Coronavirus

[aintforever]

I think they already are collating the data. But before I offer my opinion, I do need to say I am not someone who works for any organisation involved in this, I am someone who understands how data works, but these are my opinions, not necessarily the gospel truth.

 

So the question is how do you spot the difference between somebody moving about lawfully and somebody moving about unlawfully?

 

If you have a phone contract, the phone company knows where you live and has validated that data with a credit reference check, using electoral roll, credit cards etc..

 

So, my mobile phone, switched on, in my front room, is being recorded as an "at home" device. Assuming I take my phone with me, when I leave, then my device ceases being "at home".

 

Now, the point regarding how could a data expert differentiate between someone doing good in their community and someone flauting the law, is all about being stationary. So visiting your aging family, is likely to involve a stop reaching into a few minutes. Even if you stop for a natter (obviously at a safe distance), maybe 20 minutes. But, having a BBQ with your mates, is likely to run for at least 1 hour, if not several hours. At that point, the patterns will emerge.

 

Within 7000 metres of my home, there are 603 mobile signal masts. Given the ability to triangulate my position, the data is available (not publically) to identify my phone's position to within 5 metres, probably even 2m.

https://www.mastdata.com/37/37_map_mobile_mast.aspx?Table=15&AdTyID=43&ROName=so17%201pq&Z=14

 

So, think of a wider gathering, like my neighbour's recent BBQs. Ten people turn up and spend several hours in the same place, which is not their registered home address.

 

That would stand-out like a sore thumb, for the data folks.

 

I do agree Whelk, spotting the micro-differences will be hard, but spotting the obvious law-breakers, will be easy.

 

Whether those details are used to determine pecking order for an ICU bed, remains to be seen.

 

But I have no doubt the data is there, being collected. Whether it is being modelled in the way I think it is, is up for debate.

 

Except if they ever did what you say the only way it would make any difference is if they made the info public, in which case people would just leave their phones at home, making the whole exercise pointless.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Discussing the end of the lockdown on various channels this morning - what are people’s opinions on this? It’s very much a human lives vs economic disaster decision. Surely we won’t end it tomorrow with the 3 weeks being up until death rates fall? Like everyone though I fear the long term damage economically for us and generations to follow.

 

Not enough debate on whether the lockdown is a proportionate response. As soon as someone tries to discuss it, they’re shouted down as if they want people to die.

 

The Government won’t even tell us whether the lockdown is to ease the burden on NHS or whether it’s going to save a significant number of lives. They’re trying to indicate it’s both. My opinion is that it can’t be. Until we know the definitive answer to that,we can’t really discuss easing the lockdown. If it is to protect the NHS then lockdown can be eased/reapplied depending on capacity. If it’s to save significant lives, it’s hard to see it ending for months & months. Reports are the chancellor thinks we’re approaching tipping point, and that the economic damage & other health outcomes of continuing the lockdown will eventually kill more people than the actual virus. Trump is a moron, but he’s right about one thing, the cure can not be allowed to be worse than the disease.

 

I don’t know the answer, I’m not a scientist, economist or a Government minister, but my gut feeling is we need to manage this virus through the population within NHS capacity (and I have lost someone I cared for deeply). That means relaxing the lockdown for the healthy once the trend is downwards. I just don’t see a vaccine emerging , we haven’t found one for SARS yet, why would we suddenly find one for this. We cant remain locked in for months & months, it’s not sustainable for the countries economy or health long term.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Edited 13 April, 2020 by Lord Duckhunter

[ooh it's a corner]

Except if they ever did what you say the only way it would make any difference is if they made the info public, in which case people would just leave their phones at home, making the whole exercise pointless.

 

That would depend on whether the objective was to change behaviour (i.e turn law-breakers into law-keepers), or whether you just wanted a pecking order (i.e. put the law-breakers down the queue).

 

Who knows? Certainly not me.

[Weston Super Saint]

 

The Government won’t even tell us whether the lockdown is to ease the burden on NHS or whether it’s going to save a significant number of lives. They’re trying to indicate it’s both. My opinion is that it can’t be.

