Jump to content

Coronavirus


1of4

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

Covid-19 quite clearly doesn’t give two hoots who you are. Everyone is in this together. 

It quite clearly does, hence when it hurts older/vulnerable people more than others.

 

4 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

My bad those coppers were obviously doing it simply for the giggles. Can’t be any other explanation?!

I think they're loving the new rules to enforce. Otherwise they wouldn't be so vigorously enforcing such pathetic rules. 

 

5 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

Yep everyone’s behaviour during Covid will show selfishness, we are all trying to preserve something. The overall preservation of jobs, lives and keeping a roof above your head is very important.

Fighting basic restrictions because you simply wish to to Ignore and dismiss the benefit that said restrictions have on the overall majority, is being selfish on a much greater scale. 

Refusing to comply with small scale restrictions nearly always leads to significantly bigger restrictions due to the nature of the beast. 

What you consider small and basic, might not be such for others. That's my whole point. There is no such thing as ''basic'' restrictions, it differs from person to person. I don't consider either side selfish, and if people think ignoring the rules is best for them, then that's what they should do. Take that clip of the elderly lady from Yorkshire, for example. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 19.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Just now, Andicis said:

It quite clearly does, hence when it hurts older/vulnerable people more than others.

Yes it is far worse for the elderly, they are very much part of the community.

Yes it is far worse for the vulnerable, they are very much part of the community.

It is less deadly for the fit and able, they unfortunately spread the virus, they are very much part of the community.

No one in this country is immune from the impact of Covid.

Just now, Andicis said:

 

I think they're loving the new rules to enforce. Otherwise they wouldn't be so vigorously enforcing such pathetic rules. 

They very definitely do not enjoy having to enforce the new rules and all the abuse that comes with it. It’s also extremely difficult for them to enforce said new rules. They are humans and struggling just like every else.

By that logic would you also suggest the doctors and nurses love the fact that they have loads of new patients to treat with an exciting new disease they hadn’t encountered before. 

Just now, Andicis said:

 

What you consider small and basic, might not be such for others. That's my whole point. There is no such thing as ''basic'' restrictions, it differs from person to person. I don't consider either side selfish, and if people think ignoring the rules is best for them, then that's what they should do. Take that clip of the elderly lady from Yorkshire, for example. 

Do we therefore have no such thing as heavy restrictions? Is stopping the unrestricted freedom of movement totally, comparable to not being able to drink in a pub unless you have a meal?

Is stopping groups of over six mates gathering in your house comparable to being forced to have no one in your house other than it’s occupants. 

Sure let’s not call them basic, let’s maybe come up with a different name, maybe we could call them tier 1, tier 2, tier 3, then we could signify the impact  relevant tiers have on daily life. 

Humans by their very nature will be selfish, it’s how we operate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

They very definitely do not enjoy having to enforce the new rules and all the abuse that comes with it. It’s also extremely difficult for them to enforce said new rules. They are humans and struggling just like every else.

By that logic would you also suggest the doctors and nurses love the fact that they have loads of new patients to treat with an exciting new disease they hadn’t encountered before. 

They openly gloat about fining students for having more than 6 friends round, I don't think they're struggling with it. With doctors it's a different thing entirely.

 

3 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

Do we therefore have no such thing as heavy restrictions? Is stopping the unrestricted freedom of movement totally, comparable to not being able to drink in a pub unless you have a meal?

Is stopping groups of over six mates gathering in your house comparable to being forced to have no one in your house other than it’s occupants. 

Sure let’s not call them basic, let’s maybe come up with a different name, maybe we could call them tier 1, tier 2, tier 3, then we could signify the impact  relevant tiers have on daily life. 

Humans by their very nature will be selfish, it’s how we operate

For some, not having people round wouldn't be a problem, for others it'd be a big one. I'd imagine for older people, some of the rules about social distancing and not mixing households are awful for them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Andicis said:

It quite clearly does, hence when it hurts older/vulnerable people more than others.

Very true.

