Lockdown 2

[grendel]

30 minutes ago, Paladin said:

Wrong again. The previous Tier system of restriction was the one designed to reduce the spread between areas, with travel between Tier areas largely prohibited. The current legislation repealed those previous regulations and removed any restriction on geographical travel in England, subject to the reason for journey being within the NEW regulations. 

The aim of the new regulations isn’t to stop people travelling, it’s to reduce the number of purposes for which anyone can leave their homes. If it is for a permissible reason, any length of journey, to and from any part of England, is allowed.

 

Paladin, you are totally avoiding getting the point of lockdown, it shouldnt be a case of travelling no matter the distance, its that unless there is an absolutely essential reason, we should not be doing it, in my book visiting a boat to go on a jolly isnt an absolute essential, and they have already said winterisation and maintenance are not considered essential, so how is a day trip on the boat more essential than that.

You can live within the new regulations, but you would still have to persuade a police officer that your trip to the boat (for non maintenance or winterisation) was more essential than those two reasons.

its not a case of finding legal loopholes to allow you to do things - its about restricting your travel to absolute essentials to prevent the spread of the virus, its about doing the RIGHT thing to protect everyone.

[Vaughan]

14 minutes ago, grendel said:

its not a case of finding legal loopholes to allow you to do things - its about restricting your travel to absolute essentials to prevent the spread of the virus, its about doing the RIGHT thing to protect everyone.

All the same, the law is supposed to be the law.  If the law is not clear, or is ambiguous and contradictory in its wording, then the law is an ass.

[MauriceMynah]

Having brewed BioDiesel, and subsequently investigated the law on what I can, and cannot do, I discovered that for various reasons, and differing subjects, some laws are vague, and that the vagueness is intentional. These "lockdown rules" are but yet another example.

Option 1.  make vague laws and trust the majority of the population to "get it" and comply as best they can.

Option 2. Hard and fast lockdown and put up with all the destruction that follows.

Option 3. Do nothing, watch the NHS collapse, see people die who wouldn't otherwise have done so.

I know which option I prefer.

[RumPunch]

32 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

So a straight question please :

From what I am reading here it seems that my daughter can travel from home at Potter Heigham to Stalham where our boat is moored and where the boatyard is still open for business.  It also seems that if we were a national park, she could go out for the day in it.  But all of a sudden, the Broads is not a national park!

Have I got that right?

By the way, Potter to Stalham is a much shorter distance than she drives to work every day, in an A&E hospital in Gorleston!

Yep - I can walk to my boat, fettle it if essential, but not go out. Then when walking back watch visitors to the village unloading their cars of canoes / paddle boards / fishing gear and get into a boat.

Hmmm.......

[Vaughan]

Option 1/. 

How do you make a vague law? That is the road to anarchy.

Option 2/.

That seems to be the status quo, whether we like it or not.

Option 3/.

My daughter, as a matron in charge of 4 wards in A&E, does not see the NHS in a state of collapse at this time.

[floydraser]

The law doesn't say you have to wash your hands.

The law doesn't say that when out walking and you have to open a gate, you can't then scratch your nose.

The law doesn't say you have to wipe down supermarket food which may have been handled on the shelf.

The law doesn't say the post you just received has to be clean.

Some people are so obsessed with the law that are ignoring the greater danger from the virus.

[Vaughan]

5 minutes ago, floydraser said:

Some people are so obsessed with the law

I am not obsessed with the law but in a law abiding society the law must be seen as above reproach.

That way, it can be followed by all concerned, without doubt and without risk of civil unrest.

 

[CambridgeCabby]

Option 3/.

this is the one of the reasons for lockdown , to prevent a massive influx of patients thereby putting pressure on the NHS .

Vaughan , I thank your daughter not just for her dedication during this pandemic but her service over the years in the NHS , and like me who has a wife , daughter and son in law all  in the front line at Addenbrookes I’m sure (like me) you will do what you can  to ensure the spread of covid-19 is kept down .

Addenbrookes at the moment has a low intake of Covid patients (14) and only 4 in icu BUT if the R number is allowed to explode these figures can and will rise potentially beyond the NHS capabilities , Kates theatres have 25+ staff in isolation due to being in at risk groups so staff levels are stretched already , Kate is working 50 to 60 hours a week to keep her theatres running as are many other nurses , without I must add overtime pay , so let us all ,instead of seeing how we can interpret the rules to suit our wants, stay at home , keep contact and travel to a minimum and beat this awful virus .