 

Technically it can be both.

 

On any given day "X" number of people (on average 1400) die in the UK. Of those that don't die, there will be a significant percentage whose lives were saved having received treatment from the NHS.

 

The Government's plan is to try to reduce the number of infections, thus reducing the number of people who will need to use intensive care at any given time (hence 'lockdown'). At the same time they are increasing the number of beds available to treat virus patients - taking over private care hospitals and building 'Nightingale' centres. By doing this the NHS doesn't become overwhelmed with virus patients and there is therefore still capacity to treat 'ordinary' patients with alternative illlnesses whose lives can potentially be saved.

[Weston Super Saint]

I don’t know the answer, I’m not a scientist, economist or a Government minister, but my gut feeling is we need to manage this virus through the population within NHS capacity (and I have lost someone I cared for deeply). That means relaxing the lockdown for the healthy once the trend is downwards. I just don’t see a vaccine emerging , we haven’t found one for SARS yet, why would we suddenly find one for this. We cant remain locked in for months & months, it’s not sustainable for the countries economy or health long term.

 

 

 

This would be my guess too. The 'herd immunity' is still the only answer in the absence of a vaccine - trouble is they let this theory out of the bag too early and all the thick people got scared! The only way to do this is to keep turning lockdown on and off in order to manager the number of people in hospital before 'community immunity' is achieved.

[hypochondriac]

That would depend on whether the objective was to change behaviour (i.e turn law-breakers into law-keepers), or whether you just wanted a pecking order (i.e. put the law-breakers down the queue).

 

Who knows? Certainly not me.

I'm not sure it's even possible but if it were I'd be very happy if they did implement something like that. I bet the idiots woild be the first to complain though.

[Weston Super Saint]

I'm not sure it's even possible but if it were I'd be very happy if they did implement something like that. I bet the idiots woild be the first to complain though.

 

They'd claim their phone was stolen though innit bruv!

[whelk]

I think they already are collating the data. But before I offer my opinion, I do need to say I am not someone who works for any organisation involved in this, I am someone who understands how data works, but these are my opinions, not necessarily the gospel truth.

 

So the question is how do you spot the difference between somebody moving about lawfully and somebody moving about unlawfully?

 

If you have a phone contract, the phone company knows where you live and has validated that data with a credit reference check, using electoral roll, credit cards etc..

 

So, my mobile phone, switched on, in my front room, is being recorded as an "at home" device. Assuming I take my phone with me, when I leave, then my device ceases being "at home".

 

Now, the point regarding how could a data expert differentiate between someone doing good in their community and someone flauting the law, is all about being stationary. So visiting your aging family, is likely to involve a stop reaching into a few minutes. Even if you stop for a natter (obviously at a safe distance), maybe 20 minutes. But, having a BBQ with your mates, is likely to run for at least 1 hour, if not several hours. At that point, the patterns will emerge.

 

Within 7000 metres of my home, there are 603 mobile signal masts. Given the ability to triangulate my position, the data is available (not publicly) to identify my phone's position to within 5 metres, probably even 2m.

https://www.mastdata.com/37/37_map_mobile_mast.aspx?Table=15&AdTyID=43&ROName=so17%201pq&Z=14

 

So, think of a wider gathering, like my neighbour's recent BBQs. Ten people turn up and spend several hours in the same place, which is not their registered home address.

 

That would stand-out like a sore thumb, for the data folks.

 

I do agree Whelk, spotting the micro-differences will be hard, but spotting the obvious law-breakers, will be easy.

 

Whether those details are used to determine pecking order for an ICU bed, remains to be seen.

 

But I have no doubt the data is there, being collected. Whether it is being modelled in the way I think it is, is up for debate.

 

You are talking Stasi levels of resources to reference back to who is who - you will also have the FOI to deal with. Impossible is this country also given how many elderly people won’t necessarily have smartphones.

Plus the GDPR consequences as we haven’t quite moved to police state yet.

