|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2020 16:42:08 GMT
The government is incompetent but that does not mean we have to be. There is enough information on what we need to do to restrict transmission and be relatively safe - Keep your distance - Wear a face mask when indoors or interacting closely with strangers - Wash your hands regularly - Avoid busy places - ....... The duty of care lies with the individual not the state, we all need to interact with strangers every day from both a social and economic perspective and this can be done relatively safely as long as we respect each other and make the effort. Effort is the weakness as we all know we should exercise regularly but very few of us do as it is tough and being COVID aware at all times is tough but it is what we need to do. Expecting to live your life by government dictat is abdicating responsibility and even more so with this government of imbeciles. Many people are selfish but there is no compulsion to not be so (not diktat, rules) so they do what the hell they feel like doing. Not too bad for the young and healthy but the imposition on older and more at risk people is disproportionate. What is a state for if not to protect its people? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2020 17:08:00 GMT
Many people are selfish but there is no compulsion to not be so (not diktat, rules) so they do what the hell they feel like doing. Not too bad for the young and healthy but the imposition on older and more at risk people is disproportionate. What is a state for if not to protect its people? What is freedom for if not to be used responsibly? I really don't understand how people here can act as though nobody should be expected to take any responsibility for the effect of their own actions. Everyone knows how disease spreads. Everyone knows that over 41,500 people have died of this. We've had half a year of constant news stories drumming into us the importance of continuing to protect ourselves. We've had local lockdowns to show that the problem has not gone away. And we have people who know all of that and still refuse to do the right thing, and we have people who claim that it's not those people's fault that they're deliberately doing the wrong thing. What's so difficult about doing the right thing simply because it's the right thing? What sort of vile person thinks it's OK to intentionally harm others because nobody is forcing them not to? How can anyone defend that? |
|
2,273 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by talkingheads on Sept 8, 2020 17:18:28 GMT
Many people are selfish but there is no compulsion to not be so (not diktat, rules) so they do what the hell they feel like doing. Not too bad for the young and healthy but the imposition on older and more at risk people is disproportionate. What is a state for if not to protect its people? What is freedom for if not to be used responsibly? I really don't understand how people here can act as though nobody should be expected to take any responsibility for the effect of their own actions. Everyone knows how disease spreads. Everyone knows that over 41,500 people have died of this. We've had half a year of constant news stories drumming into us the importance of continuing to protect ourselves. We've had local lockdowns to show that the problem has not gone away. And we have people who know all of that and still refuse to do the right thing, and we have people who claim that it's not those people's fault that they're deliberately doing the wrong thing. What's so difficult about doing the right thing simply because it's the right thing? What sort of vile person thinks it's OK to intentionally harm others because nobody is forcing them not to? How can anyone defend that? It is possible for the terrible situation we are in to be the fault of the Government AND a minority of selfish folk |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2020 17:39:36 GMT
Many people are selfish but there is no compulsion to not be so (not diktat, rules) so they do what the hell they feel like doing. Not too bad for the young and healthy but the imposition on older and more at risk people is disproportionate. What is a state for if not to protect its people? What is freedom for if not to be used responsibly? I really don't understand how people here can act as though nobody should be expected to take any responsibility for the effect of their own actions. Everyone knows how disease spreads. Everyone knows that over 41,500 people have died of this. We've had half a year of constant news stories drumming into us the importance of continuing to protect ourselves. We've had local lockdowns to show that the problem has not gone away. And we have people who know all of that and still refuse to do the right thing, and we have people who claim that it's not those people's fault that they're deliberately doing the wrong thing. What's so difficult about doing the right thing simply because it's the right thing? What sort of vile person thinks it's OK to intentionally harm others because nobody is forcing them not to? How can anyone defend that? It goes much further than right/wrong thing. To take one current example. If you are a 17 year old Hancock just pointed out that your reckless behaviour is putting older people in danger. So cool it. At the same time they are told that they can gather in large groups, without masks, without effective social distancing, creating a dangerous environment for each other and adults around them, a number who are the age of their grandparents, in the magical space that they have designated a school building. Soon, university students will be able to do exactly the same plus added long hauls across country. There is no right thing/wrong, just a big conflicting thing. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2020 17:57:09 GMT
