Covid-19 Virus

The max-fac mob are the medics I've most enjoyed working with: going through med. school and then going through dental school produces a 'certain type of person'...

 

Bad news from Hungary, where Viktor Orban has moved to the next stage in the despot’s playbook by using an emergency as cover to usurp the legislature’s powers and rule by decree indefinitely.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-52095500

 

I don’t consider myself young, but at the same time I don’t think it’s old either. Of course to a 20 year old I’m ancient, and to a 60 year old probably a young whipper snapper!

 

Will Boris congratulate him again?
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ongratulating-viktor-orban-after-election-win

 

Thats me fvcked then.

 

Hope we dont see this happening elsewhere, wont be shocked if we do though.

 

Lot's of discussion about how the lockdown is policed.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...view-on-coronavirus-policing-not-a-shame-game

What a quandary. Huge swathes of the country begged for the lockdown, many of the same people are now complaining it is being enforced.

 

Do you think trying to stop shops that are entitled to be opened from selling chocolate eggs is a good use of police resources or has any relevance to the likely spread of the virus?

I think there is a discussion to be had about how youths are prevented from breaking the restrictions and what should, if anything, be the punishment the parents should face. Do you not think so?

I think there are lots of questions about how the rules should be interpreted and what is the best use of police and other resources in enforcing it. I suspect most people would have an opinion on how it should be enforced whether they "begged" for it or not.

It is a difficult time for police and the inconsistent approach we are seeing is hardly surprising as the rules are open to interpretation. But to suggest people should not question or complain about police action in how they enforce the restrictions is a dangerous path to take imo.

 

So do you think there should be no lockdown?

 

I think our police should do it like they are in India. Hit offenders with sticks and make them do squats. No exceptions.

 

That's how they should deal wiv da yoof in normal times imho.

 

Sydney, I am merely stating what has happened, and what is happening. When people call for massive restrictions on our liberty, because the Italians, Chinese or French have done it, then they have to accept that these restrictions have to be enforced somehow. It is impossible to legislate for every single scenario and barely no precedents of a lockdown here, and so there will always have to be interpretations and that will mean scenario's are over or under policed dependent on our opinion. I felt, for example, that the Derbyshire Police stuff was stupid, but I didn't go shouting or complaining about it.

As is pretty clear in my earlier posts I didn't really want the clamp down, I wanted us to concentrate on persuading people strongly, and let society self-police social distancing as I wasn't sure of the benefits of shutting everything down outweighed the disadvantages. I thought that we could get close to achieving that scenario where each person infects one or less people through social distancing pressures and targeted actions, rather than lockdowns. I think that it was clear that the PM was reluctant to take away everyone's liberty when he did, yet it was what the noisiest people wanted, with accusations that he was gambling with peoples lives, etc. He had no choice in the end.

So, you can't buy easter eggs yet. Who gives a **** ? I think it is far more upsetting that I can't take my 2 yr old granddaughter down to Watford over easter to spend some time with my elderly mum and dad.

I now find it farcical that people are complaining about not being allowed to buy easter eggs, yet were more than happy with the massive legislation-backed removal of liberty the lockdown meant in the first place. The first is actually only of benefit to the health of our children, whilst the latter is the biggest infringement on our civil liberties any of us have experienced.

 

I'm not entirely convinced it's the same swathes complaining to be honest zz - although obviously there will be some overlap.

Enforcing public health regulations needs a different approach to enforcing public order laws. Lord Sumption's comments on Radio 4 yesterday were pretty much spot on. But as it's an emergency situation I don't blame the police particularly. It's a big but fragmented organisation and it takes time to get a consistent approach going. The law's new and doesn't quite match what the government advice says, which has left some officers enforcing imaginary powers. The older, wiser heads who normally help their (younger) more 'enthusiastic' colleagues to moderate their over zealous tendencies have no war stories with which to illustrate their point - none of them have been asked to do this before. It's also predictably turned out one officer's interpretation of 'essential' is different to another. And finally there's no reason to think police officers are any less scared of this virus than the population as a whole. Anyone who acts out of fear tends to be less rational.