[ooh it's a corner]

You are talking Stasi levels of resources to reference back to who is who - you will also have the FOI to deal with. Impossible is this country also given how many elderly people won’t necessarily have smartphones.

Plus the GDPR consequences as we haven’t quite moved to police state yet.

 

GDPR is out of the window in the context of a global pandemic. The EU has already dealt with this little obstacle on 20th March.

 

Have a read of

 

https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/health/coronavirus-response/public-health_en#processing-of-personal-data-to-protect-public-health and the Processing of Data document, here

 

https://edpb.europa.eu/sites/edpb/files/files/file1/edpb_statement_2020_processingpersonaldataandcovid-19_en.pdf

 

Essentially the PDF document says, location data must be anonymous, unless consent has been given by the individual. So the pending "coronavirus tracker" will seek your permission and once given, will track you as a named individual, not an anonymous one.

 

Very importantly, the pdf also goes on to say that it is up to individual member state's government, to determine whether they want to pass legislation to remove the anonymity provided by the current legislation.

 

So, I agree, we are not Stasi-state yet. But the lawmakers are opening the door.....

Edited 13 April, 2020 by ooh it's a corner

[aintforever]

That would depend on whether the objective was to change behaviour (i.e turn law-breakers into law-keepers), or whether you just wanted a pecking order (i.e. put the law-breakers down the queue).

 

Who knows? Certainly not me.

 

If it doesn’t change behaviour I don’t see the point.

[Batman]

 

Same for us, maybe?

[whelk]

Take heed Weston when you are slagging off pensioners.

 

 

[badgerx16]

Take heed Weston when you are slagging off pensioners.

 

 

They're all a bit insular in Cambridgeshire.

[Jonnyboy]

 

Same for us, maybe?

 

At least Macron is honest about the PPE.

[whelk]

At least Macron is honest about the PPE.

 

Indeed and frustrating that none of our politicians can be themselves with the honestly to admit fck ups - think people would respect the honestly more than taking us for idiots. Most understand that this isn’t a simple situation. Even when they do admits mistakes it will be rehearsed lines so no apparent sincerity.

[whelk]

Why do so few media ever use per capita stats for the deaths? Seems very little in-depth analysis of the numbers generally in breaking them down

[The Cat]

Interesting info about what happened when a company offered to make ventilators. Shocking if true.

 

[badgerx16]

Why do so few media ever use per capita stats for the deaths? Seems very little in-depth analysis of the numbers generally in breaking them down

And they apparently don't include deaths in care homes, and over 2000 homes have had outbreaks.

[Turkish]

Interesting info about what happened when a company offered to make ventilators. Shocking if true.

 

 

Playing devils advocate and having worked on a quite few NHS/Government tenders in the past companies need to be selected to be on the supplier framework to even be considered as a supplier which is usually set for a fixed period of time. I know the situation is different now but it's not just a case of email the public sector offering to make/sell some stuff for them.

[aintforever]

Playing devils advocate and having worked on a quite few NHS/Government tenders in the past companies need to be selected to be on the supplier framework to even be considered as a supplier which is usually set for a fixed period of time. I know the situation is different now but it's not just a case of email the public sector offering to make/sell some stuff for them.

 

Surely if a country is on a "war footing" then traditional supplier frameworks shouldn't really get in the way?

[Turkish]

Surely if a country is on a "war footing" then traditional supplier frameworks shouldn't really get in the way?

 

You'd hope not, but maybe they already have existing approved suppliers working on it? As i said its not just a case of emailing the government offering your services, the framework is there for a reason.

[Turkish]

You'd hope not, but maybe they already have existing approved suppliers working on it? As i said its not just a case of emailing the government offering your services, the framework is there for a reason.

 

Surely if a country is on a "war footing" then traditional supplier frameworks shouldn't really get in the way?

 

Reading his/her other tweets he/she also seems to be a very angry individual who is obviously pro Brexit, anti Tory and has used his/her twitter profile to do nothing more than slag off the government. i Would suggest this is more someone pushing their own political agenda than someone who is genuinely frustrated their companies offers have been ignored.

