Corona virus - Covid 19 discussion

[ChopleyIOM]

What do you propose the police do when they place someone under arrest and they refuse to cooperate? Irrespective of the person's age and the reason for their arrest, should there come a point where the police say 'Well, you were under arrest, but since you are refusing to walk with us to the police van, we've decided to call the whole thing off and let you carry on breaking the law, have a nice day'.

The woman was advised multiple times to end her protest that was in breach of coronavirus restrictions and/or have the group she was part of separate out, and in her case specifically she returned to the site of the protest and continued to break the law, and when finally placed under arrest refused to cooperate with the police.

To flip this one around, a member of the public disobeyed multiple direct instructions given by the police and ignored a clear explanation why and how she was breaking the law and would be arrested if she continued. Despite further recommendations from the police that she stop breaking the law, she refused to cease, and was eventually placed under arrest and then refused to cooperate with the terms of the arrest and move with the police to their van, at which point police officers advised her they would take her to the van, and carefully carried her to the van, and no harm was caused to anyone.

 

[mack341]

What do you propose the police do when they place someone under arrest and they refuse to cooperate? Irrespective of the person's age and the reason for their arrest, should there come a point where the police say 'Well, you were under arrest, but since you are refusing to walk with us to the police van, we've decided to call the whole thing off and let you carry on breaking the law, have a nice day'.

The woman was advised multiple times to end her protest that was in breach of coronavirus restrictions and/or have the group she was part of separate out, and in her case specifically she returned to the site of the protest and continued to break the law, and when finally placed under arrest refused to cooperate with the police.

To flip this one around, a member of the public disobeyed multiple direct instructions given by the police and ignored a clear explanation why and how she was breaking the law and would be arrested if she continued. Despite further recommendations from the police that she stop breaking the law, she refused to cease, and was eventually placed under arrest and then refused to cooperate with the terms of the arrest and move with the police to their van, at which point police officers advised her they would take her to the van, and carefully carried her to the van, and no harm was caused to anyone.

I am proposing the govt's laws which directed the police to act in this manner, in this instance, are wrong and authoritarian. Totally out of proportion to the matter at hand, not sure what the covid numbers are in london atm but last time I looked they were minimal, no where near pandemic levels.

Don't mind me saying, but you seem to know a lot about what happened, how are you getting all of this blow-by-blow account from that basic police statement you posted?

No harm caused... have you examined the lady for bruising? and you're obviously not including any psychological harm/distress from being arrested like this and taken into custody [prob a lady who has never been in a police station, arrested or put into a cell]

You're coming across as a bigger zealot for the uk govt lockdowns and everything that goes with it than handcock, no measure is too much to restrict this airborne and microscopic respiratory virus, pick up and carry old ladies into the back of a police van, got to do it I'm afraid, the virus with a mortality rate of about 0.25 is just too dangerous to contemplate doing anything differently.

 

[ternur]

To these elderly people too?

Your freedom ends where my freedom starts.

My post was sarcasm except for the group think and the media conditioning phrase (coined that myself actually).

My post was about the rise of karenism.

 

[colinsunderland]

I am proposing the govt's laws which directed the police to act in this manner, in this instance, are wrong and authoritarian. Totally out of proportion to the matter at hand, not sure what the covid numbers are in london atm but last time I looked they were minimal, no where near pandemic levels.

Don't mind me saying, but you seem to know a lot about what happened, how are you getting all of this blow-by-blow account from that basic police statement you posted?

No harm caused... have you examined the lady for bruising? and you're obviously not including any psychological harm/distress from being arrested like this and taken into custody [prob a lady who has never been in a police station, arrested or put into a cell]

You're coming across as a bigger zealot for the uk govt lockdowns and everything that goes with it than handcock, no measure is too much to restrict this airborne and microscopic respiratory virus, pick up and carry old ladies into the back of a police van, got to do it I'm afraid, the virus with a mortality rate of about 0.25 is just too dangerous to contemplate doing anything differently.

