While you enjoy ...

When it comes to horse racing your intelligence is above normal Orsen so in my world you are, So, therefore, I make this claim you are.

 

Not true. Cases didn't increase significantly until end of August.

 

Awww! (Blushing! )

I personally know of several people on here who are far more intelligent than I am (with no prejudice to the rest who I know less well).

My horseracing tips posted on here would make poor evidence, although the P+L for all my bets might tell a different story!

 

not sure what exercising has to do with anything?

the reason for having to wear a mask is because some people seem incapable of respecting the 2m guidance, even when there are huge amounts of space. Thankfully it’s not everyone, but sadly far too many.

And though it can’t be proven, I’m sure there are plenty who could have lived through better choices.

 

Tiffany Porter the British Olympic runner who runs in the 100 meters and the 60 meters hurdles always runs in a mask (since this outbreak) she also has a Doctorate in Pharmacy I think she would know more than us plebs.

 

Scroll back through the thread and I said "I have seen people walking, walking dogs even cycling wearing masks" cycling is a form of exercise. Which i think will cause more harm than good.

The scientists have already told us the virus is unlikely to be spread outdoors.

 

Which scientists have said that Rees-Mogg, Hancock or Johnson.
The scientists I have listened to say it is far more easily caught indoors than out but can be spread outdoors if you don't keep your distance so keep to the rules

 

I wasn't trying to make it into a political thing so not getting into that one.
Rare but not impossible to catch outdoor is what i heard. If you feel like you need to wear a mask outdoors in the fresh air thats fine or the runner you mentioned, or if the whole barnsley team turn up with one on against boro i don't really care, its just not for me and I won't be wearing one outside and really not getting why anyone would chose to do so, wearing masks indoors didn't have a impact on infection rates but like I said each to there own.

 

But if you could sit and have a pint in a country pub there's be old folk dropping like flies and to prove that's the case I will say that they ARENT dropping like flies and pubs ARENT open which isn100% confirmation that pubs kill people apparently

 

Herd immunity by next week too.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ll-pass-covid-herd-immunity-threshold-monday/

 

But the government have said "not before..." And Labour support that position at present. So it's not likely to change, is it?

But my interest has always been more in the legal machinations this has thrown up rather than in the merits of the issue. I think it unlikely that the Judge, even if finding for Lord/Osmond would quash the decision without setting out the considerations Hancock should have relied upon. So as a first stance, he could simply revisit the decision upon what were suggested by the Judge to be the proper considerations, and still conclude that the 17 May date stands. A second line open to him would be to hastily propose new legislation on the specific point, which would likely be supported by Labour. That would trump the judgement due to the principle of the sovereignty of Parliament. The third option would be to head to the Court of Appeal, temporarily halting the effect of any judgement in favour of Lord/Osmond and to mysteriously drop the appeal once the 17 May has passed. Or he could launch all three!

I am not saying any of these possibilities will definitely come about - just that they are all potential strategies open to Matt Hancock.

 

A New study finds ZERO cases of transmission inside a car amongst lone masked drivers.

 

Most of my comments on this thread relate to the legal aspects of this topic and in particular to the Lord/Osmond application for judicial review. Truth be told, I am not that interested in when pubs reopen and under what circumstances. So with great respect to you, I think it is you who has diverted the discussion. The thread did after all commence with a comment about the interim application to expedite the case. I think that the action by Lord/Osmond is ill-conceived and likely to fail. But I may be wrong - we shall see. I am not convinced that they 'won' the earlier case, as argued by Deetee, and I have yet to see a judgement that proves this. It seems to me that the fall of the Tier system following the total lockdown rendered their action no longer relevant.

I don't accept the random items of data you cite prove your case in regard to the safety of reopening the hospitality industry earlier. They are pieces of information which can be interpreted in a certain way - just as the government has chosen to interpret the information it has been given. At the end of the day it is the government that will make the decision. My opinion is that they are right to be cautious. Yours is different - and that's okay. I certainly see no need to be becoming edgy about it. We all have our own views. My interest - as I say - is primarily in the legal aspects.

 

I think you're absolutely right that a lot of hospitality isn't going to cause any more of an issue than things like retail or personal care. It's obvious to everyone that a full nightclub with everyone 15 shots deep and partying is a lot different to a restaurant or a pub with table service only.

I think it's still too early for the former but the latter should absolutely be opening at the same time as retail and I'm not really sure why it's not. Hopefully the weather is nice though and a lot of people take advantage of outdoor dining.

 

What is evident is that people will quote scientists (in or out of context) when it suits their personal circumstances.

People shouldn't be denigrated if they choose to wear masks or for trying to stay 2 metres apart from people. That's all. Liberty cuts both ways.

 

I don't think there's any mileage in answering the questions you raise in your previous post. I have my view - you have yours. Neither of us can influence what the government does.

 

Yeah thats another baffling one although I'm sure one or two on here could probley explain that one aswell.