[benjii]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-52278746#share-tools

 

What a legend!

[Tamesaint]

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-52278746#share-tools

 

What a legend!

 

A great man.

 

Its a pity he never made it to Major. Then the BBC would have been able to call him "Major Tom."

[Weston Super Saint]

Is this right?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-52277535

 

Lancashire Police issued the driver with a fine and sent them back home.

 

I'm not disputing the fact that the family are complete idiots and what they did is unacceptable, however, haven't police forces insisted that fines are for people who have ignored police advice - i.e. they've been told not to do something (sunbathing, visiting places etc etc) - and continued to do the same activity, only then being issued a fine.

 

If fines are able to be issued due to idiocy, is that a slippery slope?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-52106843

[Whitey Grandad]

Is this right?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-52277535

 

 

 

I'm not disputing the fact that the family are complete idiots and what they did is unacceptable, however, haven't police forces insisted that fines are for people who have ignored police advice - i.e. they've been told not to do something (sunbathing, visiting places etc etc) - and continued to do the same activity, only then being issued a fine.

 

If fines are able to be issued due to idiocy, is that a slippery slope?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-52106843

It doesn’t sit right with me either. A stern warning would have been sufficient plus public shaming and humiliation.

[badgerx16]

Is this right?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-52277535

 

 

 

I'm not disputing the fact that the family are complete idiots and what they did is unacceptable, however, haven't police forces insisted that fines are for people who have ignored police advice - i.e. they've been told not to do something (sunbathing, visiting places etc etc) - and continued to do the same activity, only then being issued a fine.

 

If fines are able to be issued due to idiocy, is that a slippery slope?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-52106843

 

It doesn’t sit right with me either. A stern warning would have been sufficient plus public shaming and humiliation.

 

 

"Offences and penalties

9.—(1) A person who— (a)without reasonable excuse contravenes a requirement in regulation 4, 5, 7 or 8, or (b)contravenes a requirement in regulation 6, commits an offence.

 

Fixed penalty notices

10.—(1) An authorised person may issue a fixed penalty notice to anyone that the authorised person reasonably believes—

(a)has committed an offence under these Regulations; "

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/pdfs/uksi_20200350_en.pdf

[Lighthouse]

Is this right?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-52277535

 

 

 

I'm not disputing the fact that the family are complete idiots and what they did is unacceptable, however, haven't police forces insisted that fines are for people who have ignored police advice - i.e. they've been told not to do something (sunbathing, visiting places etc etc) - and continued to do the same activity, only then being issued a fine.

 

If fines are able to be issued due to idiocy, is that a slippery slope?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-52106843

 

It’s fine by me. The message has been hammered home a thousand times in every media and social media outlet going, as well as the warnings that you could be fined if caught. If you’re thick enough to do it and stubborn enough to ignore the rules, you can’t complain about the fine.

 

It’s not a fine for idiocy, it’s basically manslaughter by wilful negligence if you ask me.

[whelk]

It’s fine by me. The message has been hammered home a thousand times in every media and social media outlet going, as well as the warnings that you could be fined if caught. If you’re thick enough to do it and stubborn enough to ignore the rules, you can’t complain about the fine.

 

It’s not a fine for idiocy, it’s basically manslaughter by wilful negligence if you ask me.

 

Manslaughter? You never used to be this much of a drama queen.

[saint1977]

It’s fine by me. The message has been hammered home a thousand times in every media and social media outlet going, as well as the warnings that you could be fined if caught. If you’re thick enough to do it and stubborn enough to ignore the rules, you can’t complain about the fine.

 

It’s not a fine for idiocy, it’s basically manslaughter by wilful negligence if you ask me.

 

I am as well, we had another family, London again, who were caught by the local police going for a fishing trip to Torquay, not too far from here.

 

We want people to visit, but not right now. All of the Police forces, tourism bodies and government have been pretty clear.