What is freedom for if not to be used responsibly? I really don't understand how people here can act as though nobody should be expected to take any responsibility for the effect of their own actions. Everyone knows how disease spreads. Everyone knows that over 41,500 people have died of this. We've had half a year of constant news stories drumming into us the importance of continuing to protect ourselves. We've had local lockdowns to show that the problem has not gone away. And we have people who know all of that and still refuse to do the right thing, and we have people who claim that it's not those people's fault that they're deliberately doing the wrong thing. What's so difficult about doing the right thing simply because it's the right thing? What sort of vile person thinks it's OK to intentionally harm others because nobody is forcing them not to? How can anyone defend that? It is possible for the terrible situation we are in to be the fault of the Government AND a minority of selfish folk Absolutely. I've never claimed otherwise. I've never been a fan of Boris Johnson (except when he was on Have I Got News For You; it's all been downhill since then). I think he's probably one of the worst PMs of my lifetime. But the fact that he's a power-hungry bastard who didn't care how much he harmed the country in his quest for leadership is precisely why it's so important for everyone else to accept responsibility for their actions and stop saying that we can't expect people to do what's right unless the government makes them. I remember a discussion I had on rec.arts.theatre.musicals back in the late 1990s with a reasonably religious American woman who maintained that ultimately all morality came from God and that in a sense even atheists were implicit believers because it was only fear of judgment by an all-seeing God that kept anyone from a life of thievery, rape and murder. That struck me as a weird way of seeing things, because it suggests that she thought all people, including herself by implication, were essentially utterly evil at heart and were only kept on the straight and narrow by the constant threat of being held to account for their wrongdoing. I completely rejected that way of thinking then and I completely reject it now. I'm not religious; it's not the threat of punishment by God that governs my behaviour, nor is it the threat of punishment by Man. It's that I know how much it hurts to be on the receiving end of wrongdoing and I can't bring myself to inflict that same suffering on others. It's basic decency. I've always thought this was how almost everyone saw the world, but given the number of people here who are rushing to defend the coronavirus-irresponsible I'm starting to doubt my faith in human nature. It's up to each and every one of us to do the right thing. If someone decides to do the wrong thing that's on them, not on someone else for failing to provide enough of a threat to stop them. |
|
4,033 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Sept 8, 2020 19:52:49 GMT
Soon, university students will be able to do exactly the same plus added long hauls across country. Suddenly living only a few miles away from one of the top universities in the country is looking like a really bad thing. So far Cambridgeshire has had fairly low rates (apart from Peterborough but that's the other end of the county) but I'm dreading what the coronavirus case numbers might be by the middle of October. |
|
1,127 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Sept 8, 2020 21:35:06 GMT
So how will the new “groups of no more than 6 people” law affect theatres?
|
|
2,273 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by talkingheads on Sept 8, 2020 22:21:18 GMT
So how will the new “groups of no more than 6 people” law affect theatres? As I understand it, the new rules are no gatherings of more than six unless you go to the pub, are in a classroom, or anywhere with card machine. |
|
4,995 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on Sept 9, 2020 13:26:53 GMT
So how will the new “groups of no more than 6 people” law affect theatres? Well no S Club 7 for a start |
|
|
|
Post by intoanewlife on Sept 9, 2020 13:44:11 GMT
So how will the new “groups of no more than 6 people” law affect theatres? Well no S Club 7 for a start PMSL |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2020 14:45:22 GMT
So how will the new “groups of no more than 6 people” law affect theatres? Well no S Club 7 for a start Except that there would be because they would be working and gathering for work purposes are permitted! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2020 14:59:41 GMT
Except that there would be because they would be working and gathering for work purposes are permitted! Back before I was permanently working from home I remember some very tedious meetings where two or three people would spend half an hour discussing the details of something of zero interest to everyone else present. I dearly wish that back then gathering for work purposes had not been permitted. Online meetings have their difficulties, but one of the great advantages is that nobody can see you using binoculars to watch the sparrows. I don't miss meetings. |