I think the bit that's backfired the most is the use of social media. The Derbyshire drone video in the Peak District completely missed the point of the new regulations and was a PR disaster. A couple of days ago a division of Greater Manchester Police posted something along the lines of 'this is the law' on Twitter, only to be publicly corrected by their Chief Constable a few hours later. And another force was essentially boasting about summoning people to court for offences within the first two days - ie outright criminalising people for relatively technical breaches, when that's the opposite of what the policing plan is supposed to be.

I read as well Lancashire (hardly a metropolitan force) have already issued around 150 fines, whereas a load of similar forces elsewhere are on 0. Those sorts of inconsistencies need to end pronto.

Anyway, the police have had further guidance issued from above overnight. I'm sure they're bruised by the criticism they're now getting, but I suspect it was misplaced enthusiasm to be seen to be contributing to dealing with the national emergency, rather than anything more sinister.

 

It's probably important to point out the 'officers' referred to in the easter egg story were later confirmed to be environmental health officers working for councils.

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavi...accused-of-misreading-lockdown-rules-11965953

 

I actually said at the start of this that I didn't know enough about it to know what the best approach is. I still don't.

But I believe the government are following expert advice and seeing what happened in other countries. The fact that beauty spots, beaches etc were inundated the weekend before the "lockdown" shows that people didn't get the need to socially distance. If everyone was sensible then clearly the legislation would not be needed. But there is a minority of idiots that apparently need rules and the threat of enforcement.

The comparison between restrictions on people from different households meeting and the sale of Easter eggs is a false logic.

Of course there is a reason why preventing people from social interaction as it is likely to spread the infection. But there is no logical reason why goods should be removed from shelves, leaving them empty, if the shop is already open selling other products.

I note @UEA_Hornet says above about it not being a police enforcement but I guess it is still a matter of how enforcement resources are best used to enforce the intention of the restrictions without being unnecessarily authoritarian.

Edit: totally agree that it has been badly implemented and has left the police in a very difficult position. That has caused the inconsistencies and, in many cases, unfair criticism. Hopefully, as UEA says, some clarity and consistency will now follow.

 

Chocolate and red wine are the top "essential items" on any list my wife produces!

 

I live in the middle of nowhere in Lincolnshire and we have a tiny village shop. Yesterday I went in for some milk and all the scratchcards had been removed, apparently a "man from the Council" came in and said they had to be removed together with other bits and pieces as they're not essential items and might encourage people to visit the shop!

 

Of course, and I was careful to say "many of" rather than "all of". but as you know when you were on here appealing for a bit of patience before locking down, the Guardian was one of many outlets wanting such stringent measures, and social media was all over it in the same way, with the usual mountain of abuse aimed at anyone who disagreed.

The fact is that officers are now asked to walk the streets to enforce all this, and they may come across 50 incidents in a shift, every one with different people harbouring a range of feelings from self-guilt, through frustration, to utter beligerance, and that officer will be expected to make the judgement each time, and the best way of expressing it.

 

Just seen an article on Germany's testing success, an extract...

Back in January, Germany became one of the first countries to develop a reliable method for testing for COVID-19. Unburdened by a restrictive central regulatory body, since healthcare is administered at the state level in Germany, private companies moved quickly to mass produce those tests, meaning they could be rolled out rapidly to the population.

Sounds like good cooperation between public administration and private providers, and a pragmatic rather than dogmatic approach. That sort of pragmatism is why I feel that the vaccines could be brought in earlier than the 18 months or so that is usually quoted.

Edit: I'm still actually not certain why heavy testing is considered so important other than for the NHS and other keyworkers. Surely it is only testing for a moment in time. The person could well then get infected elsewhere even before he gets his "negative" tests results back. But, I accept that this is a failing in my own logical thinking as everyone else thinks it is the right thing to do.