[Lighthouse]

Manslaughter? You never used to be this much of a drama queen.

 

So if that family had transmitted the virus to say six people, who then transmit it to another ten and eventually 50 people are infected and three of them die... what would you call that?

[shurlock]

It’s fine by me. The message has been hammered home a thousand times in every media and social media outlet going, as well as the warnings that you could be fined if caught. If you’re thick enough to do it and stubborn enough to ignore the rules, you can’t complain about the fine.

 

It’s not a fine for idiocy, it’s basically manslaughter by wilful negligence if you ask me.

 

Not sure about the manslaughter charge but the fine is utterly fine by me too.

 

It’s not like having a quick sit down at the local park where you can easily return home and indoors. This was an extravagant, premeditated 500 mile trip -premeditated in the sense the trip was going to take hours - anything could have happened en route which could have exposed others to wholly unnecessary risks.

Edited 14 April, 2020 by shurlock

[Weston Super Saint]

"Offences and penalties

9.—(1) A person who— (a)without reasonable excuse contravenes a requirement in regulation 4, 5, 7 or 8, or (b)contravenes a requirement in regulation 6, commits an offence.

 

Fixed penalty notices

10.—(1) An authorised person may issue a fixed penalty notice to anyone that the authorised person reasonably believes—

(a)has committed an offence under these Regulations; "

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/pdfs/uksi_20200350_en.pdf

 

And yet :

 

Restrictions on movement

6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living

without reasonable excuse.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—

(a) to obtain basic necessities, including food and medical supplies for those in the same

household (including any pets or animals in the household) or for vulnerable persons and

supplies for the essential upkeep, maintenance and functioning of the household, or the

household of a vulnerable person, or to obtain money, including from any business listed

in Part 3 of Schedule 2;

(b) to take exercise either alone or with other members of their household;

 

Arguably, despite their stupidity, they haven't officially contravened this section and could state that they are complying by being with members of their own family - I understand that most people would understand the issue, but going by the letter of the legislation there is no contravention.

 

Additonally :

 

Enforcement of requirement

8.—(1) A relevant person may take such action as is necessary to enforce any requirement

imposed by regulation 4, 5 or 7.

(2) A relevant person may give a prohibition notice to a person if the relevant person reasonably

believes that—

(a) the person is contravening a requirement in regulation 4 or 5, and

(b) it is necessary and proportionate to give the prohibition notice for the purpose of

preventing that person from continuing to contravene the requirement.

(3) Where a relevant person considers that a person is outside the place where they are living in

contravention of regulation 6(1), the relevant person may—

(a) direct that person to return to the place where they are living, or

(b) remove that person to the place where they are living.

(4) A relevant person exercising the power in paragraph (3)(b) to remove a person to the place

where they are living, may use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of the power.

 

Which kind of backs up the point that in the first instance they should be asked to go home - the story doesn't state they have resisted in any way....

[Weston Super Saint]

It’s fine by me. The message has been hammered home a thousand times in every media and social media outlet going, as well as the warnings that you could be fined if caught. If you’re thick enough to do it and stubborn enough to ignore the rules, you can’t complain about the fine.

 

It’s not a fine for idiocy, it’s basically manslaughter by wilful negligence if you ask me.

 

It has been hammered home, but what is the difference between this family (who by the sounds of things all live together) and the extended families I witnessed walking along the promenade in Weston at the weekend (very unlikely they all live together as there really aren't that many places that would accomodate such extended families in the area and the people living in them are unlikely to be taking a stroll on Weston prom!!!). To me it's just a matter of scale - why should driving 500 miles be any different to driving 5-10 miles to achieve the same result?

[badgerx16]

Arguably, despite their stupidity, they haven't officially contravened this section and could state that they are complying by being with members of their own family - I understand that most people would understand the issue, but going by the letter of the legislation there is no contravention.

 

Additonally :

 

 

 

Which kind of backs up the point that in the first instance they should be asked to go home - the story doesn't state they have resisted in any way....

