The virus. PPE. Part 1

Status
Not open for further replies.
According to Radio 4 this morning: the House of Lords is showing the true British Spirit. Some members are demanding their £300 per day for logging into virtual debates from home...

"I'm all right Jack and sod you", eh? :thinking:

Just following the lead of the lower house MP's have just given themselves (yes I know about the IPSA but they are hardly independent) a 3.1% pay rise effective from the 1st April this come on top of the £10,000 extra they can now spend on office costs, so yes once again we are all in this together.
 
Just following the lead of the lower house MP's have just given themselves (yes I know about the IPSA but they are hardly independent) a 3.1% pay rise effective from the 1st April this come on top of the £10,000 extra they can now spend on office costs, so yes once again we are all in this together.

Are they not just getting what they are entitled to? As for MPs, our company are spending money so people can work from home effectively (laptops, chairs) so for MPs to run offices and staff they surely need resource too?
 
Well let's see shall we.
First you diss the video that I posted of an American doctors thoughts of how COVID 19 patients should be treated.(Probably because I posted it)
Then I provide evidence of German, Italian and English doctors of the same opinion as the American Doctor, but because it is in the Daily Mail (and because I posted it) it's rubbish.
Then I provide a link to the Lancet on treating COVID19 patients and suddenly it isn't rubbish and you say it is standard practice.
That is the second time you have tried to s*** all over something I have posted saying it is rubbish and then comeback with saying it is already standard practice.

Unbelievable in most circumstances, in yours, becoming more and more expected.

And this is why I usually ignore your b******t attention seeking posts, you have a victim mentality and is proved by the fact that you think I dont agree with the guy because you posted it. I didn't "diss" the video, I discussed and critiqued what he said and made that quite clear.

I never said anything about German, Italian and English doctors being rubbish, in fact what they are saying in the article is much of what Ive said, ie the use of non invasive methods being used which I stated is standard practice.

You are indeed cherry picking what you want to say to me (and from the reports you quote) and ive noticed your very specific posts to anything I say over the last 10 or so days since I decided to ignore you as you always end up bickering with me and then the mods have to get involved. This p***es them off Im sure and I know it p***es a lot of others on the thread off. And it's why I decided to ignore you.

I read the article you quoted in the mail as Im always willing to look at evidence. I have and as stated, it's cherry picked and your problem is you believe anything you read at face value, as a healthcare worker Im trained not to, but to look at all the evidence and frankly there's a lot of it that this guy states as fact which is true (Ive already covered the damage done to lungs from ventilators which is a risk in any disease) Ive also stated that CPAP / HiFlow are already commonly used and standard practice in ICUs but these only work to a point.

Additionally, if you bothered to check any of his supporters you will find that while they do indeed have concerns about the damage ventilation can do, as everyone does, you'll find that the article again cherry picks how it represents their views.

For example the only "supporter" that's actual an ICU consultant (including the american doctor that works in the Emergency Department) actually states some very telling words in an article in The Independent on the 9th April. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...eath-rates-china-wuhan-us-cases-a9458541.html

But particularly interesting is the following and is not supportive as the Daily Mail puts it, of the American Drs stance at all, it's a simple statement of fact.

"All we can do ventilating these patients is ‘buying time’ with minimal additional damage: the lowest possible PEEP [Positive End Expiratory Pressure] and gentle ventilation".

Another Dr from the UK here also says in relation to the high death rate of ventilated patients

"But the expert consensus would be, basically everybody who goes onto a ventilator does so because their lungs are doing so badly at oxygenation they are about to die. People would argue — without proof — that, of all the people who need a ventilator, if you didn’t put them on one, mortality would be close to 100 per cent. So from there you can’t argue that 60 to 80 per cent [as has been reported in coronavirus patients] is worse."


And with that, Im going back to ignoring your promotional posts for Ford and your deliberate singling out of my posts which Ive successfully done for the last ten days.

Oh I know you'll think your clever hitting back and will call me a hypocrite saying that Im accusing you of victim mentality at the same time as I state you are deliberately targetting me, or you'll quote that and say "see".

It really doesn't matter, I really don't care about your opinions as you are so willing to believe you can be the only one thats right and you never accept anyone elses view could be correct, you've proven that several times and anyone thats been on this thread any length of time knows it.

