What is reasonable for the government to impose on people in the fight against coronavirus.

[Treesofwood]

Most people seem to agree it is reasonable to

1. Prevent people from seeing people they love.
2. Prevent people from going to school.
3. Prevent people from going to the theatre.
4. Force people to wear cloth over most of their face even if they don't want to in public.
5. Stop people from hugging.
6. Stop people from working.
7. Stop children from playing with their friends in the park.
8. Force people who are well into self isolation for two weeks.
9. Ban people from having sex with people they don't live with.

10. Stop (just) adult children from going back to their family home from university.

I would have never believed someone who told me a year ago that these laws/"guidance" would be in place.

There are some things that it is not seen as reasonable for the government to do, despite the fact it would save lives.

But I would argue that most of the things above would have been laughed off as ridiculous in 2019. After all we don't live in a police state.

Where will it end? How much further down the line will we go. How many more things will we lose? Bodily autonomy? It will definitely head that way if some MPs have their way.

@larrygrylls

Raccoon,

How do you ‘protect’ the vulnerable?

Do you mean lock them away in their houses (or flats) by any chance?

However people think it’s best to protect them whilst allowing the majority of the population to get on with it. I don’t want anyone locked in but at the moment it seems a choice of locking everyone in or just a small percentage. Look at the north east, now illegal to see family and friends again. How is that fair when it doesn’t affect the majority of people badly? We can’t keep going like this much longer.

Fucking insane. And there’s so many people that are just fine with it, in fact want more restrictions. The more we get used to this the worse it will get. We need to remember that we have rights and they do not have the right to impose these ridiculous measures on us.

Alectrevelyan As if small businesses are not suffering enough??!

@GetOffYourHighHorse

'Celebrations are an important part of human life... weddings, graduations, birthdays, they bring us joy.'

Of course they are. It is a temporary arrangement not permanent. You need a bit of resilience and the ability to compromise. I'd rather my parents were here this time next year than sulk because we can't have a houseful on Sunday.

I understand your point that we should be able to sacrifice a few parties, they seem trivial in comparison to a threat to your life.

But, we must only ever give these things up with absolute clear evidence and with laws that are passed with parliamentary scrutiny. Always.

We are currently in the position that the Coronavirus Bill is allowing the government to basically put in any whim they have on controlling, sorry eradicating, the virus they choose, with absolutely no controls on them.

This is not how a democracy should work and none of us should let this continue.

You may or may not agree with banning parties, that’s not the point. A government who wants to ban parties should have that, at the very least, held up to scrutiny by parliament

Japan and Sweden can do it with few laws as they have a communitarian population

More trust in their govt.

This, at least in part, means doing all the things many hate here like gossiping about and shaming the ‘badly behaved’ (ie non compliant)

Err everyone in uk Govt has said we should all "snitch" on our neighbours.

Personally I prefer short term laws which are enforced

Some of these new laws won't be short term, i can see licencing restrictions staying, also, a few 1000 Police cannot enforce anything without consent, which is why, despte weeks of restrictions, infection rates in many lockdown areas are not coming down, we can see this across Europe, not just here.

'A government who wants to ban parties should have that, at the very least, held up to scrutiny by parliament'

House of Commons? Have you heard of it? They actually televise it nowadays you know so we can all indeed see the scrutiny by parliament. Ministers are on morning telly explaining their actions, there are press conferences. None of this is done secretly.They work with local councils and PHE to implement changes based on data. Do you think Hancock just sits at home randomly picking places to enforce further restrictions just because he fancies it?

'More trust in their govt.'

I believe Sweden's less dense population (24 per sq mile as opposed to England's 420 per sq mile) will have far more to do with it. Also they aren't an obese pop like the uk and anecdotally culturally their lives are different. They dont seem to have the mass piss head culture of this country where everyone has to be in groups of more than 10 or else they can't cope.

@GetOffYourHighHorse

'A government who wants to ban parties should have that, at the very least, held up to scrutiny by parliament'

House of Commons? Have you heard of it? They actually televise it nowadays you know so we can all indeed see the scrutiny by parliament. Ministers are on morning telly explaining their actions, there are press conferences. None of this is done secretly.They work with local councils and PHE to implement changes based on data. Do you think Hancock just sits at home randomly picking places to enforce further restrictions just because he fancies it?

'More trust in their govt.'

I believe Sweden's less dense population (24 per sq mile as opposed to England's 420 per sq mile) will have far more to do with it. Also they aren't an obese pop like the uk and anecdotally culturally their lives are different. They dont seem to have the mass piss head culture of this country where everyone has to be in groups of more than 10 or else they can't cope.

These measures have been brought in using 'Emergency' measures laws and not debated in the House of Commons.

You do know this, so I am unsure as to why you are refusing to acknowledge the point.

Also your 'based on data' line - some of the data that has been presented would make any rudimentary statistician vomit. It is obvious you just blindly accept The Data presented on the news and in the papers and the story they tell with the presentation of that data. But I am also sure you have heard of 'misrepresentation of data' and 'manipulation of data' . There are many many experts who question the stories that are weaved with the data that is presented on coronavirus.