|
2,273 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by talkingheads on Sept 9, 2020 16:37:33 GMT
So as I understand after the briefing, you can spend hours on public transport and the office coming into contact with dozens of strangers all day. But if seven of you then go for a drink you'll be fined.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2020 16:58:21 GMT
So as I understand after the briefing, you can spend hours on public transport and the office coming into contact with dozens of strangers all day. But if seven of you then go for a drink you'll be fined. But on transport you will be wearing a mask (unless you are properly exempt or an idiot) and in offices you will be socially distanced. That is the difference. I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about why it is socialising which has been restricted. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2020 17:18:46 GMT
So as I understand after the briefing, you can spend hours on public transport and the office coming into contact with dozens of strangers all day. But if seven of you then go for a drink you'll be fined. Yes, because only a limited amount of risk can be accepted so the risk needs to have the maximum benefit. Being able to get to work is important to the economy. Being able to have a party with your mates isn't. |
|
1,127 posts
|
Post by samuelwhiskers on Sept 9, 2020 21:13:17 GMT
So how will the new “groups of no more than 6 people” law affect theatres? Well no S Club 7 for a start I was about to comment, “Tragedy!” then realised I apparently can’t tell the difference between Steps and S Club. 🤷 |
|
2,412 posts
|
Post by theatreian on Sept 9, 2020 22:31:33 GMT
I am a little fed up of all the families of more than six being shown where it is an apparent tragedy that they wont all be able to meet up with anyone else. They could always split up and meet someone or is that too complicated to work out?
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Sept 9, 2020 23:21:47 GMT
So as I understand after the briefing, you can spend hours on public transport and the office coming into contact with dozens of strangers all day. But if seven of you then go for a drink you'll be fined. Yes, because only a limited amount of risk can be accepted so the risk needs to have the maximum benefit. Being able to get to work is important to the economy. Being able to have a party with your mates isn't. But you can organise your mates into cohorts of 6 and go the same pub and yell across the 2 metres but you can’t meet the six other members of your family with whom you have been meeting and the only people you have been meeting since lockdown ended, within your own garden or home ? I’m frankly getting a bit sick of this Alice in Wonderland nation where drinking in a pub has become the sacred duty of the nation but seeing your kids is going to cause the end of the world. |
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Sept 9, 2020 23:24:55 GMT
So as I understand after the briefing, you can spend hours on public transport and the office coming into contact with dozens of strangers all day. But if seven of you then go for a drink you'll be fined. But on transport you will be wearing a mask (unless you are properly exempt or an idiot) and in offices you will be socially distanced. That is the difference. I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about why it is socialising which has been restricted. From my observations and I admit I am not going about that much, socialising isn’t restricted. People are crowding our drinking venues to the extent of blocking the pavements. I do not consider seeing my children as socialising quite in that way. |
|
641 posts
|
Post by christya on Sept 10, 2020 12:15:33 GMT
From the posts I'm seeing on Facebook and Twitter, most people aren't planning on paying this any attention, but it's rebellion of the 'I'll see my kids if I want to' kind and not the 'you gotta fight for your right to party'. So maybe it'll work.
|
|
2,273 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by talkingheads on Sept 10, 2020 12:29:17 GMT
From the posts I'm seeing on Facebook and Twitter, most people aren't planning on paying this any attention, but it's rebellion of the 'I'll see my kids if I want to' kind and not the 'you gotta fight for your right to party'. So maybe it'll work. I would say it isn't a great look for the Government to openly admit to breaking the law the day before bringing in a new law. |
|
146 posts
|
Post by lou on Sept 10, 2020 12:34:44 GMT
Aren’t you still supposed to social distance from the people you’re socialising with unless they are part of your household?
|
|
2,342 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Sept 10, 2020 12:37:07 GMT
Aren’t you still supposed to social distance from the people you’re socialising with unless they are part of your household? One for Matthew?? |
|
347 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Sam on Sept 10, 2020 13:32:11 GMT
|
|
146 posts
|
Post by lou on Sept 10, 2020 14:57:14 GMT
That’s what I thought. Oh they definitely have been ignoring that part so I think much more needs to be done to communicate that. Doesn’t matter if it’s 6 or 60 people you can meet if you aren’t socially distancing as well. Ok I know there’s greater risks the more people are involved but you get my meaning.
|
|