With respect, you seem to know what happened too, or how can you say the police reaction was over the top? What if she spat at a police officer? What if she punched one in the face?

As for the other things you mention, don't want bruises and psychological harm/distress, don't break the law then refuse to follow instructions.

I can almost guarantee in this case what happened was

she was warned
she ignored the warning
she was warned again and threatened with arrest, probably at this point refusing to confirm her identity
she ignored it again
she was arrested, asked to get into the back of the police van, which she refused
they tried to persuade her to and was ignored, probably coming out with something like 'the magna carta says I don't have to'
they then had no option but to carry her in, no different to what they do for anyone else arrested and refusing to get in the police car/van.

The police stated

'A short while later part of the group had re-gathered outside the Palace of Westminster. A third woman refused to comply, was arrested for breaching the coronavirus restrictions and then became uncooperative with officers.

'She was taken by police transport to custody.'

What do you think should happen to someone who breaks the law, and when arrested refuses to comply with police instructions? Her age should have nothing to do with it, the questions should be, did she break the law, yes/no. Was she arrested and was it a lawful arrest yes/no. Did she refuse to voluntarily be taken to the police station (same as anyone arrested) yes/no.

I haven't seen what happened beforehand and nor has anyone else by the sounds of it, so it makes it hard for anyone to say if the police actions were proportionate or not, if they weren't then I'm sure the police complaints will be looking at it and we will find out soon enough.

 

[Jono777]

Trivia information
from 100 infected in the town i live 100 are non smokers has anyone did some research about covid and cigarettes .

I do recall reading (somewhere?) right at the start of the outbreak that smokers not in the 60+ age range actually stand a better chance of beating the virus (the thinking behind it at the time was something along the lines of their lungs are constantly working harder so are stronger also when it comes to battling Covid)

Something no official body will ever publish as factual for obvious reason but make of it what you will.

I can understand the thought process behind this point but also am a great believer in common sense and a bit of luck are the best 2 things we can hope for when it comes to personal individual cases.

 

[slotplayer]

That is a lot of people in one house, and the key for me is your family decided it for themselves [I'm presuming that?] on a cautionary basis, I have no problem with that at all. If someone said the same in the uk, 20+ people coming for a meal, I would be thinking that's not wise. Even perhaps 8, I don't know, age and vulnerability factors of the participants also have to be taken into account.

But asymptomatic transmission is not thought to be the driver of pandemics [fauci said that prior to this year] and I believe a recent study has confirmed it. I would guess over the years christmas get-togethers have been an underlying cause factor for many catching flu's and viruses, some elderly even dying as a result, so it has been part of life no doubt about that.

We've had a thing going on in the uk for quite a while [ pre this year, Prob other countries too ] where people have been expected to go into work when unwell or experiencing symptoms, and then if they feel worse get sent home later. A culture of not being believed unless the boss can actually see you're unwell, but by then you've been in close contact with others on the tube or bus, shops, on the journey in etc... It's never been advised against as a practice by the uk govt as far as I can tell, generally was seen as a good productivity thing. But obviously if transmission of a nasty virus [pre covid] went up this way then the practice put the elderly and vulnerable, further down the line in the link, at risk. [And at 90+ even the common cold can and does kill]

I just do what I'm told. I have 4 sisters and 3 are in their sixties so they're vulnerable. One of my sister's bought a bunch of dinners and is coming by with one later on and another sister made banana bread and surprised me with it yesterday along with some filters for a mask.

Nice having sisters though.

 

[mack341]

With respect, you seem to know what happened too, or how can you say the police reaction was over the top? What if she spat at a police officer? What if she punched one in the face?

As for the other things you mention, don't want bruises and psychological harm/distress, don't break the law then refuse to follow instructions.

I can almost guarantee in this case what happened was

she was warned
she ignored the warning
she was warned again and threatened with arrest, probably at this point refusing to confirm her identity
she ignored it again
she was arrested, asked to get into the back of the police van, which she refused
they tried to persuade her to and was ignored, probably coming out with something like 'the magna carta says I don't have to'
they then had no option but to carry her in, no different to what they do for anyone else arrested and refusing to get in the police car/van.