With that Im signing off (from you) but also hitting report on my own message to flag it to the moderators so they can ensure things do, in fact, keep on track.
 
Hopefully others will also learn that Neil considers himself an expert on any topic that may come up and will argue any contrary position no matter how obviously inaccurate it may be. I am surprised at how many long term members still engage with him knowing that he does not wish to debates and will never ever concede he may be mistaken. I occasionally make the mistake of engaging, but soon think to myself “this is why I shouldn’t bother...”
 
but soon think to myself “this is why I shouldn’t bother...”
This is why I press the ignore button when someone tries to engage me in an argument. It's not that I'm clever or high minded - it took me ages to realise that when I engage in a silly argument I look just as daft as my opponent. :sulk:
 

I knew they profited from loaning the Pandas to zoos around the world but not to that extent. I can't say I agree with the view of Chris Packham on this one. ie. they're not strong enough to survive on their own and it costs too much to save them and that the money could be better spent. They are no longer on the endangered list which has to be a big plus.It's an iconic animal and should be saved from extinction.

This article goes into more detail. It's easily read https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190516-why-paying-for-pandas-is-not-so-black-and-white

The study outlined in your link (the article states it's the first quantitative study) looks at the 2010 numbers and the cost of the programme was US$255m So, regarding Chris Packhan's view I looked at what China spends on its defence budget. For 2019 it's second to the US ($693.6bn) at $176.2bn. That is 2% of GDP approx.That's a 7.2% increase on 2018 and is expected to increase that percentage year on year going forward. Those who like to point out the lack of funding for the likes a country's health care and welfare systems etc will often draw a comparison with that country's defence budget spending It's a fairly obvious target. In the light of these numbers and Chris Packahm's point, which is an either or issue, China can well afford to allocate this US$255 on Panda preservation and also fund other projects. What other projects Chris Packham had in mind, though, I don't know.
 
Article regarding testing of the US sailors on the USS Roosevelt aircraft carrier. Of the roughly 600 crew that tested positive (of 4800) 60% were asymptomatic.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...rcraft-carrier-are-symptom-free-idUSKCN21Y2GB

Looks like a very high %age of asymptomatic cases. I wonder if infected people in the lower age group of the general population are more likely to be asymptomatic. A warship's crew will probably have a high proportion of young men and women.
I was chatting to someone whose mother had Covid 19. She is in her 70's and recovered well. She was in hospital for 4 weeks. Her only symptom prior to hospitalisation was that she would suddenly fall asleep when talking.
 
And this is why I usually ignore your b******t attention seeking posts, you have a victim mentality and is proved by the fact that you think I dont agree with the guy because you posted it. I didn't "diss" the video, I discussed and critiqued what he said and made that quite clear.

I never said anything about German, Italian and English doctors being rubbish, in fact what they are saying in the article is much of what Ive said, ie the use of non invasive methods being used which I stated is standard practice.

You are indeed cherry picking what you want to say to me (and from the reports you quote) and ive noticed your very specific posts to anything I say over the last 10 or so days since I decided to ignore you as you always end up bickering with me and then the mods have to get involved. This p***es them off Im sure and I know it p***es a lot of others on the thread off. And it's why I decided to ignore you.

I read the article you quoted in the mail as Im always willing to look at evidence. I have and as stated, it's cherry picked and your problem is you believe anything you read at face value, as a healthcare worker Im trained not to, but to look at all the evidence and frankly there's a lot of it that this guy states as fact which is true (Ive already covered the damage done to lungs from ventilators which is a risk in any disease) Ive also stated that CPAP / HiFlow are already commonly used and standard practice in ICUs but these only work to a point.

Additionally, if you bothered to check any of his supporters you will find that while they do indeed have concerns about the damage ventilation can do, as everyone does, you'll find that the article again cherry picks how it represents their views.

For example the only "supporter" that's actual an ICU consultant (including the american doctor that works in the Emergency Department) actually states some very telling words in an article in The Independent on the 9th April. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...eath-rates-china-wuhan-us-cases-a9458541.html

But particularly interesting is the following and is not supportive as the Daily Mail puts it, of the American Drs stance at all, it's a simple statement of fact.

