On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:38:54 +0100
Robin wrote:
On 01/06/2020 14:39, MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 01/06/2020 10:07, wrote:

Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing
their decisions on other people.Â* I'm fed up with the lycras around
here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.

But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry
to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.

And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing"
will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your distance..?


As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage from
them - starting many years ago.

Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*.

Social distancing in its current form was simply another method of scaring
the public. "No! Don't go near anyone, you might die!" Etc. Making people
afraid - sometimes with a visible enemy (real or fabricated), sometimes not -
so you can control their behaviour more easily is a tried and tested method of
governments down the ages. Its utterly cynical, anti democratic and I have no
time for it.

On 02/06/2020 09:37, wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:38:54 +0100
Robin wrote:
On 01/06/2020 14:39, MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 01/06/2020 10:07, wrote:

Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing
their decisions on other people.ÂÂ* I'm fed up with the lycras around
here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.

But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry
to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.

And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing"
will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your distance..?


As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage from
them - starting many years ago.

Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*.

Social distancing in its current form was simply another method of scaring
the public. "No! Don't go near anyone, you might die!" Etc. Making people
afraid - sometimes with a visible enemy (real or fabricated), sometimes not -
so you can control their behaviour more easily is a tried and tested method of
governments down the ages. Its utterly cynical, anti democratic and I have no
time for it.


ROTFL

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:38:54 +0100
Robin wrote:
On 01/06/2020 14:39, MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 01/06/2020 10:07, wrote:

Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing
their decisions on other people.Â* I'm fed up with the lycras around
here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.

But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry
to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.

And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing"
will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your distance..?


As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage from
them - starting many years ago.

Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*.

Social distancing in its current form was simply another method of scaring
the public. "No! Don't go near anyone, you might die!" Etc. Making people
afraid - sometimes with a visible enemy (real or fabricated), sometimes not -
so you can control their behaviour more easily is a tried and tested method of
governments down the ages. Its utterly cynical, anti democratic and I have no
time for it.



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/01/two-metre-rule-halves-chances-catching-coronavirus-first-major/

On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 10:04:38 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 02/06/2020 09:37, wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:38:54 +0100
Robin wrote:
On 01/06/2020 14:39, MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 01/06/2020 10:07, wrote:

Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing
their decisions on other people.ÂÂ* I'm fed up with the lycras around
here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.

But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry
to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.

And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing"
will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your distance..?


As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage from
them - starting many years ago.

Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*.

Social distancing in its current form was simply another method of scaring
the public. "No! Don't go near anyone, you might die!" Etc. Making people
afraid - sometimes with a visible enemy (real or fabricated), sometimes not -

so you can control their behaviour more easily is a tried and tested method
of
governments down the ages. Its utterly cynical, anti democratic and I have
no
time for it.


ROTFL

Roll all you like. Governments have been playing the fear card for months now
but as Sweden and Japan have shown, this virus isn't nearly as contagious
or deadly as they would have us believe.

On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 10:03:14 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:38:54 +0100
Robin wrote:
On 01/06/2020 14:39, MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 01/06/2020 10:07, wrote:

Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing
their decisions on other people.Â* I'm fed up with the lycras around
here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.

But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry
to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.

And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing"
will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your distance..?


As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage from
them - starting many years ago.

Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*.

Social distancing in its current form was simply another method of scaring
the public. "No! Don't go near anyone, you might die!" Etc. Making people
afraid - sometimes with a visible enemy (real or fabricated), sometimes not
-
so you can control their behaviour more easily is a tried and tested method
of
governments down the ages. Its utterly cynical, anti democratic and I have
no
time for it.



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...s-chances-catc
hing-coronavirus-first-major/

Halving it from a 3% change of catching it in IIRC 15 mins down to 1.5% is
virtually irrelevant and certainly not worth thousands of businesses going
bust because of this stupid rule. Frankly I'm surprised retailers haven't just
given the goverment the finger and just ignore it since if I owned a business
that was on the verge of going bust if I didn't then whats to lose.

On 02/06/2020 11:35, wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 10:03:14 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...s-chances-catc
hing-coronavirus-first-major/

Halving it from a 3% change of catching it in IIRC 15 mins down to 1.5% is
virtually irrelevant and certainly not worth thousands of businesses going
bust because of this stupid rule. Frankly I'm surprised retailers haven't just
given the goverment the finger and just ignore it since if I owned a business
that was on the verge of going bust if I didn't then whats to lose.

I haven't read the study[1] to see exactly how long one must remain 2 m
away to have a 3% chance of infection, but I imagine that those risks
add up quickly in a public-facing profession or social activity.

www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext;
hidden from those who funded it by Elsevier parasites

wrote:

Roll all you like. Governments have been playing the fear card for months now
but as Sweden and Japan have shown, this virus isn't nearly as contagious
or deadly as they would have us believe.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/swed...-herd-immunity

On Tue, 02 Jun 2020 07:04:37 -0500
Arthur Conan Doyle wrote:
wrote:

Roll all you like. Governments have been playing the fear card for months now
but as Sweden and Japan have shown, this virus isn't nearly as contagious
or deadly as they would have us believe.

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/swed...-herd-immunity

Wired? Give me a break. As for well and truly failed - how can a herd
immunity approach that has less deaths per million than belgium, UK, spain and
italy and only slight more than france which all had tight lockdowns be said to
have failed exactly?

Given the figures for virus deaths are all over the place for various
countries independent of whatever sort of lockdown they had, it seems pretty
clear to me the way this virus spreads is a lot more complex than the "experts"
think.

Lockdown or no lockdown, the thing that worries me the most is how many
of the small businesses and one-man bands will survive after all this..?
Charities which rely on shops for a good proportion if not the majority
of their income may go under.

I'm retired so I'm reasonably ok in that I don't have to go out to work,
although I'm by no means well off. But I do know many small traders and
they are very, very worried.

--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]

Recliner wrote:
David Jones wrote:
Robin wrote:

On 01/06/2020 14:39, MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 01/06/2020 10:07, wrote:

Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are
forcing their decisions on other people.* I'm fed up with the
lycras around here who've decided social distancing is
unnecessary.

But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or
Harry to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.

And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social
distancing" will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your
distance..?


As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage
from them - starting many years ago.

Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than
2m*.

*or possibly not if you are an Audi driver

No. "Social distancing" allows one to be close to anyone of the same
housewhold, while at leasat 2m from anyoned else


In the UK. In most other countries, it's 1.5m or 1m, or 6' in the US. The
WHO recommends at least 1m.

This article, looking at scientific studies, says the virus will be passed
on more if the social distancing distance is reduced from 2m:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ed-study-finds

--
Jeremy Double