The police stated

'A short while later part of the group had re-gathered outside the Palace of Westminster. A third woman refused to comply, was arrested for breaching the coronavirus restrictions and then became uncooperative with officers.

'She was taken by police transport to custody.'

What do you think should happen to someone who breaks the law, and when arrested refuses to comply with police instructions? Her age should have nothing to do with it, the questions should be, did she break the law, yes/no. Was she arrested and was it a lawful arrest yes/no. Did she refuse to voluntarily be taken to the police station (same as anyone arrested) yes/no.

I haven't seen what happened beforehand and nor has anyone else by the sounds of it, so it makes it hard for anyone to say if the police actions were proportionate or not, if they weren't then I'm sure the police complaints will be looking at it and we will find out soon enough.

I watched the video and looked at the pics/article on the daily mail article, where have I laid out the step-by-step sequence of events and interactions [as chopley did, which was my point to him]?

I can say it was over the top because what risk was she causing to the public, exercising her democratic right to protest peacefully, just because the govt want to restrict that on this issue [other issues seem to have gotten a pass in terms of police response this year] doesn't mean it is right.

I believe she was not doing any harm standing with two other people protesting the govt lockdown...could've been about elderly people being isolated - I wasn't there so I cannot say. But I'd hazard a guess she wasn't acting thuggish, I saw no signs of kicking out or struggling when they were trying to lift her into the van, and there is such a thing as acting according to conscience, she left it to the police to decide and take the action to put her in the police van.

 

[slotplayer]

Your freedom ends where my freedom starts.



My post was about the rise of karenism.

yes, you know I watched the video but I find there is usually more to these incidences and was waiting for someone to post more details before casting judgement.

 

[Slottery]

Booked flights today, have to take a break for self lockdown (been working from home since spring and not really go out anywhere often, should have bit more fresh air if believe my doctor), most sad thing is that it's not much differnt from my normal life, everything feels to be online these days.....

Passport expire late January and that's probably counted as essential travel (or if somebody can arrange it for me without me travel anywhere i will pay nice fee for that), at least chosing flights is much easier as there are not that many but would pass that freedom of travel this time with pleasure if somehow could.

Should have forecasted this fcking covid thingie year ago and could have done it then but guess i'm not only person who didn't see this coming before it did (yeah, of course many of us believe that we have viruses and pandemias also in future but if anyone have future schedule, will pay a lot...).

Not that big thing to travel and it's not that scary, if shit happens it happens, when we soon start to have one year of this pandemic, people start to have these kind of things that documents expire or just have (or at least strongly should to) travel somewhere, want or not. Therefore totally stop from all travelling is kind of mission impossible (except this kind of small islan like Malta, just close airport, but still there are few people who need to get out and in from countries) in most of countries.

 

[colinsunderland]

I watched the video and looked at the pics/article on the daily mail article, where have I laid out the step-by-step sequence of events and interactions [as chopley did, which was my point to him]?

I can say it was over the top because what risk was she causing to the public, exercising her democratic right to protest peacefully, just because the govt want to restrict that on this issue [other issues seem to have gotten a pass in terms of police response this year] doesn't mean it is right.

I believe she was not doing any harm standing with two other people protesting the govt lockdown...could've been about elderly people being isolated - I wasn't there so I cannot say. But I'd hazard a guess she wasn't acting thuggish, I saw no signs of kicking out or struggling when they were trying to lift her into the van, and there is such a thing as acting according to conscience, she left it to the police to decide and take the action to put her in the police van.

It's a slippery slope when you start deciding people are guilty without knowing facts. Thats why we have jury trials in this country and the police can't just punish people without there being a court hearing.
You can't know it was over the top without knowing what preceded the arrest. What if the headlines tomorrow are a video of her punching a copper in the face? Would the reaction still be over the top?
Would you feel the same if it was a 25 year old skinhead with Swastikas tattoo's on his face being bundled into a police van?