"All we can do ventilating these patients is ‘buying time’ with minimal additional damage: the lowest possible PEEP [Positive End Expiratory Pressure] and gentle ventilation".

Another Dr from the UK here also says in relation to the high death rate of ventilated patients

"But the expert consensus would be, basically everybody who goes onto a ventilator does so because their lungs are doing so badly at oxygenation they are about to die. People would argue — without proof — that, of all the people who need a ventilator, if you didn’t put them on one, mortality would be close to 100 per cent. So from there you can’t argue that 60 to 80 per cent [as has been reported in coronavirus patients] is worse."


And with that, Im going back to ignoring your promotional posts for Ford and your deliberate singling out of my posts which Ive successfully done for the last ten days.

Oh I know you'll think your clever hitting back and will call me a hypocrite saying that Im accusing you of victim mentality at the same time as I state you are deliberately targetting me, or you'll quote that and say "see".

It really doesn't matter, I really don't care about your opinions as you are so willing to believe you can be the only one thats right and you never accept anyone elses view could be correct, you've proven that several times and anyone thats been on this thread any length of time knows it.

With that Im signing off (from you) but also hitting report on my own message to flag it to the moderators so they can ensure things do, in fact, keep on track.
Someone needs a ventilator. ;)
 
Last edited:
Hopefully others will also learn that Neil considers himself an expert on any topic that may come up and will argue any contrary position no matter how obviously inaccurate it may be. I am surprised at how many long term members still engage with him knowing that he does not wish to debates and will never ever concede he may be mistaken. I occasionally make the mistake of engaging, but soon think to myself “this is why I shouldn’t bother...”
Living up to your name as usual.

If you actually read my post, I wasn't arguing with anyone. I provided evidence to back up a video I had posted earlier. A video that apparently wasn't dissed as I had claimed. I would say calling the Dr a quack was dissing, but hey I am no expert.
Donnie has s*** on my posts not just in this thread, but in several threads over the past few years. Hence why I know he does it deliberately. Except he isn't bright enough to realise he leaves himself wide open for being caught out and when I find evidence to back up what I have said, He still tries to turn it against me and claim the one thing he has disagreed with is standard practice.
I haven't claimed to be an expert or even tried to be an expert.

Hope it ain't too far a drop for you and the rest of the lemmings.
 
Last edited:
Whatever happened to Brian’s post in hot topics re China? It seems to have disappeared, or did I just imagine it!
 
The way I understood the report was that the 'success' criteria were for the unemployed to find work compared with those on conventional benefits, enabled by the UBI to take a job they might have otherwise considered unsuitable (inadequate pay, too junior position etc). It seems that offering UBI made no difference in this respect, so was considered a failure.

I like the idea of a subsistence UBI that would ensure every person in the country received enough money to house them, cloth them and put food on the table to a minimal humane standard and no questions asked. In addition to the problems of opportunism from those that supply housing etc, some people will manage very well while others will render themselves destitute and force their children into severe hardship.
It’s a long time since I read about the Finnish ‘experiment’ but I seem to remember it was aimed at the (long term?) unemployed but that isn’t really what UBI is about: clue “Universal” :). So I don’t see how it helps. As I say, vast sums are given to relatively wealthy people (grain barons etc etc) and nobody turns a hair, at least not those who ’complain’ about UBI etc. :(.
 
I knew they profited from loaning the Pandas to zoos around the world but not to that extent. I can't say I agree with the view of Chris Packham on this one. ie. they're not strong enough to survive on their own and it costs too much to save them and that the money could be better spent. They are no longer on the endangered list which has to be a big plus.It's an iconic animal and should be saved from extinction.

This article goes into more detail. It's easily read https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20190516-why-paying-for-pandas-is-not-so-black-and-white

The study outlined in your link (the article states it's the first quantitative study) looks at the 2010 numbers and the cost of the programme was US$255m So, regarding Chris Packhan's view I looked at what China spends on its defence budget. For 2019 it's second to the US ($693.6bn) at $176.2bn. That is 2% of GDP approx.That's a 7.2% increase on 2018 and is expected to increase that percentage year on year going forward. Those who like to point out the lack of funding for the likes a country's health care and welfare systems etc will often draw a comparison with that country's defence budget spending It's a fairly obvious target. In the light of these numbers and Chris Packahm's point, which is an either or issue, China can well afford to allocate this US$255 on Panda preservation and also fund other projects. What other projects Chris Packham had in mind, though, I don't know.