[BroadsAuthority]

20 hours ago, Jemaki said:

From Gov.uk website..oops...ignore Sky bet one

FYI this information is not current, it was from after lockdown 1 and it says on the page that the guidance has been superseded - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-guidance-on-phased-return-of-sport-and-recreation/guidance-for-the-public-on-the-phased-return-of-outdoor-sport-and-recreation

"From Thursday 5 November, national restrictions supersede the contents of this guidance document, in particular where the document refers to Local COVID Alert Levels. This guidance document can still be used by those businesses which are permitted to operate under the national restrictions, to support those businesses to operate safely."

I am sure we will have an update today.

Thanks,

Tom

[Vaughan]

CC, I thoroughly agree with you, but perhaps I should quote the rest of MM's option 3/ :

See people die who wouldn't otherwise have done so.

That includes those whose treatment for other ailments such as cancer, heart disease, liver and kidneys, have had their treatment put into abeyance in specialised hospitals such as Addenbrookes.

I am not an expert but I am very objective.  I see things as they are, in front of my face.  My great concern is, what is going to be the end of all this, and what will be left, of what we like to call humanised society?

We can't just all scuttle off down our own little rabbit holes saying "stay at home and save lives".  There are too many other things about our lives, and our way of life, that we are destroying in the process.  If we are not very careful, we may never live our lives again, in the way that we used to.

[grendel]

to be honest, i am all for staying at home, i do have a machine indoors that i can use to get my daily exercise, so i am using it rather than take a walk around the block, to avoid others. i go out for shopping once a week, and am working from home.

do i want to be out on a boat - you bet i do, but i'm not.

[ChrisB]

15 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

We can't just all scuttle off down our own little rabbit holes saying "stay at home and save lives".  There are too many other things about our lives, and our way of life, that we are destroying in the process.  If we are not very careful, we may never live our lives again, in the way that we used to.

I don't think we will ever return to the way we used to live our lives before Covid. The World has changed forever.

Less consumerism, less long haul travel, greater awareness of green issues, less office based working, hopefully less selfishness, more life/work balance, more home based leisure hobbies and folk trying to live a better more healthy life-style.

Commerce will also have changed for ever, retail, hospitality, business travel etc.

A new world on the other side! Whenever that is.

[MauriceMynah]

If anybody thinks that life will go back to how it was pre Covid, then I'd like a glass of what they're on. Life will be different. Will it be worse? Maybe, maybe not. we might just end up with a society more focused on the deep pleasure to be had helping others through adversity. I was typing this when ChrisB posted. We are  saying the same thing.  

[CambridgeCabby]

Evolution and adaption is what made mankind (and womankind) so successful , we will adapt to our new future just as we have always done 

[CambridgeCabby]

[Vaughan]

27 minutes ago, ChrisB said:

Less consumerism, less long haul travel, greater awareness of green issues, less office based working, hopefully less selfishness, more life/work balance, more home based leisure hobbies and folk trying to live a better more healthy life-style.

If that is your Eutopia I wonder if you have considered who is going to finance it, in the years to come?

There are those who have often criticised our capitalist society but it has its benefits!

Less long haul travel means the death of the airlines and all the related businesses that depend on them for parts, maintenance, supply, logistics, catering, airports and all that. Millions of jobs.

Who will pay my daughter's pension when she retires, if the government can't afford to pay it, because not enough people have work, in the "office based" jobs that you decry? Even my own pension may be at risk in the next few years, for all I know.

Those people who wanted to live a more healthy life style according to green issues were not stopped from doing so if they wished, pre COVID. There was no government dictat that prevented them.

 

 

[grendel]

2 hours ago, Vaughan said:

All the same, the law is supposed to be the law.  If the law is not clear, or is ambiguous and contradictory in its wording, then the law is an ass.

we went through this in the first lockdown, when a new law is introduced normally in the UK, it can take years of preparation to ensure that the wording is clear and not ambiguous.

for a law introduced in a matter of days from inception to passing (albeit a temporary law as it is time limited) it would be virtually impossible to avoid it being ambiguous, contradictory and not as clear as it could be.

these are just excuses why you should be allowed to carry on and do what you want to do, all I am saying is that people should avoid trying to find an excuse to do what they want, and just knuckle down and follow the intent of the laws. 

