote:
This social distancing thing is not working around here so I've gone over to the anti-social distancing practice to stop the spread. Come to 2 metres I tell you to feth off, closer than 2 metres I hit you and blame it on self defence.

Aussie social distancing, it's normal social distancing with extra salt!

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
no, I mean I dont understand it. if you want to drive somewhere more remote to exercise, that shouldnt be a problem. If you want to go for a drive in your classic car or your motorbike, simply for the joy of it, whats the problem with that? youre not coming into contact with anyone, and you're looking after your wellbeing.

The problem is that police can't spend all day following you to make sure that you're telling the truth.


Also what if you break down part way and have to walk to a nearby house to use the phone (because you wound up in a mobile deadzone or your classic car hasn't got a charging port and the phone just died). Suddenly you're increasing the chance of infection whilst you were undertaking a non-necessary action (driving your car around for fun). Sure you can break down on the way to the shops too, but at least by cutting down the number of trips to only the essentials you reduce your risks.

Exactly..so why bother in the first place? if I get turned around, I'm just going to go a different way.

And what if I break my leg out running or cycling? theres plenty of people out doing that.

Sure it might have no effect on you what so ever- but it might convince some to play it a bit safer and drive home the seriousness of the situation. Don't forget we've still got parents kicking their kids out/letting their kids out to go have parties; people doing BBQ with friends/family and everyone on Mothers Day who went out as normal. If police stopping you and quizzing you on if your journey really is needed and perhaps sending you back or even fining you is what's needed to change attitudes for some then its worth it. Remember the less we socialise now the more we stretch out the curve and the safer it is for us all by reducing the strain on the NHS. Remembering that some of those who will die won't just be Corona suffer's, but also those who have other injuries/infections/problems who simply don't get seen to fast enough because of staff shortages/lack of space/resources etc...

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
no, I mean I dont understand it. if you want to drive somewhere more remote to exercise, that shouldnt be a problem. If you want to go for a drive in your classic car or your motorbike, simply for the joy of it, whats the problem with that? youre not coming into contact with anyone, and you're looking after your wellbeing.

Neither you nor they have any ability to guarantee that, that's the problem. From everyone's perspective except your own, you are just a potential disease vector creating additional risk and carrying that risk to other areas.

I’ve asked the local media to ask the public to just stay away from us while we work. Next up, I’m wondering if it’s worth asking the police to help us out. If they want to catch people violating quarantine, the best place to start is the areas getting their bins collected.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
I’ve asked the local media to ask the public to just stay away from us while we work. Next up, I’m wondering if it’s worth asking the police to help us out. If they want to catch people violating quarantine, the best place to start is the areas getting their bins collected.

I'm quite surprised you're having such problems, to be honest. Can't recall seeing anybody going out of their way to interact with people collecting bins before.

EDIT: Actually I shouldn’t really be publicly complaining about that, so disregard.

 spaceelf wrote:

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
the staying in thing seems to have sunk in down in my corner of the shire

In the ghetto here the message has not gotten through. People are still out playing bball.

I do not want to take the thread back in a political direction, but ... there is always the issue of balancing freedom with govenment control. It seems that China's strategy, which was highly authoritarian as usual to put it mildly, was much more effective than the actions of Western countries. If you are dead you are not free, or are you?

If you believe the numbers coming out of China I have an incredible business opportunity for you, just need some personal financial information......

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
no, I mean I dont understand it. if you want to drive somewhere more remote to exercise, that shouldnt be a problem. If you want to go for a drive in your classic car or your motorbike, simply for the joy of it, whats the problem with that? youre not coming into contact with anyone, and you're looking after your wellbeing.

But it was a problem. That's the point. Snowdonia was packed, Dartmoor had full car parks, the beaches were heaving. Even if the spaces themselves are massive, if you drive there you need to leave your car somewhere, which is likely in a designated area that'll mean you're in close proximity to others by definition.

I grew up in and around Exmoor, I could maybe pick a handful of places I know that wouldn't be crawling with people, and most people, even those living nearby, could name and navigate to maybe 3 or 4 popular locations. We're a tiny island, remote isn't really a luxury we're blessed with in great quantity.

 spaceelf wrote:

 Turnip Jedi wrote:
the staying in thing seems to have sunk in down in my corner of the shire

In the ghetto here the message has not gotten through. People are still out playing bball.

I do not want to take the thread back in a political direction, but ... there is always the issue of balancing freedom with govenment control. It seems that China's strategy, which was highly authoritarian as usual to put it mildly, was much more effective than the actions of Western countries. If you are dead you are not free, or are you?

The initial strategy was to deny everything, cover it up and look the other way. Which is very typical of any authoritarian or authoritarian leaning governments. Sure, after the contagion spread they acted decisively, but the whole thing could've been handled much easier without the pointless "face saving" at the start.

Cronch wrote:
, but the whole thing could've been handled much easier without the pointless "face saving" at the start.

If anything this disaster is proving right now that this is a problem shared both by largest totalitarian states and the largest democracies.

Cronch wrote:
The initial strategy was to deny everything, cover it up and look the other way. Which is very typical of any authoritarian or authoritarian leaning governments. Sure, after the contagion spread they acted decisively, but the whole thing could've been handled much easier without the pointless "face saving" at the start.

My comment is, no comment.

 Henry wrote:

Cronch wrote:
, but the whole thing could've been handled much easier without the pointless "face saving" at the start.

If anything this disaster is proving right now that this is a problem shared both by largest totalitarian states and the largest democracies.

Describing a republic as democratic is slander.