Coronavirus

[Rev]

8 minutes ago, Mick Brolly said:

Drive across town crash your car making a UNNECESSARY journey ambulance has to come and get you take you to hospital for treatment putting further strain on a already stretched NHS. 

How much more likely is it that a journey across town, at average town speeds, would result in an accident so severe you'd need ambulance attendance and a hospital visit, vs someone slipping and falling during a local walk?

[G STAR RAM]

7 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

Yes but if Elvaston Castle is really nice, I’ve never been, what if hundreds from other streets also decided to descend?

Its a big place just used as an example. 

Thousands at Elvaston Castle would be the same as hundreds at a local park.

I just dont think there is any logic in trying to limit peoples outdoor activities that are not within confined spaces.

Maybe the Government could provide some evidence that this is causing the spread (as they pretended to do with hospitality venues) to put peoples minds at ease?

[Mick Brolly]

4 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Yeah but you could stay at home get electrocuted by the toaster and have to go to hospital. 

Id guess there are more accidents in the home that require hospital treatment than from car crashes. 

Having a slice of toast your dinner ( possibly necessary)

Driving across town to go for a walk ( 100% unnecessary)

Think the idea is we should understand what we may need to do and what we don't need to do. 

[Tamworthram]

Just now, G STAR RAM said:

Its a big place just used as an example. 

Thousands at Elvaston Castle would be the same as hundreds at a local park.

I just dont think there is any logic in trying to limit peoples outdoor activities that are not within confined spaces.

Maybe the Government could provide some evidence that this is causing the spread (as they pretended to do with hospitality venues) to put peoples minds at ease?

So it’s a big place. What if it’s a smaller place that is still very popular? 
 

Are you saying there is no risk outdoors or, whilst still very small, these risks aren’t increased if the outdoor area gets a bit crowded?

Surely that is the principle of asking people to remain local.

With your final paragraph, are you seriously doubting that a potentially large number of people indoors (a hospitality venue) or a smaller group of people in a smaller indoor venue presents an increased risk of spreading the virus amongst a larger number of people?

[G STAR RAM]

21 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

So it’s a big place. What if it’s a smaller place that is still very popular? 
 

Are you saying there is no risk outdoors or, whilst still very small, these risks aren’t increased if the outdoor area gets a bit crowded?

Surely that is the principle of asking people to remain local.

With your final paragraph, are you seriously doubting that a potentially large number of people indoors (a hospitality venue) or a smaller group of people in a smaller indoor venue presents an increased risk of spreading the virus amongst a larger number of people?

Not suggesting anything, I dont know where the virus is spreading hence why I would it be nice for the Government to give us some data.

 

[G STAR RAM]

29 minutes ago, Mick Brolly said:

Having a slice of toast your dinner ( possibly necessary)

Driving across town to go for a walk ( 100% unnecessary)

Think the idea is we should understand what we may need to do and what we don't need to do. 

Ok forget the toaster.

Falling downstairs, is it necessary to go upstairs when you could sleep on the sofa?

Long and short of the point, I dont think using the car crash argument works very well.

[Eddie]

42 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Its a big place just used as an example. 

Thousands at Elvaston Castle would be the same as hundreds at a local park.

I just dont think there is any logic in trying to limit peoples outdoor activities that are not within confined spaces.

Maybe the Government could provide some evidence that this is causing the spread (as they pretended to do with hospitality venues) to put peoples minds at ease?

Bournemouth beach is a big place too - but when 50,000 people try to use it at once, it gets a little crowded.

I wish that you would reserve your contempt for the rule-breakers and covidiots. We'd get on famously then instead of when you are constructing strawmen at every opportunity.

[Mick Brolly]

9 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Ok forget the toaster.

Falling downstairs, is it necessary to go upstairs when you could sleep on the sofa?

Long and short of the point, I dont think using the car crash argument works very well.

But what if you've left your favourite teddy upstairs. ?

[G STAR RAM]

Just now, Eddie said:

Bournemouth beach is a big place too - but when 50,000 people try to use it at once, it gets a little crowded.

I wish that you would reserve your contempt for the rule-breakers and covidiots. We'd get on famously then instead of when you are constructing strawmen at every opportunity.

I dont think you tend to get many people walking dogs on Bournemouth beach or anywhere else for that matter at this time of year with this weather.

People blatantly breaching rules that are required Im more than happy to show contempt to. But there are lots of people who want to do things that involve very minimal risk who are having their lives ruined, I wont show them any contempt. 

You may remember that when I showed contempt for protestors on the Black Lives Matter marches you were very quick to jump to their defence, perhaps you should take a leaf out of your own book when advising people who they should be showing contempt to?

[G STAR RAM]

Just now, Mick Brolly said:

But what if you've left your favourite teddy upstairs. ?

