If you've got a dog then 99.9999999% you do not live in a flat as the majority of leases don't permit pets in flats/apartments - so that defence is rhubarb. I have a dog myself. I live in a 2 up 2 down terrace with a 3 x 3 rear yard. First thing in a morning I let him out to do its business. Last thing at night I let him out to do its business. Early afternoon I take him out on a long walk which doubles up as my one piece of exercise for the day. I'm probably doing similar as Deetee, but I'm not being a penis about it. I'M GOING OUT YOU CAN'T STOP ME. And the reason people are 'giving him a hard time' is because of this attitude. It's really not hard. Exercise once a day. Only travel when essential. Is it really that difficult to understand? I honestly don't get why people are being so weird about it. Follow the guidelines. Save lives.
I'm not expecting half an hour outside but it seems reasonable that it could remain airborne for the few seconds it could take if walking say 5m behind someone. The point I, and I believe the government, was trying to make was that minimising the risk of contact minimises the risk of contamination. 2m isn't some gold standard, it's just acceptable and if this is the approach that we're going to take then we should aim for the minimum level of contact that we can each reasonably achieve.
Who says we aren't? I am. My wife works at the Northern General. Admittedly not on the 'front line' but it's bad enough. The equipment they don't have is disgraceful. This is why people who ignore what's been set out make me angry.
I don't disagree with your general principle, as I said in my initial post, I just think you were targeting the wrong person for your vitriol in Deetee. Let me leave it at that. I'm so keen to remain safe I wrote to my MP for clarification of a few issues. To quote him: " I think the point is to use common sense, adhere to the spirit of the rules rather than work to a technocratic solution. If we all take the guidance seriously and act appropriately we will have no need for enforcement".
But it's Deetee who's trying to play the big un. That's why I'm having a go. I'll leave it though. I've said my piece. I just hope the selfishness subsides asap.
I used to live in a back to back in Meanwood, door opens straight out on to the street. Also I lived in a flat with a dog for 7 years. I've got better stuff to do than continue this conversation, as you seem to be unable to see any perspective.
Here's the thing Jay. You stick to what you think is best and i'll stick to what the overwhelming majority of world governments and medical experts think is best. And yes, you and he have been sniping and moaning for weeks.
I agree - there is no such thing as scientific consensus about what the best way to tackle this is - yes the government are taking scientific advise, but its not the only qualified advise out there. If we are to follow the scientific method, then any theory - and that's all we have is models and predictions for this, should be questioned and then questioned again, and then again questioned - shutting down the debate on one side in favour of another is the exact opposite of "following the science".
Slow down a bit He is following the current guidance, he’s (rightly) upset that the health secretary stupidly said restrictions might get tougher. and if we can add a splash of reality into this thread; that statement was quickly ‘walked back’ I believe. certainly that’s how it seemed when watching the official press conference yesterday.
Most of the people in the IT industry are still working, and can continue to work nearly indefinitely from home. There will be a requirement for occasional visits to site to repair failed hardware, which could be a problem long-term if the supply chains are still down. Even then, resiliency is designed in, so the Internet, and TV/Radio will continue to work - its just that new content will be a little scarce for the duration.
I have heard that the advice the government had (at the start) was mainly from mathematical modelers and behavioral scientists, not epidemiologists and public health experts. All of them are scientists, but I know which ones I would trust more in this situation.
Of course scientific assumptions need questioning and refining. but if you think Sharon from Facebook or Wakeyred from the BBS are the correct sources for that, you’re deluded. The modern world view that thinks all opinions have equal weight is simply wrong. It’s why flat earth and anti vax / creationism is growing at a time when it should have disappeared in the face of ‘knowledge’.
There is a fairly straightforward calculation (don't ask me for the details), but doubling the separation from 2m to 4m reduces the risk by about 10 times, and 8m would make it 100x.
2m is probably the most they thought they could get away with. similar to the 5 a day for veg when it’s actually far more we need to eat!
What a strange post so someone working in the legal profession is not allowed to make any criticism of it because you believe they are earning a lot out of it. I have no idea what the Secret Barrister earns but for sure there are some in the Legal profession with very good incomes and there are others especially working with the less well off who earn very little - but none of that is relevant to the point made - that if you have a law that you are struggling to get people to obey - bringing in even tougher laws is unlikely to solve that problem
I presume - maybe wrongly that by talking about lock ins by pubs you are referring to the Vic from a couple of weeks ago that was all over facebook and this forum. I have just seen the landlady who assures me it didn't happen. She did get a visit from the Police as a consequence of the rumours, and they left satisfied that there was no wrongdoing. At times like this social media is very capable of doing more harm than good.