The Sun are reporting that the fines will be a minimum of £30 and up to £1000. That isn't enough, and in any case we don't have anywhere near enough police to enforce it. They won't do it initially, but when people continue to ignore it they will have no option to deploy troops onto the street with arrest rights.
How long before Coronavirus impacts Football?
- Thread starter Big Cat
- Start date
- Status
The Sun are reporting that the fines will be a minimum of £30 and up to £1000. That isn't enough, and in any case we don't have anywhere near enough police to enforce it. They won't do it initially, but when people continue to ignore it they will have no option to deploy troops onto the street with arrest rights.
zarathustra
RefChat Addict
I think that's a big step in giving the Army etc power of arrest, the RMP, RAFP, and SP (Navy Shore Patrol) have powers of arrest but I think that only extends to service personnel.
I think we'd be more likely to see a police officer teamed up with some squaddies, so they can spread the police out whilst still giving them support.
We've pulled our 4 installation teams off the road after tonight! All will return home tomorrow. 3 weeks, 6 weeks, who knows.... No point in pointless installation work when its not that essential to what's really going on. Keep safe peeps.
Opinion | Is Our Fight Against Coronavirus Worse Than the Disease? (Published 2020)
There may be more targeted ways to beat the pandemic.
Not agreeing or disagreeing with this piece but it was an interesting read...
Opinion | Is Our Fight Against Coronavirus Worse Than the Disease? (Published 2020)
There may be more targeted ways to beat the pandemic.www.nytimes.com
Not agreeing or disagreeing with this piece but it was an interesting read...
I would counter that with this. We can only go on what is really happening, and this video is heart breaking ...
The emergency legislation which gives the government power to instruct people to stay at home has not yet made its way through parliament so at the moment not even police have the power to enforce the lockdown. It will take even longer to give soldiers the power of arrest but I guess they could accompany and assist a police officer who will make the official arrest.
But, I think the majority of people will respect the lockdown which will leave a manageable number of people for the police to deal with.
⛰️Places To Visit This Weekend
Safe places to visit during the COVID-19 pandemic
placestovisitthisweekend.com
You can Like and Subscribe to the website below! Its giving a fantastic list of things to do in the next few weeks!!! You all be thanking me in a few months!!!
Kes
I'll Decide ...
The British Army (that's the whole of the UK) currently numbers around 75,000. That couldn't fill Wembley stadium. We have a population of circa 67 million.
Of that 75,000 troops, is included drivers, nurses, chefs, clerks, mechanics, medics, etc. Add to that the number of whom are self-isolating, have young kids etc. The fact is, the Army would struggle to make 5000 "street worthy" troops available nationwide.
Military involvement in this will be mainly restricted to logistical support to retailers, NHS production lines and for those that are trained medical staff, support to the NHS hands-on.
The notion of "troops on the streets" enforcing security is pie in the sky.
It does appear that the science hereto, is focused solely on immediate NHS burden and deaths caused directly by Covid-19Opinion | Is Our Fight Against Coronavirus Worse Than the Disease? (Published 2020)
There may be more targeted ways to beat the pandemic.
Not agreeing or disagreeing with this piece but it was an interesting read...
It is essential IMO, that the modelling begins to account for the much wider picture
Thinking of football alone;
the 'suppression model' will likely leave us with no football (other than perhaps behind closed doors on an occasional basis) until 2022
Kes
I'll Decide ...
Possibly.
Unlikely though.
It's expected that an effective vaccine will have been developed before Christmas 2020.
Most of the measures in place as you say, are merely damage limitation until then whilst the virus ravages the globe.
The airline industry (safest way to travel if the stats are manipulated) effectively puts a number on every passenger's head. That's the cost to the airline, per passenger in the event of a fatal crash. It's that number which has contributed to the safety of travel, because the Industry spends huge sums on crash investigation etc. But that number is not infinite, not by a long chalk. So why are governments solely focused on saving lives in the immediacy, without seemingly taking into account anything else? And why at any cost per life?
Now I do have my own answers to my own question, but I'm bemused that the bigger picture is seemingly being ignored
The same government, who for instance introduced Smart Motorways with sanctuaries every mile and half... with deaths at a price (or saving) per person
I don't necessarily want the world left in tatters, if the 'life years' lost (of those who lose theirs) don't warrant the consequences
That can be viewed as selfish, but not if anyone reads into the argument
Now I do have my own answers to my own question, but I'm bemused that the bigger picture is seemingly being ignored
The same government, who for instance introduced Smart Motorways with sanctuaries every mile and half... with deaths at a price (or saving) per person
I don't necessarily want the world left in tatters, if the 'life years' lost (of those who lose theirs) don't warrant the consequences
That can be viewed as selfish, but not if anyone reads into the argument
Last edited:
Kes
I'll Decide ...