The fact is, until extra video comes out (which I'm sure it will at some point) you can't say it was over the top, and I can't say it wasn't.

I would be surprised if the series of events I posted earlier wasn't close to what happened, but if it wasn't and the police didn't act in accordance with PACE then I hope they get reprimanded.

The fact is, the police tend not to go round arresting old women, and having to carry them into a police van, without good reason. Doing it in a high profile location, in front of a lot of press and people recording would be absolutely stupid. Considering the amount of press/cameras there, there must be more footage of what happened beforehand.

 

[mack341]

It's a slippery slope when you start deciding people are guilty without knowing facts. Thats why we have jury trials in this country and the police can't just punish people without there being a court hearing.
You can't know it was over the top without knowing what preceded the arrest. What if the headlines tomorrow are a video of her punching a copper in the face? Would the reaction still be over the top?
Would you feel the same if it was a 25 year old skinhead with Swastikas tattoo's on his face being bundled into a police van?

The fact is, until extra video comes out (which I'm sure it will at some point) you can't say it was over the top, and I can't say it wasn't.

I would be surprised if the series of events I posted earlier wasn't close to what happened, but if it wasn't and the police didn't act in accordance with PACE then I hope they get reprimanded.

The fact is, the police tend not to go round arresting old women, and having to carry them into a police van, without good reason. Doing it in a high profile location, in front of a lot of press and people recording would be absolutely stupid. Considering the amount of press/cameras there, there must be more footage of what happened beforehand.

Well I look forward to hearing more about what happened, I'm not sure these covid offences go before a jury trial but are more rubber stamped by magistrates. I could be wrong, perhaps they do if appealed.

The kind of countries that treat the weak or elderly the same as anybody else would be more like stalin's russia or NK now, china as well, they'd have no qualms bundling oap's into the back of vans for speaking up on something the govt was doing.

edit: not saying the police here looked like they were employing the kind of force I have seen chinese officials use however.

 

[colinsunderland]

Well I look forward to hearing more about what happened, I'm not sure these covid offences go before a jury trial but are more rubber stamped by magistrates. I could be wrong, perhaps they do if appealed.

The kind of countries that treat the weak or elderly the same as anybody else would be more like stalin's russia or NK now, china as well, they'd have no qualms bundling oap's into the back of vans for speaking up on something the govt was doing.

ok, so that comes back to my question, at what age does someone become above the law, if the weak or elderly should be treated differently when they have (allegedly) broken the law?
Everyone should be treat the same in my view.

 

[colinsunderland]

Well I look forward to hearing more about what happened, I'm not sure these covid offences go before a jury trial but are more rubber stamped by magistrates. I could be wrong, perhaps they do if appealed.

You can certainly opt to go in front of a court


If you’re 18 or over, and the police reasonably believe you have committed an offence under the new regulations, you will most likely be given a ‘fixed penalty notice’ (a fine). If so, you will be offered the option of paying a fine to the local council in order to avoid any further action.

For most of the offences, the fine is £200, payable within 28 days – or only £100 if paid within 14 days. If you pay the fine within 28 days, you won’t be prosecuted for a criminal offence. If you don’t pay it, you might be prosecuted and have to go to court.

If you later commit a second offence under these regulations and are given a second fixed penalty notice, the fine increases to £400. It will then double every time you are given a fixed penalty notice for breaching the regulations (and this is capped at £6,400 for the sixth offence onwards.)

The fine for organising an illegal gathering is £10,000, payable within 28 days. As above, if you don’t pay the fine within 28 days, you might be prosecuted for a criminal offence and have to go to court.

There is no formal right of appeal in the regulations, but councils can set up an appeals procedure if they wish to. So if you do not think you have broken the law, look at the fixed penalty notice to see if it mentions this.

If there’s no way of appealing, and you do not pay the fine within 28 days and are prosecuted for a criminal offence under the regulations, you can seek to defend yourself at the Magistrates’ Court. But if you are convicted, you may have to pay a higher level of fine and will have a criminal record. If you are found not guilty, you won’t.