The Panda loans are mainly a political/propaganda exercise.

A lot of the high profile of the Panda in conservation comes from the, quite reasonable at the time, choice of it for the WWF symbol — it does make a great logo :)!

The main benefit (and I know very little about this) is that since it has such a restricted diet it should have led to preservation of its habitat (which is always the more important thing) which probably benefited many other creatures.
 
It’s a long time since I read about the Finnish ‘experiment’ but I seem to remember it was aimed at the (long term?) unemployed but that isn’t really what UBI is about: clue “Universal” :). So I don’t see how it helps. As I say, vast sums are given to relatively wealthy people (grain barons etc etc) and nobody turns a hair, at least not those who ’complain’ about UBI etc. :(.

I have absolutely no objection to the rich becoming richer provided the lot of common man can be improved - I'd be happy for a 10,000: pay differential for senior executives if ordinary people would all make the best of what they have and had enough to live without serious hardship.
 
Three hours ago. Re the 99 year old Capt Tom Moore. Where the money goes. Now passing £23 million. I was also wondering about the Just Giving Fees ad the payment card fees. This is addressed in the article.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-52325713

Surely Just Giving and the payment card fees should go to those businesses? They've done the work involved in collecting this - surely they should be paid too.
 
. . . .If this has been discussed tell me and I will remove the post. . . . .

90% of the World has travel restrictions. Many countries have closed their borders and banned incoming flights. The remainder have quarantine regulations on incoming passengers.

The UK response ? zilch/nada/nix i.e no restrictions. 15,000 people a day are travelling into UK airports without any checks and thereafter travelling onward to their final destinations. Many are UK citizens returning home.

Why am I (we) continuing to be asked to adhere to 'lockdown' and being potentially fined for making 'unnecessary' travel when the 'horse is escaping through the open barn door' at UK airports ?

Why is this not the lead story on UK news bulletins ?

Quote
The approach may be turning Britain into a refuge for some travellers. “We've seen a very big increase in the number of super yachts coming to the UK to berth because they cannot enter ports in the Mediterranean,” said Anne Carson, owner of Super Yacht Services Falmouth. “I would say there have been 20 or more in the last few weeks alone, which is very high for this time of year.”
Unquote


I often look at Planefinder..I was aware of Romanians coming here (and to Germany,too) to harvest fruit/veg that would otherwise rot because of a lack of uk nationals...as ever.. and wondered about measures regarding COVID-19. It's here in this article. Of course, I see many other flights in and out of Heathrow. The flight path to and from the US/Canada and S. America often fly over us. I also see flights to and from European cities involving those countries (some are freight,though) and like yourself, wonder how it can be. The traffic is definitely a lot less than normal times but still quite a lot.

I did see one of the charter planes from lasi(pronounced yasi) Romania on Planefinder as it overflew Germany and then into Stanstead for a 4.30pm landing and it's one of many coming.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...rs-flown-uk-crisis-farming-sector-coronavirus
 
Surely Just Giving and the payment card fees should go to those businesses? They've done the work involved in collecting this - surely they should be paid too.

I agree. Just Giving has changed its costs policy since I gave via it's services and I was wondering if, on this occasion, they would take enough to cover costs and maybe a much smaller profit margin, same for the card services.
 
I have absolutely no objection to the rich becoming richer provided the lot of common man can be improved - I'd be happy for a 10,000: pay differential for senior executives if ordinary people would all make the best of what they have and had enough to live without serious hardship.
Not sure I understand you, do you mean could for would (my bold) in your post? Also, ”the rich” covers quite a large group from drug lords up down to your ‘senior executives’, many of the latter becoming rich by very dubious means at the expense of their shareholders and employees (and their pensioners) :(.
 
Surely Just Giving and the payment card fees should go to those businesses? They've done the work involved in collecting this - surely they should be paid too.
Payment card fees, yes, but Just Giving, it depends on how their rates are set up, they could be benefitting disproportionately.
 
Are they not just getting what they are entitled to? As for MPs, our company are spending money so people can work from home effectively (laptops, chairs) so for MPs to run offices and staff they surely need resource too?