We are talking elsewhere of the soldiers that saw it as their duty to go to war, well it is our duty in this new war against the pandemic to follow the intent of the rules and stay at home as much as is practicably possible to slow the spread. to ease the burden on the NHS and to try and beat this thing, we wont beat it by ignoring the intent of the rules.

[Meantime]

43 minutes ago, grendel said:

these are just excuses why you should be allowed to carry on and do what you want to do, all I am saying is that people should avoid trying to find an excuse to do what they want, and just knuckle down and follow the intent of the laws. 

I wonder if you'll still be saying that after the third and fourth and fifth lock down!!!

What people NEED to do is change their habits permanently and learn to live safely with the virus else it will just be ground hog day. My opinion has changed from the position I took in the first lockdown when I was very much pro stay at home and follow the rules. I am still very much pro follow the rules, but do realise that the rules have changed and are less restrictive in line with what the PM said in his speech before the second lock down.

After the first lock down ended I carried on with very modified behaviour over and above what the rules of the time said I had to do. Many millions of people did not, which is why we are back in another form of lock down. Full lockdown only suppresses the virus until lock down is over and people return to normal.

It has long been accepted that if you want to loose weight going on a diet is not the long term answer. You loose some weight, you get bored you return to eating normally and you put the weight back on again. If you want to loose weight and keep it off you have to change your unhealthy diet for a healthy one permanently. My view of this virus is the same. We all need to change our behaviour permanently, or at least until there is a vaccine.

That is why the government has made the second lock down less restrictive, but if people follow the basic rules it will work. Wash your hands, cover your face and keep your distance. For me that is 2m minimum even with a mask, preferably further if for any reason you are not wearing one.

I have visited pubs between the two lock downs. Did I visit a pub in the last five days before the second lock down? No because I knew that so many would crowd in for that last opportunity to visit a pub before lockdown. The virus doesn't work to a time scale, it didn't wait until lock down started. The last thing I wanted to do was visit a pub and catch the virus a day before lock down started.

Did I join the masses piling into the supermarkets before lock down started, No I waited until the first day of lock down and went then when the supermarket was empty. Now some using the logic shown on this thread might have questioned why I didn't stock up before the lock down and therefore avoid an "unneccssary" journey during lock down. Well sorry I used some educated logic and went when I knew it would be very much quieter and most importantly safer for me. 

My less restrictive lock down for myself started 5 days before the official second lock down started.

The government Bill says you can travel for recreation, and doesn't put a limit on that. It doesn't even ban using public transport for going to an outdoor place for recreation, but suggests it should be avoided. That is not me trying to find ways to do what I want to do, nor looking for ways to break the rules, or the spirit or the intent, it is what has been written in law by the government.

We need a few less mind police on this forum and a few more people prepared to change their behaviour, not just now during this lock down, but for the foreseeable until a vaccine arrives.

[Paladin]

3 hours ago, Vaughan said:

So a straight question please :

From what I am reading here it seems that my daughter can travel from home at Potter Heigham to Stalham where our boat is moored and where the boatyard is still open for business.  It also seems that if we were a national park, she could go out for the day in it.  But all of a sudden, the Broads is not a national park!

Have I got that right?

No, it's got nothing to do with national park status. The law says you can leave your home to go for exercise and/or recreation. There is no specified time or distance limit. The mode of transport isn't mentioned, either. So she could use her boat to go to somewhere that she wishes to take exercise. Also, private boating, in all its forms, has been said to be recreation, so exercise doesn't have to be the purpose of the journey.

3 hours ago, grendel said:

Paladin, you are totally avoiding getting the point of lockdown, it shouldnt be a case of travelling no matter the distance, its that unless there is an absolutely essential reason, we should not be doing it, in my book visiting a boat to go on a jolly isnt an absolute essential, and they have already said winterisation and maintenance are not considered essential, so how is a day trip on the boat more essential than that.

You can live within the new regulations, but you would still have to persuade a police officer that your trip to the boat (for non maintenance or winterisation) was more essential than those two reasons.

its not a case of finding legal loopholes to allow you to do things - its about restricting your travel to absolute essentials to prevent the spread of the virus, its about doing the RIGHT thing to protect everyone.

These aren't legal loopholes, which implies an attempt to evade the intent of the law. These are legally allowed exemptions from the law, specifically put into the law. Clear for all to read and understand.

30 minutes ago, grendel said:

these are just excuses why you should be allowed to carry on and do what you want to do, all I am saying is that people should avoid trying to find an excuse to do what they want, and just knuckle down and follow the intent of the laws. 

