revtothelimit - motorbike forum

cheb wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 8:57 am One set of rules to cover the whole of the country? Whine, it doesn't allow for local variations.

Different rules for different parts of the country? Whine, postcode lottery.

Well yeah.

You're telling people to stay at home, which is an extraordinary thing to be doing in the UK. Always gonna be someone upset.

And there's always going to be people looking to be upset. Hanging's too good for them.

The Daughter was stopped on Monday by Police in Surrey.
She was aware of who was behind her. Says he followed her for 5 minutes before putting his blues on.
His only question was to ask wether she was aware of the restrictions and where she was going ?
She gestured to her 4 year old in the back , head bandaged and shirt collar covered in claret , and replied, from Hospital to home.
He politely wished her well and a safe journey. But. Really.
Not sure if she went to Kingston or Chertsey Hospitals as she lives between the two , so I don't know if this was the Met or Surrey Plod.

Fair points, but I suppose they need to put a maximum radius of travel to define guidance breakage, being as distance in car is so important. But let's not forget, social distancing is where its at, in reality.

My 14YO stepdaughter was out walking with one of her friends yesterday and was stopped by the police and questioned as to what, where, why etc

To be honest I'm glad the police are finally trying to enforce the rules as its getting a joke. Don't disagree they should be hunting for murderers, rapists, bikes with small plates etc but the mindset of some people needs realigning.

You also have to ask yourself what the Police's role actually is.

There were just over 800 murders in the UK last year. Every day ATM more people die from this virus.

Now I'm not saying we should equate the severity of murderers and lockdown breakers. I don't think the Police are saying that either, one offence gets a £200 fine and the other doesn't! But I do think we should consider the overall threat to the public from each.

Similar logic is why I can't get too excited about the police enforcing traffic laws. Human error driving accidents are by far the biggest 'artificial' killer in the UK.

Mr. Dazzle wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 9:54 am You also have to ask yourself what the Police's role actually is.

There were just over 800 murders in the UK last year. Every day ATM more people die from this virus.

Now I'm not saying we should equate the severity of murderers and lockdown breakers. I don't think the Police are saying that either, one offence gets a £200 fine and the other doesn't! But I do think we should consider the overall threat to the public from each.

Similar logic is why I can't get too excited about the police enforcing traffic laws. Human error driving accidents are by far the biggest 'artificial' killer in the UK.

Out of interest what is the scientific basis that says lockdown breakers are THE threat to the public ? And how’s does that compare to the threat to the public from Key workers and people that are permitted to travel for work shopping etc ? I suspect the risk is no different ( actually with 1 in 4 hospital cases being infected within the hospital maybe the first place to lockdown is hospitals?) so the imposition of control of movement is arbitrary on the basis of need rather than actual risk. If they want to lockdown to control the virus then everything needs locking down...school , work, shops and hospitals ..even the police and army need to stay indoors . Of course that’s not going to happen, so the virus will continue to spread so getting all worked up about whether someone’s travelled 5 miles or 6 to go for a socially distanced walk is frankly ridiculous.

Seems like a huge portion of society has completely bought into the ‘lockdown sinners’ narrative as being the problem..I think it’s a form of Stockholm syndrome .i just wonder how many will want to leave their houses when this is all over ?

Hospitals have always been the most likely place to get infected. At least now the staff are washing their hands the incidence of MRSA should have fallen

Every time you go out you are potentially spreading the virus. Theres not an on/off switch that says "now I've been out once I can go as many times as I like", its cumulative.

The government recognises the fact you can't realistically stay at home all the time, so they have to allow reasonable exceptions don't they.

Evidence from all over the world, not just here, shows that when you ask people to follow precautions they don't. When countries lockdown cases fall, when lockdowns are lifted they rise.

Hospitals all over the country are running at >100% capacity. People don't follow the necessary precautions unless you MAKE them. What else is there to do?

Edit: I think you've got the need vs. risk thing totally mixed up Gedge. The lockdown is based on need precisely cause it needs to be. It's not arbitrary. Everyone who interacts with others is potentially spreading it, so you need to limit interactions to what you NEED to do where possible.

Mr. Dazzle wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:16 am Every time you go out you are potentially spreading the virus. Theres not an on/off switch that says "now I've been out once I can go as many times as I like", its cumulative.

The government recognises the fact you can't realistically stay at home all the time, so they have to allow reasonable exceptions don't they.

Evidence from all over the world, not just here, shows that when you ask people to follow precautions they don't. When countries lockdown cases fall, when lockdowns are lifted they rise.