They already get £26,000 per year for office cost not including staff but I realise that this is an insufficient amount and that an other £10,000 is needed. There was an outcry about MP's expenses a while back an there was going to be great changes.

As published by the Committee on Standards in Public Life

THE SEVEN PRINCIPLES OF PUBLIC LIFE
SELFLESSNESS Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends.
INTEGRITY Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties.
OBJECTIVITY In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.
ACCOUNTABILITY Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.
OPENNESS Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.
HONESTY Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.
LEADERSHIP Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.
These principles apply to all aspects of public life. The Committee has set them out here for the benefit of all who serve the public in any way.

That seems to be long forgotten.

One example Robert Jenrick, lives in London works in London wife works in London children go to school in London owns two houses in London but during this crisis states that this main residence is in Eye Herefordshire which is not even his parliamentary constituency that is Newark in Nottinghamshire where he rents another house for which he claims £2,000 per month in expenses from the tax payer.
 
Not sure I understand you, do you mean could for would (my bold) in your post? Also, ”the rich” covers quite a large group from drug lords up down to your ‘senior executives’, many of the latter becoming rich by very dubious means at the expense of their shareholders and employees (and their pensioners) :(.

if ordinary people would all make the best of what they have and had enough to live without serious hardship.

There's 2 parts to this. 1) that ordinary people would make the best use of what was available and 2) that they were all able to have enough to live on without serious hardship. Not all ordinary people would make good choices if given just enough to live on - I've certainly known some, and you probably have too - and since we're wishing for impossible things I should like to have both please. ;)

I don't care one iota how wealthy people are - it's of absolutely no concern to me provided they do not abuse their privileged position and do nothing illegal.
 
if ordinary people would all make the best of what they have and had enough to live without serious hardship.

There's 2 parts to this. 1) that ordinary people would make the best use of what was available and 2) that they were all able to have enough to live on without serious hardship. Not all ordinary people would make good choices if given just enough to live on - I've certainly known some, and you probably have too - and since we're wishing for impossible things I should like to have both please. ;)

I don't care one iota how wealthy people are - it's of absolutely no concern to me provided they do not abuse their privileged position and do nothing illegal.
You don’t care (by implication how wealthy people live but you are making judgements about “ordinary” people live :).
Would you say Rupert Murdoch abuses his privileged position, or Donald J Drumpf? :)
 
I don't care one iota how wealthy people are - it's of absolutely no concern to me provided they do not abuse their privileged position and do nothing illegal.
I have observed over the course of my life that if the gap in wealth and power becomes too great it creates misery for those at the bottom of the heap. This is a bad thing in my opinion and I believe we should do our best to prevent it.
 
Just when they didn’t need it “a second wave of locusts 20 times bigger than the first has descended on” a East Africa, predicted to be much bigger by June!

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/04/africas-huge-locust-swarms-are-growing-at-the-worst-time/

Though I’ve never understood why they aren’t harvested on a large scale and either eaten or processed to fertiliser :(. Perhaps the swarms aren’t regular enough to develop the machinery necessary. I remember seeing film of hatching flies being netted and eaten in ?Uganda, ?Victoria Nyanza.
 
Last edited:
Although, I don't find these statements contradictory, once you put them into the context of the consistent advice of restricting your exercise period to around an hour. I do find the following statement incompatible with everything I have heard from the government on how we should be restricting our allotted exercise time.

"Stopping to rest or to eat lunch while on a long walk."

How can you have a "long walk" that requires lunch, when restricted to being out for an hour.
I can't see how this is relevant, to the point I made, if you can't fit in a "long walk" within an hour, how can you fit in lunch AND a long walk into the hour.

That would be because you're fixating on the opinions of politicians and outdated guidance that never became law.

I posted the law for you, it is one simple sentence relating to exercise.

Restrictions on movement

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

There are no distance or time constraints in the law as passed by Parliament, anything taken further is simple wishful thinking by those giving their opinion as guidance.

Legally it is quite permissible to take a 3 hour walk with a break in the middle for lunch, as long as you do so alone or with other people who live with you. It's also legally permissible to go exercise more than once a day in England and Scotland, Wales seems to vary on this (check the second link for details).