The Poilice have been advised to act with common sense. I think that under that proviso, a 500 mile round trip can safely be deemed excessive and most certainly unnecessary. Michael Gove said in one of the daily briefings that excercise should be for no more than an hour, and near home, which can at least be taken as some sort of indicator as to the overall thinking.

[Lighthouse]

Not sure about the manslaughter charge but the fine is utterly by me too.

 

It’s not like having a quick sit down at the local park where you can easily return home and indoors. This was an extravagant, premeditated 500 mile trip -premeditated in the sense the trip was going to take hours - anything could have happened en route which could have exposed others to wholly unnecessary risks.

 

I’m not saying you should be charged as such as it is completely unprovable who transmitted what to who, when and where etc. I’m sure nobody means to kill people, hence the ‘wilful negligence’ but that’s basically what it comes down to. There are people in this country who’ve died because of a handshake in a pub or a lorry driver stopping for a p*ss.

[Lighthouse]

It has been hammered home, but what is the difference between this family (who by the sounds of things all live together) and the extended families I witnessed walking along the promenade in Weston at the weekend (very unlikely they all live together as there really aren't that many places that would accomodate such extended families in the area and the people living in them are unlikely to be taking a stroll on Weston prom!!!). To me it's just a matter of scale - why should driving 500 miles be any different to driving 5-10 miles to achieve the same result?

 

Because the further and more frequent people travel, the quicker the disease already.

 

Supposing Britain was C19 free right now and patient zero landed with the virus in Heathrow. If everyone stuck to the rules, it would spread slowly to airport workers who live in Hounslow and Slough, then around the local shops etc. And we would be able to monitor and contain it relatively effectively. If everyone did what they want their in 24 hours it would be in cars going to Derby, Cornwall, Pembrokeshire, Bromley, Lincoln etc.

 

The only way out of this is through robust personal hygiene, limiting movement and social gatherings, then test, test and test some more.

[whelk]

Because the further and more frequent people travel, the quicker the disease already.

 

Supposing Britain was C19 free right now and patient zero landed with the virus in Heathrow. If everyone stuck to the rules, it would spread slowly to airport workers who live in Hounslow and Slough, then around the local shops etc. And we would be able to monitor and contain it relatively effectively. If everyone did what they want their in 24 hours it would be in cars going to Derby, Cornwall, Pembrokeshire, Bromley, Lincoln etc.

 

The only way out of this is through robust personal hygiene, limiting movement and social gatherings, then test, test and test some more.

 

I maybe being naive but haven’t most people caught it before the lockdown? People getting hysterical now exaggerating the risk of spreading when all but a few fools seem to be taking it very seriously. Unless it is airborne for longer than we been told.

[Weston Super Saint]

Because the further and more frequent people travel, the quicker the disease already.

 

Supposing Britain was C19 free right now and patient zero landed with the virus in Heathrow. If everyone stuck to the rules, it would spread slowly to airport workers who live in Hounslow and Slough, then around the local shops etc. And we would be able to monitor and contain it relatively effectively. If everyone did what they want their in 24 hours it would be in cars going to Derby, Cornwall, Pembrokeshire, Bromley, Lincoln etc.

 

The only way out of this is through robust personal hygiene, limiting movement and social gatherings, then test, test and test some more.

 

But we aren't in a containment phase - it's widely accepted that the virus is present in pretty much every part of the UK to varying degrees. The current lockdown phase is more concerned with limiting the number of cases at any one time rather then stopping it spreading to certain geographical regions....

[Whitey Grandad]

So if that family had transmitted the virus to say six people, who then transmit it to another ten and eventually 50 people are infected and three of them die... what would you call that?

 

And how exactly would they do that? And what is the difference between a 200 mile or a 2 mile trip?

[Lighthouse]

I maybe being naive but haven’t most people caught it before the lockdown? People getting hysterical now exaggerating the risk of spreading when all but a few fools seem to be taking it very seriously. Unless it is airborne for longer than we been told.

