But what about the Bank Holiday second spike????

Not generally

 

Come on, you know the answer to that. Is it open to potential abuse by unethical and immoral people taking the p-iss, yes of course. Is the current lockdown open to the same potential for abuses? Yes, it clearly is, there’s people on here day and night constantly moaning about people not sticking to the guidelines.

What’s the difference between your example here and an individual on furlough seeing their grandkids contrary to the guidelines now?

 

Easy for you to say, have you ever suffered from the grip of pie addiction?

 

The original government guidance was that over 70s should stringently follow social distancing.

 

Keep shielding the most vulnerable. 9/10 deaths are aged 60 and over so anyone in that age group or any age with underlying health conditions. If a healthy person lives with someone at high risk the government should help them stay at home with them.

 

The government guidance was that we should all follow social distancing.

I don’t understand the concept of ‘stringently’; does that mean it’s the same rule for all of us but only the over 70’s need take it seriously?

rhetorical question btw.

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11799908/coronavirus-vaccine-inhaler-next-month/

Might not be for much longer but it's vague. Will everyone get a covid inhaler to take when we have symtoms? Will people be given one and told to take it X amount of times a day until it's all gone?

 

So all young people who lives with someone >60 or at risk, all younger people who live with people who work in health care.
All people who think they might be at greater risk - and therefore anyone that lives with them.

I see what you mean - that’s really straightforward.

 

We keep quoting government guidelines but really, does anybody actually still believe anything they say?

 

It isn't straight forward but it's easier to control even 20 million people with a vested interest n protecting someone they live with than it is to control 66m.

You can offer a lot more support to a smaller number than you can to a larger number both logistically and financially.

 

that’s illogical
If everyone is supposedly living by the same rules, it’s easier to control or police. The instant you introduce ambiguity you open it up to abuse / legal challenge etc.

You only have to read a couple of threads here to see that even when everyone should be following the same set of simple rules, a significant proportion of the population wants to play barrack room lawyer.

 

We are advising those who are at increased risk of severe illness from coronavirus (COVID-19) to be particularly stringent in following social distancing measures.
This group includes those who are:

• aged 70 or older (regardless of medical conditions)

This was the government guidance. When I was running the emergency response team my interpretation and instruction to staff and volunteers was that we would treat anyone over the age of 70 who contacted us the same as those who had shielding letters - ie we would ensure they didn't have to go out to do shopping, collect prescriptions for themselves if they felt scared to do so. I wouldn't want to tell anyone over 70 to crack on if they were uncomfortable doing so.

 

I mean easier to control in that it's easier to help and support torto make it easier for those affected to do than I mean to force.

An example of that is that in an ideal world we would all have stayed home completely for a few weeks. In reality millions had to go to Tesco because they didn't (and still don't) have capacity to do home deliveries to everyone.
If around 10 million people were told stay home and the other 56 million told to carry on as usual (for the purpose of this example only) then there would definitely have been a higher chance of us having capacity for those 10 million to have those deliveries.

That's what I mean by easier to control. Badly worded really, I meant easier to manage, assist.

A one size fits all police didn't work because those better at technology and those who have the energy to stay up late got all the deliver slots. The elderly then had to go to Tesco. I'm certain this one thing alone has killed thousands.

Had money not been spent keeping 20 year olds away from work then that money could have been spent for example paying care home staff big bonuses to move in to the care homes and to fund private companies doing good deliveries to these care homes via safe methods.

 

Question,if the R rate keeps on climbing in North West and the goverment bring in regional lockdowns how the hell are the premier and efl going to get round that.And probably London after today.

 

Dunno, but judging by the pictures from Manchester today it's likely to continue rising...

 

It wasn't partially correct. It was scare mongering of a nature that I have never previously read. It was entirely incorrect. And things like that have cost lives. People have died because people like you have repeated that rubbish. You've played this like a game. It's not a game, it's real. You have attacked people for valid views, you have posted the most disgusting nonsense and you have caused people to die. You have claimed facts without the intellect to understand what you're talking about, you have influenced people without the required knowledge. And you will never, ever, ever be forgiven. And there are many, many, many sanctimonious a*seholes just like you, and they won' be forgiven either. This wasn't football, this was life. And you are without worth.

 

Everyone being treated the same isn't the right way to go about it. If two primary school children now back at school were to hug eachother I would think they would be OK. But if one of them wanted to hug their elderly grandparent then that wouldn't be wise. Let's just hope the map keeps going in the right direction......



If we continue to see no second spike all all these busy places (bank holidays, public transport, beaches, marches) then the government won't keep social distancing around anyway.

 

Speaking of threads that won't end well...

 

I don’t disagree ’in principal’.
My point is simply where the line is drawn and how it’s policed.

this is a nightmare for any government, particularly a right wing one. We have to create a new societal norm overnight. My point is simply that a straight line for all society is simple; but different rules for different people becomes much much more complex.

it’s easy to say what’s wrong - much harder to create more complex rules and manage them (as you can see above).

 

That's a very pertinent point. I don't have a counter argument at the moment. You have to go with what we can all understand and what we can all understand is the same rules for us all (but with very few and extremely explicit offsets). I don't think the government are doing this very well at the moment, but that should be the standard that we we aim for.

I do think we'll be able to do this in future, but not right now.