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5801/cmselect/cmpubadm/377/37705.htm

'You do know this, so I am unsure as to why you are refusing to acknowledge the point.'

You said scrutiny. They are scrutinised all the time in the House of Commons. Of course if there is a spike they can't wait a few days until they can have a lengthy debate it, they need to act.

'some of the data that has been presented would make any rudimentary statistician vomit'

Oh stop being so dramatic. Cases go up, then hospital admissions then eventually deaths. It is there in black and white. It really isn't rocket science to work out if you limit the cases going up you will thus prevent the admissions and deaths going up too.

Resilience Hamster, come on you can do it. Plenty of time for going to the pub after 10 in the future.

Here is an example of how The Data has been used, imo, as a scare tactic

Whitty shows a graph that is a 'projection but not a projection' of 50,000 cases a day by mid-October. The message being We Must Do Something Now.

That 'data' wasn't based on anything real. Nowhere have we seen cases double in a 7 day period consistently, throughout this whole time. Nowhere. It was totally made up and designed to create a story to scare us.

Then, the extra restrictions are brought in. Next day if I remember correctly.

This is how stories can be created with The Data. In this case, the very incorrect data - as shown in the attached.

And that is without taking into account the False Positive cases that wil be incuded in the case statistics, so the picture is actually even more murky.

But yes, The Data

@GetOffYourHighHorse

'You do know this, so I am unsure as to why you are refusing to acknowledge the point.'

You said scrutiny. They are scrutinised all the time in the House of Commons. Of course if there is a spike they can't wait a few days until they can have a lengthy debate it, they need to act.

'some of the data that has been presented would make any rudimentary statistician vomit'

Oh stop being so dramatic. Cases go up, then hospital admissions then eventually deaths. It is there in black and white. It really isn't rocket science to work out if you limit the cases going up you will thus prevent the admissions and deaths going up too.

Resilience Hamster, come on you can do it. Plenty of time for going to the pub after 10 in the future.

Read Parliament's own review of the scrutiny that these measures have been subjected to

Link again: publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5801/cmselect/cmpubadm/377/37705.htm

Resilience is not what you need in these circumstances, it is pretty useless on this topic tbh I think you misunderstand what resilience is for and why you would need it. Why would you need resilience on an ethical and moral issue such as governmental control boundaries?

Hamster,

Was that the data he showed? Seems pretty honest as to what is data and what is a scenario.

We seemed to be following the 14 day line (though hopefully not any more).

You could argue that projecting a 7 day doubling rather than a 14 day doubling is dramatic, but it matters little.

If you have an r greater than 1, you are going to have to lockdown at some point. How long and how often depends on how much r is greater than 1 out of ‘lockdown’ and how much r is less than one during ‘lockdown’.

If we cannot get to a steady state of r around 1 (I, optimistically, think we might) then you have to periodically lock down. If that is the case, the earlier in the cycle that you do it, the better.

'Here is an example of how The Data has been used, imo, as a scare tactic'

Yes it was overegged wasn't it. He did say it wasnt a prediction, just what could happen if it was left to rip. Which it hasn't been, those pesky restrictions you see. They maybe saw so many people deciding the increased cases weren't a problem so thought it would make people stop and think. Are you really suggesting all data are like his, they just make all the graphs up?

'Resilience is not what you need in these circumstances, it is pretty useless on this topic tbh I think you misunderstand what resilience is for and why you would need it'

If you can't cope with temporary restrictions which mean limiting socialising and wearing face covers to prevent further spread then yes you need some resilience.

@GetOffYourHighHorse

'Here is an example of how The Data has been used, imo, as a scare tactic'

Yes it was overegged wasn't it. He did say it wasnt a prediction, just what could happen if it was left to rip. Which it hasn't been, those pesky restrictions you see. They maybe saw so many people deciding the increased cases weren't a problem so thought it would make people stop and think. Are you really suggesting all data are like his, they just make all the graphs up?

He said it wasn't a prediction but then used the graph anyway.

What exactly was the purpose of that graph then?

You say it was to show what would happen if it was left to rip. That is simply not even possible to demonstrate in any way so it should never have been used on its own. Perhaps it could have been used alongside the hospital admissions / triage information. But that wouldn't have told the correct story!

You can see the hospital admissions alongside the NHS triage data attached here. Doesn't quite tell the right story. Things have flattened off already.

@GetOffYourHighHorse

'Resilience is not what you need in these circumstances, it is pretty useless on this topic tbh I think you misunderstand what resilience is for and why you would need it'

If you can't cope with temporary restrictions which mean limiting socialising and wearing face covers to prevent further spread then yes you need some resilience.

I see you definitely don't understand resilience.

This is not a resilience issue about whether I can COPE with the restrictions. It is a thread about whether the government are over stepping the mark and being worryingly authoritarian about how they handle the virus.

This is an ethical issue around human and civil liberties. The data therefore is very very important as that is the justification for such autjoritatian ways.

Just to put some more context into why resilience is not even relevant in this conversation. Hitler was a very resilient person. Resilience is not a moral stance - do you see yet?