Hospitals all over the country are running at >100% capacity. People don't follow the necessary precautions unless you MAKE them. What else is there to do?

I don’t think the authorities made any attempt to make people follow the original rules and when they decided they weren’t working leapt to ‘lockdown’ ..IMO they would have done better to enforce ‘covid security’ at shops, workplaces, schools etc and made more effort to control the ‘ more than 6 ‘ gatherings ..instead they sat back and watched and now we are locked down unnecessarily..as you say, every time you go out the virus spreads , that includes out to work, out to school, university or to the hospital..in the same way that most key workers know how to behave around strangers, so do most normal people who are in effect being punished for the misdeeds of a minority before any attempt was made to correct that minority ..

Mr. Dazzle wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:16 am Every time you go out you are potentially spreading the virus. Theres not an on/off switch that says "now I've been out once I can go as many times as I like", its cumulative.

The government recognises the fact you can't realistically stay at home all the time, so they have to allow reasonable exceptions don't they.

Evidence from all over the world, not just here, shows that when you ask people to follow precautions they don't. When countries lockdown cases fall, when lockdowns are lifted they rise.

Hospitals all over the country are running at >100% capacity. People don't follow the necessary precautions unless you MAKE them. What else is there to do?

Edit: I think you've got the need vs. risk thing totally mixed up Gedge. The lockdown is based on need precisely cause it needs to be. It's not arbitrary.

Of course it’s arbitrary ...You can go out to work..I can’t go out to meet a friend ? In what way does your need to work pose less risk than my need for social interaction? As for lockdown being needed ? I disagree and I don’t think they tried ( at all?) hard enough to make the alternatives work .

Covid security is enforced AFAIK. I recently learned for example that if you have multiple incidences of Covid at work its treated with the same severity as serious accidents. HSE audits etc.

There have been loads of stories of parties being broken up and businesses shut down? I would guess they've been pushed to the front pages precisely to spread the message?

We had the whole Tiers thing for ages etc.

Gedge wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:26 am
Of course it’s arbitrary ...You can go out to work..I can’t go out to meet a friend ? In what way does your need to work pose less risk than my need for social interaction? As for lockdown being needed ? I disagree and I don’t think they tried ( at all?) hard enough to make the alternatives work .

The difference is risk is not what matters, its the difference in need. Me (and everyone else) going to work is more important than you seeing your friend. The need justifies the risks. Thats the logic anyway.

Gedge wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:26 am

Mr. Dazzle wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:16 am Every time you go out you are potentially spreading the virus. Theres not an on/off switch that says "now I've been out once I can go as many times as I like", its cumulative.

The government recognises the fact you can't realistically stay at home all the time, so they have to allow reasonable exceptions don't they.

Evidence from all over the world, not just here, shows that when you ask people to follow precautions they don't. When countries lockdown cases fall, when lockdowns are lifted they rise.

Hospitals all over the country are running at >100% capacity. People don't follow the necessary precautions unless you MAKE them. What else is there to do?

Edit: I think you've got the need vs. risk thing totally mixed up Gedge. The lockdown is based on need precisely cause it needs to be. It's not arbitrary.

Of course it’s arbitrary ...You can go out to work..I can’t go out to meet a friend ? In what way does your need to work pose less risk than my need for social interaction? As for lockdown being needed ? I disagree and I don’t think they tried ( at all?) hard enough to make the alternatives work .

What are/were the alternatives that didn't work? Who didn't try hard enough with them, the authorities or the general public?

Mr. Dazzle wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 8:54 am If you drive 5 miles in London you move from an area with a few thousand people to an area with a few thousand different people. If you drive 5 miles in the Highlands you might not see another person.

In a similar vein, driving 5 miles in London will take you past hundreds of shops and parks etc, but again in the Highlands you won't even get to the end of the road.

Since the rules are designed to prevent mixing and spreading there needs to be different application in different areas.

Area made no difference up here. In the first lockdown you could only exercise within 1km from home. So, those few of us living on a mountain with few other people and loads of open space were still restricted to 1km (didn't make much difference to me as 1km walk up the road and back was the most my shoulder could deal with at the start!!)

Interestingly, a few people living in my bit of the resort worked out the distance between certain roundabouts and I noticed them (separately at different times, not in a group!!) looping round the route!! Top roundabout to the bottom one and back, over and over again!!!

derek badger wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:29 am

Gedge wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:26 am

Mr. Dazzle wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:16 am Every time you go out you are potentially spreading the virus. Theres not an on/off switch that says "now I've been out once I can go as many times as I like", its cumulative.