Furthermore, to put another slant on 'we're not all in this together';

Coronavirus: Takeaway fined £1,000 for serving customer four minutes after 10pm curfew

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-takeaway-fined-1-000-for-serving-customer-four-minutes-after-10pm-curfew-12088877

Margaret Ferrier: Met Police to take no further action against Covid MP

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-54546058

There are loads of these kinds of examples... Dominic Cummings, Jeremy Corbyn, etc - the Police aren't fussed, they would much rather turn up armed and en masse and walk through a restaurant or gym or arrest students.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, maxjam said:

Very true.

Furthermore, to put another slant on 'we're not all in this together';

Coronavirus: Takeaway fined £1,000 for serving customer four minutes after 10pm curfew

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-takeaway-fined-1-000-for-serving-customer-four-minutes-after-10pm-curfew-12088877

Margaret Ferrier: Met Police to take no further action against Covid MP

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-54546058

There are loads of these kinds of examples... Dominic Cummings, Jeremy Corbyn, etc - the Police aren't fussed, they would much rather turn up armed and en masse and walk through a restaurant or gym or arrest students.

You've summed up my feelings on the situation better than I did. Great post. Politicians or people in positions of power get away with breaking the rules, in Ferrier's case egregiously, but students are fined 10k for having gatherings. It's ridiculous, and this is why I refuse to accept we're all in this together. It's a meaningless slogan, the fact is some demographics are hurt more by this lockdown, as well as some by the virus, than others. Regardless of what politicians say, it **does** discriminate.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Andicis said:

They openly gloat about fining students for having more than 6 friends round, I don't think they're struggling with it. With doctors it's a different thing entirely.

Why is it entirely different? Doctors complain of the abuse they receive for doing their jobs just as much as the police do. Doctors however get a pat on the back if they save a life, police just get a ton of abuse for arresting someone. If a police officer goes out and does his job well he should be able to feel proud, he is doing the job he was given and they are protecting lives.

3 minutes ago, Andicis said:

 

For some, not having people round wouldn't be a problem, for others it'd be a big one. I'd imagine for older people, some of the rules about social distancing and not mixing households are awful for them. 

Yes i agree.

Covid does not however care.

If we reduce the spread enough people can generally live a life that resembled pre Covid.

Non compliance with the lower end tier 1 restrictions does not reduce the spread it increases it.

We then go to tier 2. If enough people don’t comply with that and the spread continues we go to tier 3, if tier 3 doesn’t have enough compliance and we can’t reduce the spread we probably go to full on lockdown.

We have a choice to make, we comply with lower tier restrictions (even though they are very hard on some people) in the hope and in order not to have to be even harder on those already suffering . 

No one likes restrictions, no one wants to lead a restricted life, but in our current situation we have no choice. Non compliance of the restrictions leads to greater restrictions wether we agree with them in the first place or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jimmyp said:

Yes i agree.

Covid does not however care.

If we reduce the spread enough people can generally live a life that resembled pre Covid.

Non compliance with the lower end tier 1 restrictions does not reduce the spread it increases it.

We then go to tier 2. If enough people don’t comply with that and the spread continues we go to tier 3, if tier 3 doesn’t have enough compliance and we can’t reduce the spread we probably go to full on lockdown.

We have a choice to make, we comply with lower tier restrictions (even though they are very hard on some people) in the hope and in order not to have to be even harder on those already suffering . 

No one likes restrictions, no one wants to lead a restricted life, but in our current situation we have no choice. Non compliance of the restrictions leads to greater restrictions wether we agree with them in the first place or not.

They put Sheffield in tier 2 and 1 week later they bumped it up to tier 3 anyway. It's not like they even give time for their own restrictions to work. We absolutely have a choice. Everyone has a choice. I know at least a few older people who would rather live less time, but more fully, than live longer like they have to currently. 

I believe your way of thinking just allows them to constantly put more and more restrictions on life that are unnecessary, if the government were so confident their rules were good for society they would put them through parliament and allow a vote on them, they never do though do they? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Andicis said:

You've summed up my feelings on the situation better than I did. Great post. Politicians or people in positions of power get away with breaking the rules, in Ferrier's case egregiously, but students are fined 10k for having gatherings. It's ridiculous, and this is why I refuse to accept we're all in this together. It's a meaningless slogan, the fact is some demographics are hurt more by this lockdown, as well as some by the virus, than others. Regardless of what politicians say, it **does** discriminate.  