I'm getting mighty tired of the resilience word being bandied around.

In a couple of threads about students, it's bandied as a personal failing of the DPs that their offspring are not resilient because strangely being treated as a criminal and locked up in a building, not allowed to talk to anyone else for no crime other than being a student in a hall of residence, and then being upset about it shows a lack of moral will power.

In some cases the fire escapes have been chained up FGS. But some people think this is a correct and proportionate response to the situation.

It is normal and necessary to question a governments response to a crisis particularly when it affects all of our civil liberties. I don't know if how they are handling it is right or wrong - and I'm mighty glad I don't have to make the decisions that they do - but the ability to question erosions of our rights is surely the difference between a totalitarian state and a free society.

'Just to put some more context into why resilience is not even relevant in this conversation. Hitler was a very resilient person. Resilience is not a moral stance - do you see yet?'

Jesus. Not Hitler again

I can only think you've lived a very sheltered, charmed life that these very moderate restrictions are causing you such angst. To bring Hitler into it is offensive and verging on hysteria. You should be ashamed of yourself.

'This is an ethical issue around human and civil liberties.'

It is a pandemic. Restrictions are worldwide! 'Civil liberties', I bet people who have lived in an actual dictatorship piss themselves laughing reading such twaddle and no please dont be even more offensive and suggest we'll be in ghettos by Christmas

I agree op.

The only restrictions I would be happy to live with "long term" as in any longer than we've had already would be social distancing from strangers. Because I did that anyway. And hand washing. Again, did that anyway.

I don't agree keeping things closed, seperating people from family and friends and denying education helps anyone. It may "solve" delay one problem but it creates a myriad of other problems.

'In some cases the fire escapes have been chained up FGS. But some people think this is a correct and proportionate response to the situation.'

Well no that is clearly illegal, it is breaking health and safety laws, it needs reporting and whoever has allegedly done it would be charged. Do you have a link or is it infact made up by someone?

@GetOffYourHighHorse

'Just to put some more context into why resilience is not even relevant in this conversation. Hitler was a very resilient person. Resilience is not a moral stance - do you see yet?'

Jesus. Not Hitler again

I can only think you've lived a very sheltered, charmed life that these very moderate restrictions are causing you such angst. To bring Hitler into it is offensive and verging on hysteria. You should be ashamed of yourself.

'This is an ethical issue around human and civil liberties.'

It is a pandemic. Restrictions are worldwide! 'Civil liberties', I bet people who have lived in an actual dictatorship piss themselves laughing reading such twaddle and no please dont be even more offensive and suggest we'll be in ghettos by Christmas

I don't know where to start with this but you clearly don't like it being pointed out to you that you don't understand resilience and how that is not even relevant to this argument. You seem to think resilience is some moral stance. It isn't. Hence the Hitler reference.

You are also calling me hysterical yet simultaneously being Offended by the mere mention of Hitler. You must see the irony in this?

@GetOffYourHighHorse

'Just to put some more context into why resilience is not even relevant in this conversation. Hitler was a very resilient person. Resilience is not a moral stance - do you see yet?'

Jesus. Not Hitler again

I can only think you've lived a very sheltered, charmed life that these very moderate restrictions are causing you such angst. To bring Hitler into it is offensive and verging on hysteria. You should be ashamed of yourself.

'This is an ethical issue around human and civil liberties.'

It is a pandemic. Restrictions are worldwide! 'Civil liberties', I bet people who have lived in an actual dictatorship piss themselves laughing reading such twaddle and no please dont be even more offensive and suggest we'll be in ghettos by Christmas

Actually, you simply don't even seem to understand what this thread is about at all

'Actually, you simply don't even seem to understand what this thread is about at all'

Oh whatever hamster, you're boring me now, I understand perfectly what this thread is about thanks. I could say you clearly don't understand that in a pandemic restrictions are needed, they aren't that bad and yes the Government faces scrutiny in the Houses of Commons. I also think you could leave your offensive Hitler stuff out of it. HTH.

@GetOffYourHighHorse You are missing the point i was making, Sweden may well be far less populated than the UK but Japan? i don't think so.

What these countries have done is carry their populations with them, Germany has done similar.

More and more restrictions will not achieve what we all want, people will rebel and take no notice, leading to more punishments more distrust, less compliance.

Most of the people i know lost faith in the Govt after the Cummings thing, it has not returned.

@GetOffYourHighHorse you seem to think I'm making things up, or my information has come from a dubious source, so I hope the BBC is acceptable to you www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-54334393

@GetOffYourHighHorse

'Actually, you simply don't even seem to understand what this thread is about at all'

Oh whatever hamster, you're boring me now, I understand perfectly what this thread is about thanks. I could say you clearly don't understand that in a pandemic restrictions are needed, they aren't that bad and yes the Government faces scrutiny in the Houses of Commons. I also think you could leave your offensive Hitler stuff out of it. HTH.

This is going to sting.....but...you don't seem very resilient

Giving up?
Taking offense to the word Hitler?
Unable to take challenge on your arguments?

I mean, I hate to repeat your words back to you, but in this case they are relevant. You could do with developing your resilience