The government recognises the fact you can't realistically stay at home all the time, so they have to allow reasonable exceptions don't they.

Evidence from all over the world, not just here, shows that when you ask people to follow precautions they don't. When countries lockdown cases fall, when lockdowns are lifted they rise.

Hospitals all over the country are running at >100% capacity. People don't follow the necessary precautions unless you MAKE them. What else is there to do?

Edit: I think you've got the need vs. risk thing totally mixed up Gedge. The lockdown is based on need precisely cause it needs to be. It's not arbitrary.

Of course it’s arbitrary ...You can go out to work..I can’t go out to meet a friend ? In what way does your need to work pose less risk than my need for social interaction? As for lockdown being needed ? I disagree and I don’t think they tried ( at all?) hard enough to make the alternatives work .

What are/were the alternatives that didn't work? Who didn't try hard enough with them, the authorities or the general public?

No entry to premises without a face covering, provision of hand washing facilities ( and supervised use) , social distancing and fewer than 6 in a group... table service only indoors , I’m sure there are others ..

Mr. Dazzle wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:28 am Covid security is enforced AFAIK. I recently learned for example that if you have multiple incidences of Covid at work its treated with the same severity as serious accidents. HSE audits etc.

There have been loads of stories of parties being broken up and businesses shut down? I would guess they've been pushed to the front pages precisely to spread the message?

We had the whole Tiers thing for ages etc.

Gedge wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:26 am
Of course it’s arbitrary ...You can go out to work..I can’t go out to meet a friend ? In what way does your need to work pose less risk than my need for social interaction? As for lockdown being needed ? I disagree and I don’t think they tried ( at all?) hard enough to make the alternatives work .

The difference is risk is not what matters, its the difference in need. Me (and everyone else) going to work is more important than you seeing your friend. The need justifies the risks. Thats the logic anyway.

I bet 90% of people going to work are not carrying out essential work ..

Gedge wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:34 am

derek badger wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:29 am

Gedge wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:26 am


Of course it’s arbitrary ...You can go out to work..I can’t go out to meet a friend ? In what way does your need to work pose less risk than my need for social interaction? As for lockdown being needed ? I disagree and I don’t think they tried ( at all?) hard enough to make the alternatives work .

What are/were the alternatives that didn't work? Who didn't try hard enough with them, the authorities or the general public?

No entry to premises without a face covering, provision of hand washing facilities ( and supervised use) , social distancing and fewer than 6 in a group... table service only indoors , I’m sure there are others ..

Yup, the public are stupid for not following those guidelines imo. That ship has sailed though and none of that would have prevented a new strain that is passed quicker becoming the current issue. This is where we are now. The only way to prevent more transmission and give the NHS some time to deal with the current overloading is to reduce the contact people have with each other, so lockdown it is. People just need to accept that it's killing people and start behaving like a dire situation such as the one we're all in requires.

No, probably not.

I think you'd be on an extremely sticky wicket trying to argue that there hasn't been a massive reduction in the number of people physically attending work though. Or that those people 'on site' don't have huge changes to deal with.

derek badger wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:41 am

Gedge wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:34 am

derek badger wrote: Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:29 am

What are/were the alternatives that didn't work? Who didn't try hard enough with them, the authorities or the general public?

No entry to premises without a face covering, provision of hand washing facilities ( and supervised use) , social distancing and fewer than 6 in a group... table service only indoors , I’m sure there are others ..

Yup, the public are stupid for not following those guidelines imo. That ship has sailed though and none of that would have prevented a new strain that is passed quicker becoming the current issue. This is where we are now. The only way to prevent more transmission and give the NHS some time to deal with the current overloading is to reduce the contact people have with each other, so lockdown it is. People just need to accept that it's killing people and start behaving like a dire situation such as the one we're all in requires.

The public mostly did what the rules dictated ..the small % that didn’t , did so because there were no consequences and as you say we now we reach this point..hence the irony in Derbyshire police ‘hammering’ 2 people behaving sensibly when clearly they didn’t exercise this level of policing when it might have made a difference ..

Last big lockdown someone had access to the numbers of vehicles on the roads statistics (might have been Gedge?) And as I've been working this week I think that theres far more traffic on the road this time round.
Is that showing in the statistics or am I just wrong?

To my eyes the car numbers on the M6 between Penrith and Carlisle just hasn't significantly lessened after Wednesday.