Alternatively, you could try to challenge the fixed penalty notice by a process known as ‘judicial review’, where a High Court judge would be asked to decide whether or not the police acted lawfully in issuing the fine. If the judge decided that the police did not act lawfully, then the fine would be cancelled. But if they decided that the police did act lawfully, then the fine would still stand, and you would either need to pay it or risk being prosecuted for a criminal offence.

Judicial review is a complex legal claim and you should

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

if you are considering this.

It’s also possible that instead of fining you, the police or Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) may charge you directly with a criminal offence. You would then have to go to court.

 

[mack341]

ok, so that comes back to my question, at what age does someone become above the law, if the weak or elderly should be treated differently when they have (allegedly) broken the law?
Everyone should be treat the same in my view.

Yes but she was breaking the law by perhaps shouting a slogan or waving a placard, not things I consider a crime. The police and chop say it was for an illegal gathering [ I believe] this being 3 people, it's ludicrous to me, I saw bigger amounts of people walking together today. The police should have some degree of interpretation when it comes to protests, they are probably scared of being reprimanded for not following orders. So it comes back to the serial adulterer sat in number 10 and his crony cabinet of fake conservatives.

 

[dealer wins]

Freedom to protest is a basic human right.

 

[slotplayer]

Seeing a couple of these videos pop up on YT. Seems a bit much imo. This one is edited though.

 

[colinsunderland]

Yes but she was breaking the law by perhaps shouting a slogan or waving a placard, not things I consider a crime. The police and chop say it was for an illegal gathering [ I believe] this being 3 people, it's ludicrous to me, I saw bigger amounts of people walking together today. The police should have some degree of interpretation when it comes to protests, they are probably scared of being reprimanded for not following orders. So it comes back to the serial adulterer sat in number 10 and his crony cabinet of fake conservatives.

ok, but what you consider to be a crime doesn't really come into it, it's what the law states. If I decide one day I don't consider murder to be a crime, it doesn't mean people can go round killing people

She won't have been arrested for the initial offence, she will have, almost certainly, been arrested for refusing to give her name and address, or something along those lines. I am 99% sure she will have also been fully aware of what would happen if she refused to do so. I would also be surprised if it wasn't pre-meditated, as there was a hell of a lot of press photographers around for a small scale protest of 3 people, there were more cameras being pointed at her than there were actually people protesting.

If the officer told her she was being reported for an offence (arrestable or not) and she refused to give her name and address, he has no choice but to arrest her. That is proper procedure under PACE. If (for example) she was going to be fined £100 for breaching Coronavirus regulations, how exactly do you think they could issue the fine without knowing her name and address? An arrest was the only option if thats what happened, and by reading the reports and filling in the blanks, thats what I think it was. If she has been arrested then doesn't 'go quietly' then what do you expect them to do, just stand there all day and night watching her and then follow her home at some point?

 

[colinsunderland]

Seeing a couple of these videos pop up on YT. Seems a bit much imo. This one is edited though.

First one
covid regulations
its not the law
it's a hoax
she was arrested

Wonder why, didn't look very surprised mind considering she claimed she had just been for a coffee

 

[slotplayer]

First one
covid regulations
its not the law
it's a hoax
she was arrested

Wonder why, didn't look very surprised mind considering she claimed she had just been for a coffee

Compared to what is going on here just tell a few stragglers to be on their way.

California had one of the strictest lockdowns in US. They have a petition to recall the Governor. Sheriffs say they won't enforce it, same for NY.

 

[sufferinsilence]

As usual these victim videos are edited to look like the people involved haven't done anything wrong just to falsely point out how people are being mistreated under the guise of corona-regulations but actually it's the start of a police state!

 

[colinsunderland]

Freedom to protest is a basic human right.

As usual, more shite from you

Article 11 states a public authority can restrict your rights to freedom of assembly and association if any of the following apply

• protect national security or public safety
• prevent disorder or crime
• protect health or morals, or
• protect the rights and freedoms of other people.