Now I do understand the benefits of a antibody test.

 

Of course. But different officers may be harbouring a range of feelings too and that's the wild card here.

The best approach I think would be to assume everyone they see is complying, unless there's clear evidence to think otherwise. We don't have a 'show me your papers' policing culture in this country - something I alluded to earlier in the thread - and I think that's the trap some overly keen officers or police forces have fallen into in the early stages of this.

It's about tone too. There's lots of anecdotal evidence already of police officers taking a moralistic approach, in the way a parent might try to explain to a child why doing something is wrong. That's fine with a child but patronising to most adults. That tone has come across in many communications police forces have put out too. A lot of it has been done in haste and I think comes from the right place. But it needs to stop otherwise public support will start to ebb away.

 

Yes, I agree, officers are only human and will make mistakes when enforcing laws that are entirely new to them, too. But many adults will take any advice from a fellow adult as patronising. So the officer can either choose to ignore it, or enforce it, or treat it all as a joke. It really isn't easy, as an ex-officer who, for example, had to man a cordon 600 metres round a couple of corners from a bomb explosion when people just wanted to get to their homes 30 yards away. Common sense says they could go home, but to allow it once means that judgements have to be made for everyone instead of enforcing it strictly. It really isn't easy, and I just wish that people would just stop complaining about trivial matters and look at the bigger picture.

 

It doesn’t sound like the ‘man from the Council’ was there on essential business.

 

BBC Breakfast-co-lead singer has a great football shirt


https://twitter.com/i/status/1244874321320906752

 

Last season's kit. What a loser that kid is. Him and his family should be ashamed.

 

The biggest take from the lockdown is how extraordinarily peaceful it has been. For the most part people are compliant and where they are bending the rules it is mild and discrete. Given that public response, it’s in the Police’s interest to be told if their force is out of step with other forces and public opinion.

The lowest possible use of legal force to achieve the desired outcome has to be the goal. And UEA’s point about social media is spot on here. By using it inappropriately the Police risk becoming the story.

 

I can see the cops problem with an obvious lack of clear direction from the top as to what's allowed and what's not. The government's strategy shows clear signs of being made up on the hoof and depending on what the day's press headlines of the day have to say or what some minister has told Andrew Marr that morning. Must be a nightmare to implement.

I also don't see the problem with the cops using drones with cameras to catch or shame people flouting the regs. There are fixed cctv cameras all over - what's the difference with a flying one?

Meanwhile they have to try and keep quarantined families from throttling each other, respond to gits reporting their hated neighbour (he went out to wash his car! etc) and stand by for possible civil disturbances. All the while exposing themselves and their families to infection. They're very key of the key workers and at this time have my full support and sympathy.

 

He comes across as a right ****

On social media sends out message to stay indoors which he then completely ignores and does the exact opposite

Makes non essential journey

Bashes cars as he's allegedly pissed up

Makes grovelling apology that he's made a mistake...... no the only mistake is that he thought he was above the law and got caught out

 

I must be in the minority in agreeing with Derbyshire police's drone. No one needs to go to the Peak District right now; want to go for a walk, run or take the dog out? You can do that locally, some people obviously missed the point and the drone footage said none of these trips were essential.

 

The government's guidance and clear advice is that people should only be making essential trips, sure.

But the law doesn't say that. And the only thing the police should be concerned with is what the law says. Which is exactly the issue Lord Sumption took with Derbyshire's approach.

 

Some people just love a bit of power don’t they?

 

what about people who live there?

 

Social media is a minefield. From my point of view, the police and authorities using drones to provide evidence of people "doing the wrong thing" is fine, as long as the people cannot be specifically identified. Some people need examples of what is not acceptable to understand the rules.

Naming and shaming people on social media is not the police's job though and encourages a lynch mob mentality in some.

 

It's the same at my wife's mid-size national chain supermarket (not in Lincolnshire) with scratchcards.