New coronavirus laws in England have made it illegal for couples who live in different homes to have sex indoors and stay overnight.

The Health Protection Regulations previously banned people leaving home without “reasonable excuse”, but the provision has been replaced by stringent curbs on where people can sleep and gather together.


So who is going to police this and How?
Max.

 

New coronavirus laws in England have made it illegal for couples who live in different homes to have sex indoors and stay overnight.

I suppose outdoors is ok, then?

 

New coronavirus laws in England have made it illegal for couples who live in different homes to have sex indoors and stay overnight.
Max.

I would expect nothing less from that government. "Flattening the curve" has nothing to do with reducing the area under the the curve. DUH.

Moderator's note: A derisive term was replaced by the word "government".

 

I suppose outdoors is ok, then?

You know how those brits take good care of their gardens? Now you know why.

 

New coronavirus laws in England have made it illegal for couples who live in different homes to have sex indoors and stay overnight.

So, if you have sex indoors, don't spend the night. Only nooners!

 

New coronavirus laws in England have made it illegal for couples who live in different homes to have sex indoors and stay overnight.

The Health Protection Regulations previously banned people leaving home without “reasonable excuse”, but the provision has been replaced by stringent curbs on where people can sleep and gather together.


So who is going to police this and How?
Max.

They will use data from 5g/smartphone network, automatically send you a fine, second offense cut off your bank access.
See, easy-peasy!

 

I would expect nothing less from that dictatorship. "Flattening the curve" has nothing to do with reducing the area under the the curve. DUH

Hi john,
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about in suggesting that the UK is a Dictatorship, the above Quote is a load of misinformed rubbish.!

Nowhere has it been suggested that flattening the curve reduced the area under the curve,[ duh indeed], it means reduce the rate of hospital admissions to a manageable level, so as not to exceed the available bed spaces and medical staff.

Really John you need to do check on the credibility of your information sources.!

Eric

 

@ericgibbs

You may not like the characterization of stay at home orders, dress codes, behavior codes, restricted travel, travel only with authorization, jailing and fines without trial, prohibition of elective medical procedures,* restrictions on what can and cannot be said about the virus, and other quasi-laws implemented as a political response to coronavirus, but it is a common characterization of those actions done by one person (in most states) and without legislative debate. Perhaps you feel it is more than a little exaggerated. That's your opinion. I disagree.

As for my comment that flattening the curve was not intended to change the area under the curve, and perhaps it did not, my information is accurate. The way I stated it was accurate. The approach also left most hospitals in the US virtually empty. Some areas were hard hit, but MOST were not. The Mayo Clinic was almost vacant. It was forced to lay off and furlough employees for the first time in its history.

Not all cities in the United States are like New York City. In fact, the vast majority are quite different.

John

*I know of at least one instance in which medical care of a patient who was in critical need of a transplant was delayed because operation to obtain the organ from a living donor was deemed "elective" in accord with a politician's decision.

 

You may not like the characterization of stay at home orders, dress codes, behavior codes, restricted travel, travel only with authorization, jailing and fines without trial, prohibition of elective medical procedures,* restrictions on what can and cannot be said about the virus, and other quasi-laws implemented as a political response to coronavirus, but it is a common characterization of those actions done by one person (in most states) and without legislative debate.

hi John,
You are confusing good Government leadership in applying the above 'restrictions' in order to protect the health and well being of its peoples with a Dictatorship which I find puzzling and somewhat offensive.
As almost all the Governments of European countries have applied the same rules and guidelines for their people in order to control the virus, are you suggesting they too are Dictatorships.?
Some Euro countries who have not adopted the above guideline are sadly now paying the price.

As you can guess it is your suggestion that our Democratically elected Government is a Dictatorship which sticks in my craw.

E
This is a non Political point of view, I would support the Government formed by any of our National Parties in a time of National crisis, its called Patriotism.

 

hi John,
You are confusing good Government leadership in applying the above 'restrictions' in order to protect the health and well being of its peoples with a Dictatorship which I find puzzling and somewhat offensive.
As almost all the Governments of European countries have applied the same rules and guidelines for their people in order to control the virus, are you suggesting they too are Dictatorships.?
Some Euro countries who have not adopted the above guideline are sadly now paying the price.

As you can guess it is your suggestion that our Democratically elected Government is a Dictatorship which sticks in my craw.

E
This is a non Political point of view, I would support the Government formed by any of our National Parties in a time of National crisis, its called Patriotism.

Hi Eric,

You seem hellbent on dragging this into a political discussion. Of course as a moderator, you seem free to do that. As an ordinary member, I risk being banned for participating. Say whatever you want. This will be my last response to you on the subject.

I do not consider decisions made in NY by its governor to return coronavirus patients to nursing homes "good government."