We are in the middle of a pandemic, therefore your right to protest can be rescinded if it puts health at risk.

Where does it state this lady was arrested for protesting anyway?

 

[ChopleyIOM]

ok, but what you consider to be a crime doesn't really come into it, it's what the law states. If I decide one day I don't consider murder to be a crime, it doesn't mean people can go round killing people

This.

It's so bloody basic, she wasn't arrested for protesting, she was arrested for, christ, we've done this already today.

I give up, abandon thread for the evening.

 

[mack341]

ok, but what you consider to be a crime doesn't really come into it, it's what the law states. If I decide one day I don't consider murder to be a crime, it doesn't mean people can go round killing people

She won't have been arrested for the initial offence, she will have, almost certainly, been arrested for refusing to give her name and address, or something along those lines. I am 99% sure she will have also been fully aware of what would happen if she refused to do so. I would also be surprised if it wasn't pre-meditated, as there was a hell of a lot of press photographers around for a small scale protest of 3 people, there were more cameras being pointed at her than there were actually people protesting.

If the officer told her she was being reported for an offence (arrestable or not) and she refused to give her name and address, he has no choice but to arrest her. That is proper procedure under PACE. If (for example) she was going to be fined £100 for breaching Coronavirus regulations, how exactly do you think they could issue the fine without knowing her name and address? An arrest was the only option if thats what happened, and by reading the reports and filling in the blanks, thats what I think it was. If she has been arrested then doesn't 'go quietly' then what do you expect them to do, just stand there all day and night watching her and then follow her home at some point?

Murder has always been a crime in our law, peaceful protest hasn't until this year.

policing by consent:

To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.

 

[dealer wins]

As usual, more shite from you

Article 11 states a public authority can restrict your rights to freedom of assembly and association if any of the following apply

• protect national security or public safety
• prevent disorder or crime
• protect health or morals, or
• protect the rights and freedoms of other people.

We are in the middle of a pandemic, therefore your right to protest can be rescinded if it puts health at risk.

Where does it state this lady was arrested for protesting anyway?

Basic human rights are universal, and trump everything else, otherwise they cant be called human rights.

 

[colinsunderland]

Basic human rights are universal, and trump everything else, otherwise they cant be called human rights.

I literally copied and pasted that from the human rights act ffs.

Where is it stated the woman was arrested for protesting?

 

[mack341]

This.

It's so bloody basic, she wasn't arrested for protesting, she was arrested for, christ, we've done this already today.

I give up, abandon thread for the evening.

Can you then post the relevant law she broke from the covid regulations, and the one(s) relating to lawful protests?

Raising the incident as a point of order, Sir Charles told the Commons: 'I have just witnessed an elderly lady peacefully protesting with a handful of other people be arrested and carried spread-eagle to a police van just outside the precinct of the House of Commons.

So I'd say that counts as proof towards her having been peacefully protesting at the time of arrest.

 

[colinsunderland]

Can you then post the relevant law she broke from the covid regulations, and the one(s) relating to lawful protests?

Raising the incident as a point of order, Sir Charles told the Commons: 'I have just witnessed an elderly lady peacefully protesting with a handful of other people be arrested and carried spread-eagle to a police van just outside the precinct of the House of Commons.

So I'd say that counts as proof towards her having been peacefully protesting at the time of arrest.

How can anyone answer that, she hasn't spoke to the press, the police only said ' was arrested for breaching the coronavirus restrictions and then became uncooperative with officers'

She could be peacefully protesting and breaking the law at the same time.

 

[mack341]

How can anyone answer that, she hasn't spoke to the press, the police only said ' was arrested for breaching the coronavirus restrictions and then became uncooperative with officers'

She could be peacefully protesting and breaking the law at the same time.

Chopley said she wasn't arrested for protesting, I think he mentioned an illegal gathering, I'm sure he knows what the relevant covid regulations are in an instance like this. I tried to look yesterday but couldn't find the rules on protests for this 2nd lockdown.