Go to W H Smith to get another one, they will still be allowed to open no doubt.

[angieram]

Just now, G STAR RAM said:

Go to W H Smith to get another one, they will still be allowed to open no doubt.

Yes, but what if you crash your car on the way there? ?

[G STAR RAM]

4 minutes ago, angieram said:

Yes, but what if you crash your car on the way there? ?

Cycle, as long as its no more than 7 miles

[Tamworthram]

20 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Not suggesting anything, I dont know where the virus is spreading hence why I would it be nice for the Government to give us some data.

 

So “as they pretended to do for hospitality venues” isn’t suggesting anything?

I would suggest that the vast majority of the planet believes the virus is more likely to spread in enclosed spaces full of people and, to much lesser extent, even in outdoor spaces if that at area gets busy. But, if you need to see the data well, that’s your prerogative. 

[G STAR RAM]

11 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

So “as they pretended to do for hospitality venues” isn’t suggesting anything?

I would suggest that the vast majority of the planet believes the virus is more likely to spread in enclosed spaces full of people and, to much lesser extent, even in outdoor spaces if that at area gets busy. But, if you need to see the data well, that’s your prerogative. 

Sorry, yes that was suggesting they made that claim without any evidence to back it up.

Having spoken with various bodies in the hospitality sector, not one, despite requests, have been provided with the evidence.

 

[Archied]

3 hours ago, 1of4 said:

I get a lot of value from these briefings. Good to know that Matt Hancock said while exercising I can walk up to 7 miles away from where I live, which funnily is the distance from Downing Street to the Olympic Park.

I'm sure Hancock also stated, I could've misheard, that the government had started ordering a coronavirus vaccine back in February. Could someone remind me, when was the first time Johnson turned up to a Cobra meeting.

Had to laugh at the statment that there will be a fixed or roving vaccination centres within 10 miles of everyone who required an injection. If there roving, you'd think they'd claim the nearest centre would be closer than 10 miles.

This has got to be the best ever divide and rule ever

[1of4]

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

Its a big place just used as an example. 

Thousands at Elvaston Castle would be the same as hundreds at a local park.

I just dont think there is any logic in trying to limit peoples outdoor activities that are not within confined spaces.

Maybe the Government could provide some evidence that this is causing the spread (as they pretended to do with hospitality venues) to put peoples minds at ease?

 

55 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Not suggesting anything, I dont know where the virus is spreading hence why I would it be nice for the Government to give us some data.

 

I think you're suggesting it's OK to go wherever you want, to do your exercises irrelevant of how many other people turn up at the same place. 

That just my opinion but if you've got evidence to prove otherwise, I'll happily wait to see it. If not never mind, you crack on with your life. I just hope your attitude to the dangers of the virus doesn't put the safety of others at risk.

[G STAR RAM]

9 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

 

I think you're suggesting it's OK to go wherever you want, to do your exercises irrelevant of how many other people turn up at the same place. 

That just my opinion but if you've got evidence to prove otherwise, I'll happily wait to see it. If not never mind, you crack on with your life. I just hope your attitude to the dangers of the virus doesn't put the safety of others at risk.

Yes, I guess I am. I think the police and the Government are targeting the wrong people.

As Ive said if there is evidence that people going out for walks is spreading the virus then publish it.

As far as I have seen so far, the Government just seem to keep on targeting the areas with the best compliance. 

Just my view and maybe wrong.

Im not sure how my attitude will spread the virus and put others at risk, think Ive pretty much followed the rules since day 1 with maybe a couple of minor breaches. Im just getting pissed off that despite 9 months of compliance the restrictions on my life are being increased.

[Tamworthram]

59 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Sorry, yes that was suggesting they made that claim without any evidence to back it up.

Having spoken with various bodies in the hospitality sector, not one, despite requests, have been provided with the evidence.

 

so, to repeat, without evidence you don't it's a concern?

[BIllyD]

9 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

so, to repeat, without evidence you don't it's a concern?

Surely you have read this thread before, if you don't believe it, ask for facts, NHS being overrun being a good example, can't be true without facts, don't see something you agree with, ask for evidence, want to prove a point, someone I know told me so it must be true ?

[uttoxram75]

Not long in from work and just had a quick catch up on here and i'm worried sick. 

stay in? go out? nowhere's safe. I decided to google what's dangerous........

"Over 3,000 deaths a year in the UK are the result of home accidents – more than on the roads. Half of these in-the-home deaths (1,500) are people falling over – and, of these, between five and ten each year take place when people are trying to put on socks. (In 2003, 11,788 people were taken to hospital following accidents while putting on socks, tights or stockings).

It gets worse.67,000 people are injured each year in the UK trying to peel the cellophane off a packet of sandwiches or open a ring-pull can."

There's no way I'm putting my stockings on tonight.