 

hi John,
Again John you deliberately misreading what being posted, It is clear I am not making a Political point, its got nothing to do with Politics, its a discussion on how the current virus crisis is being handled in the UK...

The jibe about me being a Moderator, so I can discuss Politics is below the belt and unworthy of the person I have known as John for quite sometime.

So I withdraw from this discussion/debate.

Eric

 

So I withdraw from this discussion/debate.

I will enter with a restriction of one (this one) reply. We submit to rules and regulations in the name of public safety ALL THE TIME. For example, we have sewers and sewer treatment plants and must hook up our houses to them to prevent contamination of water supplies. We have speed limits on roads and highways. We have restrictions on the use of certain chemicals. We have air quality standards. We have food handling regulations. All in the name of health and safety. The current pandemic has added to these rules and regulations in the name of public health and safety. Are some people harmed by these rules and regulations? Yes. However, the objective is to make life better and safer for most people. The transplant candidate would be an example. One transplant candidate dies so hundreds of New York patients who need a ventilator can survive. This is the objective of "flattening the curve". Someone can disagree with the rules and regulations. Indeed, there has definitely been an overreaction in some areas. Time will tell. However, having rules and regulations does not mean we live under a dictatorship or the government is acting with ulterior motives. Thanks for reading.

 

We're living in a time when no single approach to solving the conundrum we're facing will please every side. Some cry foul, some defend hard decisions as necessary.

Frankly, I wouldn't know what to do myself were I be a world (or even a local) leader. Of course I would lean on science for all my decisions. But there's science, and then there's people who either don't understand or don't care about science... and then there are pseudo-scientist quacks out there that don't help either.

All I can do at the moment is protect my family the best I can while I make the effort to sustain them, and advice my friends to the best of my knowledge. And control myself and try to moderate my rhetoric so as not to alienate both.

 

But there's science, and then there's people who either don't understand or don't care about science...

Science doesn't make decisions. People do.

And people also do science.

Sometimes, people are wrong.

 

First off, all of the normal public safety and health regulations aren't hurting anybody.

Second, can somebody please explain how this works...

"The transplant candidate would be an example. One transplant candidate dies so hundreds of New York patients who need a ventilator can survive."

 

​

 

First off, all of the normal public safety and health regulations aren't hurting anybody.

Second, can somebody please explain how this works...

"The transplant candidate would be an example. One transplant candidate dies so hundreds of New York patients who need a ventilator can survive."

This references a post which claims someone died because a transplant was deemed "non essential" as part of a hospital shutdown. You have to follow the thread back to get all of my response. Not worth it.

 

https://bdtechtalks.com/2020/05/25/coroanavirus-artificial-intelligence-mistakes/

The coronavirus lockdown has broken many things, including the AI algorithms that seemed to be working so smoothly before. Warehouses that depended on machine learning to keep their stock filled at all times are no longer able to predict the right items that need to be replenished. Fraud detection systems that home in on anomalous behavior are confused by new shopping and spending habits. And shopping recommendations just aren’t as good as they used to be.

 

Yesterday I ordered new socks and various vitamins and they were delivered today! I can't help but love Amazon. Maybe it's because Amazon has a big operation in the Minneapolis area so it doesn't have far to go. Also, my barber shop is open! I'm a 3 week haircut guy, and it's been three months. Gonna risk it and get this shag cut off tomorrow.

I've been mulling over a question recently, maybe someone has an answer. With all the talk of herd immunity, if you took a random sample of individuals, say 100, and completely saturate them with the virus, would some neither get sick nor exhibit anti-bodies? So a month later you have some dead and some recovered with anti-bodies; are there individuals that are neither? Obviously this would be unethical to undertake, but I wonder if some quarantined cruise ships may provide a basis for this.

I've assumed that EVERYONE is at risk with the virus, but if some people don't have the right XYZ receptor or whatever and simply cannot acquire or spread the disease, then the herd immunity equation could change significantly.

So far this is the only related article I've found:

https://www.immunopaedia.org.za/bre...rinsic-immunity-to-resist-covid-19-challenge/

The third very important factor is the issue of extensive HLA diversity of the Indian population with existence of several ‘novel alleles’ and ‘unique haplotypes’.

 

There are people with natural immunity to HIV so I'm sure some people/groups have natural immunity to this weak (in terms of killing those infected) virus.
https://aidsinfo.nih.gov/news/310/scientists-confirm-natural-resistance-to-hiv-1

I also think the needed percentage levels given in the press for herd immunity are too high. IMO we should see drastic reductions in country wide R0 at much lower total general population antibody levels as the asymptomatic spreader (school kids, younger service/office workers, etc ...) ratios increase within their groups due to much higher daily interaction with others like them.