 

[mack341]

edit

 

[colinsunderland]

Chopley said she wasn't arrested for protesting, I think he mentioned an illegal gathering, I'm sure he knows what the relevant covid regulations are in an instance like this. I tried to look yesterday but couldn't find the rules on protests for this 2nd lockdown.

You can exercise or visit a public outdoor space:

• by yourself
• with the people you live with
• with your support bubble
• or, when on your own, 1 person from another household

 

[bamberfishcake]

School called yesterday to ask where my little boy was. Apparently i can drop him off by car in the morning after the rush at 9am. Even though my little girl will be in the car and we all live together.........what can you do? The rules are illogical just like our government.

 

[colinsunderland]

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Tiers for each area announced in the UK

Unsurprisingly pretty much the whole of the North East is Tier 3 despite cases dropping, and of course, London isn't.

 

[Borgie]

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Tiers for each area announced in the UK

Unsurprisingly pretty much the whole of the North East is Tier 3 despite cases dropping, and of course, London isn't.

I was surprised by this i fully expected London to be in tier 3 as we were before we went into the current lockdown. If we actually should be in tier 3 due to number of cases i would rather be there tbh. No help getting a special pass because this is where the government meet if it means more people catching it and more deaths.

 

[colinsunderland]

I was surprised by this i fully expected London to be in tier 3 as we were before we went into the current lockdown. If we actually should be in tier 3 due to number of cases i would rather be there tbh. No help getting a special pass because this is where the government meet if it means more people catching it and more deaths.

I think there will be some fallout from this
It's all been about the R rate up to now, then suddenly, when the R rate in London is higher than most the country, they start using a figure no one had heard of a week ago, just for the over 60's.
Northumberland is in Tier 3 too, despite having hardly any cases.

So basically they have changed the way the decide on tiers overnight. Yep that makes sense.

 

[mack341]

A new covid test LFD is now being used in some places - lateral flow test - which is better at detecting viral load rather than amplifying minute amounts of virus RNA as the pcr tests do. The army trialled them in liverpool and the covid infections number plummeted.

Could be the first thing the govt have done I agree with.

 

[dealer wins]

Time to talk about Sweden again, tiny 2nd wave, well blip, and already declining. The world has fucked up, Sweden got it right.

 

[Kroffe]

YES, BACK ON TOP BABY!!!

Old Attachment (Invalid)

 

[colinsunderland]

Time to talk about Sweden again, tiny 2nd wave, well blip, and already declining. The world has fucked up, Sweden got it right. View attachment 145638

You going to explain why they were (and still are) doing so much worse than Norway this time then? Or are you just trolling again?

 

[dealer wins]

But Sweden arnt trashing jobs and businesses, and arnt storing up more deaths overall from untreated illnesses, depression/suicides, and arnt inflicting mental torture on its population or stripping them of their basic human rights.

 

[Borgie]

But Sweden arnt trashing jobs and businesses, and arnt storing up more deaths overall from untreated illnesses, depression/suicides, and arnt inflicting mental torture on its population or stripping them of their basic human rights.

You could always move there . Off you pop.

 

[colinsunderland]

But Sweden arnt trashing jobs and businesses, and arnt storing up more deaths overall from untreated illnesses, depression/suicides, and arnt inflicting mental torture on its population or stripping them of their basic human rights.

Thats not what you said though. Can you give the figures for all those things you've mentioned for Norway so we can see how bad things are there. I had a quick google and couldn't find any, but you obviously have them to hand?

Sweden have 20 times the deaths, with twice the population. So I suppose if you think letting a lot more people die is doing it the right way, then you are right.

Going on million population figures

Sweden deaths 654 cases 23344
Norway deaths 58 cases 6301
The cases per million is actually lower in the UK than Sweden, being 23145

But yeah, Sweden are doing great.