Cant disagree.

I personally think fines should be heavy, but the rules should apply for all.

Why should 4 students in Nottingham get fined 10k each yet Corbyn gets away with it, and as you say Ferrier....There wont even be an investigation into mp's drinking in the commons bar after hours.

I do think it was right to fine the takeaway, you either have rules or you dont, but apply them for all without exception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Very true.

Furthermore, to put another slant on 'we're not all in this together';

Coronavirus: Takeaway fined £1,000 for serving customer four minutes after 10pm curfew

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-takeaway-fined-1-000-for-serving-customer-four-minutes-after-10pm-curfew-12088877

Margaret Ferrier: Met Police to take no further action against Covid MP

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-54546058

There are loads of these kinds of examples... Dominic Cummings, Jeremy Corbyn, etc - the Police aren't fussed, they would much rather turn up armed and en masse and walk through a restaurant or gym or arrest students.

Yes it is very sad that we have instances such as this. It must be very difficult for police officers to know when to draw the line. Rules wouldn’t be rules if any police officer could decide how to interpret them and when to apply them though. They have a very difficult job at the moment. 

The met police didn’t just decide to not prosecute because she was an MP. They had no choice but to drop the investigation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Andicis said:

You've summed up my feelings on the situation better than I did. Great post. Politicians or people in positions of power get away with breaking the rules, in Ferrier's case egregiously, but students are fined 10k for having gatherings. It's ridiculous, and this is why I refuse to accept we're all in this together. It's a meaningless slogan, the fact is some demographics are hurt more by this lockdown, as well as some by the virus, than others. Regardless of what politicians say, it **does** discriminate.  

Students fined for a mass gathering and trying to hide 30 other students in  their kitchen and bedrooms. Stupid behaviour that was rightly stamped on as a deterrent to other half-wits who may be considering the same thing. It is a lot of money, tough luck, it should hurt. 
Ferrier will lose her career for her stupidity. 
Cummings didn’t break the law, although the spirit wasn’t great. The takeaway knows the law and I would bet there is much more to it than just the four minutes. 
Let’s have more big fines, if that is what it takes to make people take notice of their responsibilities. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Sith Happens said:

Cant disagree.

I personally think fines should be heavy, but the rules should apply for all.

Why should 4 students in Nottingham get fined 10k each yet Corbyn gets away with it, and as you say Ferrier....There wont even be an investigation into mp's drinking in the commons bar after hours.

I do think it was right to fine the takeaway, you either have rules or you dont, but apply them for all without exception.

If there was zero tolerance but everyone got the same punishment, I'd grumble but at least I'd know where the line is. When they pick and choose who to go after though, that's when they lose any kind of credibility. They've consistently shown they come down harder on students for minor things but if politicians go just about everywhere after testing positive, nothing happens to them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bcnram said:

Students fined for a mass gathering and trying to hide 30 other students in  their kitchen and bedrooms. Stupid behaviour that was rightly stamped on as a deterrent to other half-wits who may be considering the same thing. It is a lot of money, tough luck, it should hurt. 
Ferrier will lose her career for her stupidity. 
Cummings didn’t break the law, although the spirit wasn’t great. The takeaway knows the law and I would bet there is much more to it than just the four minutes. 
Let’s have more big fines, if that is what it takes to make people take notice of their responsibilities. 

Except, Ferrier gets to continue as an MP for the next 5 years and rake in her money, with no punishment, despite the fact that the students got a 10k fine and the takeaway was fined for the sin of going 4 mins past 10. 

As I said in my last post, if you are going to be strict on punishment, at least make it uniform. Or if not, just do away with it because it's not fit for purpose. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Andicis said:

If there was zero tolerance but everyone got the same punishment, I'd grumble but at least I'd know where the line is. When they pick and choose who to go after though, that's when they lose any kind of credibility. They've consistently shown they come down harder on students for minor things but if politicians go just about everywhere after testing positive, nothing happens to them. 