Heres the law in it entirety to have a read of

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/350/made

If you'd like to read a Parliamentary Briefing relating to the way the law is being implemented and the non-compulsory guidance, it's at:

https://publications.parliament.uk/...irus-Restrictions-England-Regulation-2020.pdf
 
Last edited:
I have observed over the course of my life that if the gap in wealth and power becomes too great it creates misery for those at the bottom of the heap. This is a bad thing in my opinion and I believe we should do our best to prevent it.
It’s rare for ‘average’ people to become rich without some wrongdoing on the way. There are exceptions of course, some inventors come to mind — eg that chap who invented “cats’ eyes“.
 
Just when they didn’t need it “a second wave of locusts 20 times bigger than the first has descended on” a East Africa, predicted to be much bigger by June!

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/04/africas-huge-locust-swarms-are-growing-at-the-worst-time/

Though I’ve never understood why they aren’t harvested on a large scale and either eaten or processed to fertiliser :(. Perhaps the swarms aren’t regular enough to develop the machinery necessary. I remember seeing film of hatching flies being netted and eaten in ?Uganda, ?Victoria Nyanza.

Lake Malawi, I think.
 
It’s rare for ‘average’ people to become rich without some wrongdoing on the way. There are exceptions of course, some inventors come to mind — eg that chap who invented “cats’ eyes“.
A few 'lottery' winners too
 
A few 'lottery' winners too
Although of course some people regard gambling as immoral :). And it’s undeniable that some people are directly harmed by it :(, not the winners usually AFAIK.
 
You don’t care (by implication how wealthy people live but you are making judgements about “ordinary” people live :).
Would you say Rupert Murdoch abuses his privileged position, or Donald J Drumpf? :)

You appear to be seeking an argument rather than clarification.
 
Three hours ago. Re the 99 year old Capt Tom Moore. Where the money goes. Now passing £23 million. I was also wondering about the Just Giving Fees ad the payment card fees. This is addressed in the article.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-52325713

What a magnificent man Captain Moore is. Almost at his century and still showing true grit. Thank you, old fellow, for your military service and what you have now done to help your country again.
 
Now this is surprising more or less what we expected of him :(. The Cabinet is waiting for their absent leader but it seems he was always absent:

“Boris Johnson skipped five Cobra meetings on the virus, calls to order protective gear were ignored and scientists’ warnings fell on deaf ears. Failings in February may have cost thousands of lives”

And it seems he doesn’t work weekends etc etc. (This a Times story, I think but in all the papers.)
 
You appear to be seeking an argument rather than clarification.
Maybe it’s a poor attempt at the Socratic Method. But don’t worry about it, I’m OK with arguments but not looking for a quarrel :). I was genuinely puzzled by what you meant but it’s really not important, I’ll delete the post if you like.
 
Maybe it’s a poor attempt at the Socratic Method. But don’t worry about it, I’m OK with arguments but not looking for a quarrel :). I was genuinely puzzled by what you meant but it’s really not important, I’ll delete the post if you like.

I can see our relationship is Platonic. ;)

No need to delete the post.
 
That would be because you're fixating on the opinions of politicians and outdated guidance that never became law

I know what the Regulations say, but all laws come with guidance on how they should be interpreted and applied, which over time are changed through case law, or other means. And indeed the law itself may be amended.

Laws are deliberately written with some areas of flexibility as it is realised that they cannot anticipate every nuance of how they might be applied. They are therefore applied as a combination of the "letter of the law" and the guidance on how that letter should be applied (which can come from a range of sources).

The Government still seems to be making it clear that a "reasonable excuse" for being out of your house is "exercising" (Regulations) for around an hour (informal government guidance), and as a time period is not defined in the Regulations then this is the best guidance we have on this.

But as it's so blindingly obvious that "in general" there are likely to be greater risks of spreading the virus the longer we spend out and about, an hour seems a "reasonable" period of time for most people, but there will be exceptions to this, and I can see why they might not want to specify a time within the Regulations. But, I'm not sure I understand why it doesn't seem to be written down as formal guidance anywhere, at least not that I can find. Maybe the Government is just expecting the public to be sensible about it.

There will be people where their particular circumstances dictate that an hour is insufficient, and they should be allowed to use those circumstances as a "reasonable excuse" to be out for longer than an hour without the stigma of "breaking the law".
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top