 

[slotplayer]

A new covid test LFD is now being used in some places - lateral flow test - which is better at detecting viral load rather than amplifying minute amounts of virus RNA as the pcr tests do. The army trialled them in liverpool and the covid infections number plummeted.

Could be the first thing the govt have done I agree with.

There is an emergency use home test now and they'll be a bunch more vaccines coming out I gather.

 

[slotplayer]

But Sweden arnt trashing jobs and businesses, and arnt storing up more deaths overall from untreated illnesses, depression/suicides, and arnt inflicting mental torture on its population or stripping them of their basic human rights.

I was watching the BBC video below on the UK economy. The worst recession in 300 years.

 

[dealer wins]

I know you all think Im a stupid idiot who endorses deaths, but I stand by my unpopular opinion that overall, the lockdown and restrictions we have will end up killing a huge multiple of people that not locking down would have. And also in the process leave millions without a job, suicides through the roof, cancer and other life threatening illnesses treated too late to save tens of thousands more lives, and poverty on a scale not even seen in the 1970s.

Spending £700 billion, on saving the lives of people who on average will die 6 months later, is insanity that will cost every person in this country VERY dearly.

Over and out on this thread, I truly hope I am wrong.

All I see is a very grim future for this country, run by an evil government.

 

[Mouche12]

I agree with the evil government part, but that was already my opinion since Brexit raised its ugly head...

 

[colinsunderland]

I know you all think Im a stupid idiot who endorses deaths, but I stand by my unpopular opinion that overall, the lockdown and restrictions we have will end up killing a huge multiple of people that not locking down would have. And also in the process leave millions without a job, suicides through the roof, cancer and other life threatening illnesses treated too late to save tens of thousands more lives, and poverty on a scale not even seen in the 1970s.

Spending £700 billion, on saving the lives of people who on average will die 6 months later, is insanity that will cost every person in this country VERY dearly.

Over and out on this thread, I truly hope I am wrong.

All I see is a very grim future for this country, run by an evil government.

I don't think you're an idiot, but I don't like that you keep posting things, pretty much nightly, that either aren't true or that you can't back with with facts at all. I have asked you multiple questions on loads of things you have posted, and I honestly don't think you have replied to a single one. I could actually argue for some of the posts you have made better than you have, and I've barely agreed with any of them.

I don't care if someone has different views than me, I am happy to discuss opinions, I've changed my mind about quite a bit since January, so am definitely open to being wrong, but when you just post 'blah blah blah' then refuse to back it up at all, then theres no point crying when people challenge your opinion.

Your posts are regularly inaccurate but instead of discussing them or saying, oh shit, yeah that makes no sense, you just go forward posting more rubbish you have read on facebook.

I'm going to hazard a guess here, but I bet you haven't lost anyone to this virus? I will also bet your views would be different if you had.

 

[Gaz237]

I know you all think Im a stupid idiot who endorses deaths, but I stand by my unpopular opinion that overall, the lockdown and restrictions we have will end up killing a huge multiple of people that not locking down would have. And also in the process leave millions without a job, suicides through the roof, cancer and other life threatening illnesses treated too late to save tens of thousands more lives, and poverty on a scale not even seen in the 1970s.

Spending £700 billion, on saving the lives of people who on average will die 6 months later, is insanity that will cost every person in this country VERY dearly.

Over and out on this thread, I truly hope I am wrong.

All I see is a very grim future for this country, run by an evil government.

Your post started factually, then descended to the usual waffle.

 

[dionysus]

im glad im 'busy enough' to ignore the boards

 

[dionysus]

On a Canadian note. Cases here are increasing. GTA (Greater Toronto Area) and surrounding regions have gone into lock down; I imagine soon, that will trickle into other areas.
While my mother's nursing home (thank gods) has no cases, the neighbouring one does.

Effects are moreso now, moving into outlaying areas. Still very few cases here. But increasing

Wear a mask. Keep ya distannce. Be part of a solution than problem.
I hope cases and your areas minimize, I do

 

[Borgie]

Plus @Playford7 not on here since early tuesday evening so no corona cooking to ease matters