We are talking elsewhere of the soldiers that saw it as their duty to go to war, well it is our duty in this new war against the pandemic to follow the intent of the rules and stay at home as much as is practicably possible to slow the spread. to ease the burden on the NHS and to try and beat this thing, we wont beat it by ignoring the intent of the rules.

I refer to my previous answer. These aren't excuses. They are what the law specifically allows. I have no intention of putting myself or anyone else at risk. I am fully aware of the intent of the regulations, and abide by them.

I also take note of guidance, such as hand washing, social distancing etc. But I will not be told I cannot do something when the law doesn't forbid that behaviour.

In my opinion, those who give out false information and misrepresent, either intentionally or in error, what is and isn't permitted under the regulations, bring the regulations into disrupute. I will have no part of that.

[grendel]

well all of the radio adverts I hear are saying you must stay at home, then list the few exceptions where you can go out, what i am hearing here is people listing the exact word of the law as a reason to carry on and do what they want, rather than abide by the general starting point of staying at home, while I may not have the legal background to interpret the new laws, it does seem to me that the main crux of the matter is stay at home unless its absolutely essential you must go out. taking exercise is one of those things listed, but it does seem to me to be stretching the boundaries to justify going out in your boat, if you lived at potter heigham and used the boat for a trip to lathams - or even heaven forbid, wroxham to go get some food or other essential shopping at Roys, i have no issue, even to go fishing i can see.but other than that what is essential about going out in a motor boat.

 

[ChrisB]

51 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

If that is your Eutopia I wonder if you have considered who is going to finance it, in the years to come?

There are those who have often criticised our capitalist society but it has its benefits!

Less long haul travel means the death of the airlines and all the related businesses that depend on them for parts, maintenance, supply, logistics, catering, airports and all that. Millions of jobs.

Who will pay my daughter's pension when she retires, if the government can't afford to pay it, because not enough people have work, in the "office based" jobs that you decry? Even my own pension may be at risk in the next few years, for all I know.

Those people who wanted to live a more healthy life style according to green issues were not stopped from doing so if they wished, pre COVID. There was no government dictat that prevented them.

 

 

I am not decrying anything and it certainly is not my Eutopia, I prefered things the way they were, and with half my family in Australia, I and they long haul on a regular basis.

But there is no point being in denial of the fact that when we conquer Coronavirus, which I am sure mankind will, we shall awake to a very different World to the one we had 12 months ago.

[ExSurveyor]

The whole reason we have lockdown 2 is because a sizeable minority completely ignored Hands, Face, Space.

I do get that going out on your own boat or even working on it is not a high risk action.

Unfortunately we have all been penalized because some sections of society can't follow the basics.

 

[Poppy]

2 hours ago, floydraser said:

The law doesn't say you have to wash your hands.

The law doesn't say that when out walking and you have to open a gate, you can't then scratch your nose.

The law doesn't say you have to wipe down supermarket food which may have been handled on the shelf.

The law doesn't say the post you just received has to be clean.

Some people are so obsessed with the law that are ignoring the greater danger from the virus.

Helioproctosis I'm afraid.

[Meantime]

5 minutes ago, grendel said:

while I may not have the legal background to interpret the new laws,

You do not need a legal background to interpret them, just read them as they are written.

5.—(1) No person may leave or be outside of the place where they are living without reasonable excuse.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)— (a) the circumstances in which a person has a reasonable excuse include where one of the exceptions set out in regulation 6 applies;

Exceptions: leaving home 6.—(1) These are the exceptions referred to in regulation 5.

(d) to visit a public outdoor place for the purposes of open air recreation— (i) alone, (ii) with— (aa) one or more members of their household, their linked household, or

There are 10 specified exemptions. I have read the whole document and there are no time or distance restrictions other than the no overnight stays away from home, with a few limited exceptions for overnight stays. There are also no restrictions on the mode of transport used during any of those 10 exceptions.

 

[Vaughan]

3 minutes ago, ChrisB said:

But there is no point being in denial of the fact that when we conquer Coronavirus, which I am sure mankind will, we shall awake to a very different World to the one we had 12 months ago.

I am not in denial - by no means - and this is exactly what I greatly fear for the future.

I wonder if the Norfolk Broads will turn out to be the same place that we have come to love, because we complacently thought it would always be the same?

Either we fight for it, or we lose it.