 

Yes, you’re right on the first point, what I’m trying to get at is simply that the more people travel, the more likely you are to spread it. There are two aspects to that. Firstly that the virus may well mutate regionally, leading to reinfections as it is spread around the country.

 

Secondly, if we keep things tight, some communities will get off relatively lightly. Supposing we compared the Lake District to Iceland. The virus is there but by limiting the people coming in and out, we could manage to keep case in that region down.

 

Long term, if we can get it under control, it’s going to be a lot easier to manage regional outbreaks than a national epidemic.

 

And how exactly would they do that? And what is the difference between a 200 mile or a 2 mile trip?

 

Aside from spreading the virus around half a dozen service stations, any unnecessary movement risks spreading the disease.

[aintforever]

And how exactly would they do that? And what is the difference between a 200 mile or a 2 mile trip?

 

If everyone went on a tour of the UK the roads, service stations, convenience stores etc would be the same as the average bank holiday - it's the last thing we need.

[egg]

And how exactly would they do that? And what is the difference between a 200 mile or a 2 mile trip?

 

Are you serious or on a wind up? It's pretty obvious. On a long trip you'll likely stop for fuel, a pee, food, a break etc. On a 2 mile trip you won't. The more we stop, the more we come into contact with others, doors, etc etc. Plus a 200 mile trip brings with it a much greater chance of a breakdown thus 3rd party contact, and/or an accident thus monopolising medical staff and hospital space.

[Whitey Grandad]

Are you serious or on a wind up? It's pretty obvious. On a long trip you'll likely stop for fuel, a pee, food, a break etc. On a 2 mile trip you won't. The more we stop, the more we come into contact with others, doors, etc etc. Plus a 200 mile trip brings with it a much greater chance of a breakdown thus 3rd party contact, and/or an accident thus monopolising medical staff and hospital space.

 

Yes, it’s all a question of risk. In the grand scheme of things nothing like as bad as holding a house party for all your juvenile mates in Manchester.

 

I am not condoning their action, just saying that the penalty was over the top.

[Whitey Grandad]

If everyone went on a tour of the UK the roads, service stations, convenience stores etc would be the same as the average bank holiday - it's the last thing we need.

 

If it hadn’t been reported then we would never have known about it. And nobody would have been infected.

[Lighthouse]

Yes, it’s all a question of risk. In the grand scheme of things nothing like as bad as holding a house party for all your juvenile mates in Manchester.

 

I am not condoning their action, just saying that the penalty was over the top.

 

As I said to Whelk, if they transmit the virus to 6 people on their trip, who then pass it on to another 10 etc. And suddenly you’ve got 50 infections and 3 deaths, is a small fine still OTT? If you ignore all instructions and three people end up dead for the sake of your long weekend in the Lakes?

 

It sounds dramatic but that’s what’s happening.

 

If it hadn’t been reported then we would never have known about it. And nobody would have been infected.

 

How do you know that?

[egg]

Yes, it’s all a question of risk. In the grand scheme of things nothing like as bad as holding a house party for all your juvenile mates in Manchester.

 

I am not condoning their action, just saying that the penalty was over the top.

Highlighting one act of stupidity does not justify another.

[egg]

If it hadn’t been reported then we would never have known about it. And nobody would have been infected.

 

Well if nobody knows, then it's OK. Jeez.

 

This is why we will end up with more deaths, a longer "lockdown" and probably a deeper recession, than other countries.

[shurlock]

Are you serious or on a wind up? It's pretty obvious. On a long trip you'll likely stop for fuel, a pee, food, a break etc. On a 2 mile trip you won't. The more we stop, the more we come into contact with others, doors, etc etc. Plus a 200 mile trip brings with it a much greater chance of a breakdown thus 3rd party contact, and/or an accident thus monopolising medical staff and hospital space.

 

Exactly, though both acts were stupid.

[badgerx16]

If it hadn’t been reported then we would never have known about it. And nobody would have been infected.

How do you know that?

 

Schrodinger's infection.