Re: Coronavirus
 

"Dr" Jon Dobinson isn't a doctor - he's a Marketing Executive...

(amusingly, for a Marketing/Creative company, the latest news on their web-page is two years old..)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Taiwan did "shut down" to people coming into the country. Having a population that is much more likely to behave responsibly also helps enormously.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Surely hospital cases would be better - treatment is better, but people are surviving with medium to long-term effects.

Re: Coronavirus
 

So, what is wrong in the UK. Do we?

1. have sensible restrictions but a degree of the population fail to follow them because <answers on a postcard>

2, We don't have sensible restrictions a degree of the population fail to follow them because they're not sensible.

My thoughts are that as a society the UK is quite immature compared to other nations.

Re: Coronavirus
 

But this is the thing - the inconsistencies aren’t because activity X is safer than activity Y. It’s about minimising unnecessary social interactions while keeping open sectors that have been been deemed to be critical. A range of activities on any scale have to be discounted because of the numbers of people involved rather than the inherent risk involved in the activity.

If everyone lived their life on the basis of what they are doing in schools there’d be effectively no restrictions at all and we know where that leads.

Perhaps Nomadking is right and it’s our population that’s the problem. Instead of generally working within guidance we look for loopholes in legislation. Which is why any kind of Swedish approach appealing for people to take individual responsibility is doomed from outset.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Surely the UK population knows the score on CV. But are they immature as a whole? No, of course not. And I don't consider other European nations to be any different in that sense.

The immature minority, however, can cause infection chaos through their casual carelessness.

With regard to whether or not we have sensible restrictions:

I would say that the tiering system is eminently sensible as it does not introduce more restrictions than are necessary across the country. The challenge is, as you say, with maturity so that people in a a higher tier area don't go round contaminating their lower tier neighbours.

Because that can't be controlled, let it rip is the answer with special protection and support given to vulnerable people. That way the economy can continue recovery etc.


ns

Re: Coronavirus
 

We have inconsistent, sensible and not so sensible restrictions.

Re: Coronavirus
 

They’re only inconsistent if people are being wilfully ignorant.

Re: Coronavirus
 

And some as we know are being wilfully ignorant.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The number of professional footballers contracting the virus would suggest imposing tighter restrictions on the sport, but that would upset Sky and the big money boys, so it's exempt I guess :rolleyes:

No problem with those traveling the length and breadth of the country at least once a week, from Tier 3 areas too . . . essential business to whom? 'sigh'

Re: Coronavirus
 

They're inconsistent restrictions because in England we don't have the medically-advised single circuit break, we have on paper three levels in England with further sub-levels eg Nottingham 9pm alcohol rule plus autonomy in the four nations with different tiers in those nations too.
Plus a lot of the legislation is being made on the hoof hence how open does a marque need to be open to count as being inside and not outside?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Apply the same logic to a smoking shelter, there's your answer :p:

Re: Coronavirus
 

A classic example just coming up there from a journalist in the Scottish press briefing.

At one level serving alcohol is permitted with a substantial meal. Now, any reasonable person would concede the intention isn't to spend 12 hours in a pub with a packet of crisps or a sausage roll.

However here in the UK we will see many people flouting this until they put it in legislation. :rolleyes:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Then we need to consider how do we ensure that the percentage of the population that aren't adhering to restrictions are 'brought to heel' so to speak. The police service is in no way shape or form able to deal with that.

There's questions around the let it rip argument

a. How do you decide who needs be be shielded ? How far do you take it? Do the carers of those that are for example in nursing homes also need to shield?
b.How do you enforce that those who are required to shield do so?
c. How do we ensure that by allowing the virus to let rip that we don't overload the NHS
d. Would is be reasonable to say that by allowing the virus to burn through we risk civiil unrest due to lack of manpower in emergency services such as those in the police who have to either self isolate, or those that unfortunately die

Re: Coronavirus