The fine for the students seems excessive but i guess we dont know if there have been other offences.

Its not just politicians, footballers too. Paul Scholes had a birthday party for his son while he should have been self isolating and breaking the gathering indoor rules...nothing....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Andicis said:

They put Sheffield in tier 2 and 1 week later they bumped it up to tier 3 anyway. It's not like they even give time for their own restrictions to work. We absolutely have a choice. Everyone has a choice. I know at least a few older people who would rather live less time, but more fully, than live longer like they have to currently. 

I believe your way of thinking just allows them to constantly put more and more restrictions on life that are unnecessary, if the government were so confident their rules were good for society they would put them through parliament and allow a vote on them, they never do though do they? 

Yes you choose to do as you please with your life, when you choice starts having a negative impact on others lives it leads to consequences. 

 

Votes like these:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/13/hancock-turns-on-tory-lockdown-sceptics-ahead-of-key-covid-votes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jimmyp said:

Yes you choose to do as you please with your life, when you choice starts having a negative impact on others lives it leads to consequences. 

 

Votes like these:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/13/hancock-turns-on-tory-lockdown-sceptics-ahead-of-key-covid-votes

Yeah, I don't agree.

Yeah, votes which they package together, if they allowed individual votes on individual rules, such as the 10pm curfew they'd lose, hence why they never allow that. Funny isn't it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Yeah, I don't agree.

Yeah, votes which they package together, if they allowed individual votes on individual rules, such as the 10pm curfew they'd lose, hence why they never allow that. Funny isn't it.

What you don’t agree that actions should have consequences, or your just angry that In your opinion they don’t seem to be fairly applied? 

The second part I totally understand, the rules should be enforced equally to all. In practice the police don’t get to make that choice though.

They did vote on the 10pm pub curfew. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Andicis said:

They've consistently shown they come down harder on students for minor things but if politicians go just about everywhere after testing positive, nothing happens to them. 

It's not just the lack of consistency that is the problem. It's the complete lack of acknowledgement that every time they are publicly seen to be taking no action against the famous and/or the privileged - that totally undermines the message and shouldn't be a surprise that the "Man on the street" then decides to try and ignore the rules

Sending in the police (and who knows, eventually the army?) to crush breaches by ordinary people whilst letting the privileged act with impunity is driving us towards a pretty scary place

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

It's not just the lack of consistency that is the problem. It's the complete lack of acknowledgement that every time they are publicly seen to be taking no action against the famous and/or the privileged - that totally undermines the message and shouldn't be a surprise that the "Man on the street" then decides to try and ignore the rules

Sending in the police (and who knows, eventually the army?) to crush breaches by ordinary people whilst letting the privileged act with impunity is driving us towards a pretty scary place

Yes it all shows why it takes years to write and pass laws that stand the test of time.

It also shows the difference in morals of those who choose to operate by using the technicalities of said laws. 

Unfortunately as in most countries, if you are clever enough or rich enough to know someone clever enough, you can get away with a lot of bad stuff on a technicality.  

We know very few MPs have good morals. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, jimmyp said:

What you don’t agree that actions should have consequences, or your just angry that In your opinion they don’t seem to be fairly applied? 

The second part I totally understand, the rules should be enforced equally to all. In practice the police don’t get to make that choice though.

They did vote on the 10pm pub curfew. 

They didn't. It was put in with the rest, it was a package deal. They didn't put most of their restrictions through individually, so to vote against one but is to vote against all of it. 

I just don't agree at all the consequences match the "crimes".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Andicis said:

They didn't. It was put in with the rest, it was a package deal. They didn't put most of their restrictions through individually, so to vote against one but is to vote against all of it. 

I just don't agree at all the consequences match the "crimes".

Having  Covid isn’t a crime. It’s a public health issue. The consequence of having Covid is very bad, if not for you it certainly is unintentionally for others. 

Breaking the rules regulations and laws that have been put into place out of necessity to reduce the spread have legal consequences wether we agree with them or not. 

It would of been great if we didn’t have to have restrictions, but we are unfortunately well past that point for numerous reasons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...