Human emotion dictates that a government will do whatever it thinks will be the more "popular" option.
People dying and crying will always trump anything else - even if it is an immediacy thing. Snowflake Britain still thinks that people's feelings in the short term are the most important thing in the world.
It takes something like this to ground everybody back to Maslow-type thinking eventually - but not before all the dribbling and hand-wringing has run it's course.
A couple of years down the line when investigations are undertaken and everybody is up in arms and asking "Why didn't the government/police/NHS etc do this or that - you know, blame culture going back into full swing, people will forget all about how selfish and stupid they were.
afronaut81
Well-Known Member
I understand the argument but what government is going to throw 500,000 people and it's healthcare system and workers under the bus?
Kes
I'll Decide ...
Correct.
That's why it won't happen. Whatever does happen though - you can rest assured that it will all somehow be the government's fault ...
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
A vaccine might have been developed already, but testing, producing and delivering is open ended.
A vaccine would seem to be the only way out of this. The idea of quarterly lockdown cycles vs overflowing morgues is surely too horrific.
I’d like to start hearing about massive money for virus research and ideally some kind of international cooperation so it doesn’t become a chip to exploit vulnerable nations/groups.
Kes
I'll Decide ...
The financial backlash from this is going to cause years of "austerity" and uncertainty for the UK. I'd be expecting Income Tax and National Insurance to rise for everybody.
I'd guess "massive money" won't be available. Unsure of what you mean by the second part of your post(?)
Yes, I agree. I understand the implications of the 'do nothing' or 'migration' approach
What we don't know and cannot know, is the overall impact of each strategy over decades to come. For all we know, 'do nothing' could have a net benefit to health, before we even account for anything else
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Imagine of pharma giant X, Y or Z "owns" the vaccine. Imagine how much it will cost Nigeria, or Greece...The financial backlash from this is going to cause years of "austerity" and uncertainty for the UK. I'd be expecting Income Tax and National Insurance to rise for everybody.
I'd guess "massive money" won't be available. Unsure of what you mean by the second part of your post(?)
The money was my point. Reading about all the massive govt stimulus packages, it's a lot pf money, insane money, more money than governments have ever spent before (except the US on wars). And we just don't know what is going to happen. They could spend all this money, only to have another lockdown in 4,5,6 months time. Can they then spend again?
What I'm getting at is that, surely a vaccine is the only exit from this, and whatever it costs it has to be worth the money. Perhaps it's not even worth pumping money into businesses if it's going to be wasted. Of course govts have to be seen to act, but I wonder how much of these miracle packages will actually be immediate. Surely govt bean counters across the globe are thinking they can't spend everything now in case it is wasted... just thinking aloud...
Meanwhile a joint Finn-US team has already developed an antibody test, that shows if you've had Covid and if you have antibodies. First reports are it can be mass produced and quick. Is it the kind of thing that could lead to groups of people returning to perform important tasks e.g. health workers and also footballers.
I can't see how there are going to events with big crowds any time soon, which makes me think that behind closed doors is going to happen, just a question of when, who and how it gets dressed up. I'd much rather have a CGI fake crowd and "canned" atmos than empty stadiums... it "worked" for TV comedies and computer games!
Kes
I'll Decide ...
I see what you mean.
Sadly, governments don't (and won't) think like that.
Irrespective of all the drama and panic, the fact remains that this virus generally only kills the old/fragile/medically already-at-risk. The vast majority of people who contract it (virtually everybody) are going to be okay. Politicians will not plough endless amounts of cash into a vaccine research project or distribution initiative that won't leave enough cash for the rest of us to survive economically in either the short or long term.
Just playing devil's advocate here but what is the point of spending billions saving the old/sick/whatever in the short term if the long term outcome is millions of surviving people starving/dying because of the global impact on economies/productivity/transport/fuel distribution etc?
As alluded to earlier, there are millions of 3rd world countries that rely on the likes of the UK/US/China/other 1st World nations to be fully functioning and not go into meltdown already before we start worrying about whether or not some pharma giant is going to deny any vaccine to the 3-5% of them who actually need it anyway. Two sides to every coin mate.
- Status