• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Coronavirus precautions: Has the world gone mad?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
For IKEA even 30 minutes is less than a few days ago. I guess there was some pent-up demand for goods from IKEA given that they were inevitably closed for a couple of months.

The first day was bad...seems to have been fine ever since (weekends possibly excepted). We were there (Tottenham) on Wednesday late afternoon.

Although unbelievably, people were queueing for 30+ minutes for seemingly no other reason than to idly browse the 'cheap tat' section (e.g. the tealights, wooden spoons, etc)
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

nedchester

Established Member
Joined
28 May 2008
Messages
2,093
After some deep thought, I feel I can provide a more developed opinion on the question posed in the title of the thread.

The world has not 'gone mad', this virus has simply highlighted one of the key issues with today's modern society.

As a species, throughout history we have always had a fear of death and mortality. . We have been conditioned as a species through psychological evolution to fear death and to not think about it until the time is near, when we are finally forced to accept the eventual end to life that we face as mortal human beings. As society has developed throughout the centuries, society in general has deemed death as 'the worst possible thing ever'. Death has for centuries been used as the main deterrent to try and prevent people from doing things deemed by those in power as 'wrong' or 'unacceptable' through capital punishment. For centuries one of the things we have worked hardest on and devoted the most time to are those which prevent or delay death, this includes permanently locking away or even executing those who may cause someone to die and developing vaccines and medicines to try and slow down or prevent death from occurring through diseases prematurely. This is, in my opinion, a very positive fact for the most part, however it has some perhaps lesser known societal impacts.

Due to the fact that, essentially throughout history death has been our main enemy as a species, we have been conditioned to think that it is the worst possible outcome in life, and must be avoided at all costs. This is, for the most part a good thing as it allows us to live a long life without worrying about whether we'll die from a disease or get killed around the corner. However, what has happened here has highlighted one thing to us (or at least those of us that are able to take a step back and look at the wider picture), we have become so afraid of death, that it completely diminishes our perception of other risks and aspects of society. This pandemic has perfectly highlighted this fact. As soon as a virus that might cause preventable deaths, we as a species are programmed to immediately intervene as this has, in the culture and society we have developed, been conditioned as the 'right' thing to do. This is essentially what has happened here, and we have stopped almost all aspects of society to combat the one thing in society we are collectively all programmed to fear. This is arguably human nature, and this motivation to intervene and stop any preventable deaths from occurring has, throughout history, created some fantastic work. As a species we have created vaccines, medicines and healthcare systems dedicated to this cause, and this has allowed us to extend our life expectancy to avoid the one thing we as a species fear most for as long as possible. This psychological conditioning has however, in this situation, had an previously unseen side effect. Our fear of death has grown so great, it has blinded us to any other damage that may impact the society we have constructed or that may impact anything else in our lives.

Nations across the world have 'locked down' in order to save lives and stop any preventable deaths from occurring through this virus. This has been with good intent to save lives and follows the instincts of the human species. However, we are now at a point where we are starting to see the problems of being so 'afraid' of death as a society. We are now at a point where, in order to allow society to continue to function and to allow for the best outcome for the greatest majority (my beliefs are mostly utilitarian as you can probably tell), we now have to do the one thing that throughout history we have been conditioned to never do. We need to accept death, and that in order for us to continue as a functional society, we are going to have to allow some preventable deaths to occur. The issue with this situation is that modern human culture, which is essentially a product of historical and social beliefs, deems allowing any preventable deaths as 'wrong', so we are now at a point where we either do the 'right' thing and actually hinder the development (benefitting the minority, hindering the majority) of the society we have constructed due to a historical belief, or we do the 'wrong' thing and we allow us as a species to continue developing and shaping the society we live in (benefitting the majority, hindering the small minority). In my personal opinion, it would be better to accept that there will be some preventable deaths and that this is a small price to pay to allow our species to continue living in a functional society. If we do not accept this, then we face the situation that until we are able to prevent the preventable deaths through other means, society will be paused, freedoms restricted, and livelihoods (another construct of society) will be lost. It seems that our government, alongside many others in the world, are afraid to admit that we will have to accept preventable deaths, and understandably so as it goes against our psychological construct as a species, however it is, in my opinion for the greater good and the sooner we are able to accept that this is a unique situation and that, whilst it is extremely sad we will lose people to this virus, it's not worth sacrificing the economy, the education of our children, our livelihoods, our mental wellbeing, our freedoms, and many more aspects of our current society.

Inevitably, if we do not want to stay in this societal limbo until we obtain a vaccination for this virus, we have no choice but to accept that a small number of preventable deaths will occur, and that this is, whilst very sad, a necessary fact to face in order to benefit the vast majority and to prevent many aspects of our current society, including the economy and our level of education (school/unis closing) from being lost due to not being willing to expose a very small number of those in society to the one thing that as a species we are conditioned to fear most.

A fantastic summing up of the current situation and reflects very much the way I feel.

Excellent stuff.
 

BJames

Established Member
Joined
27 Jan 2018
Messages
1,365
As above, a fantastic summation and a really well-thought out post.

Don't know if anyone's seen but I think the over the top precautions have simply just got too much for some. The Manchester Evening News and the BBC are reporting that two raves were held in Manchester last night (violence did occur). Sacha Lord, Parklife boss and "Night time economy adviser for Greater Manchester" used the line "You’ve now put yourselves, your friends, your families and loved ones at risk". I think the rave shows that people have quite simply had enough of being told "don't do this, you'll kill someone" - whilst not advocating an illegal rave, I do think the government needs to recognise and be aware of the fact that more of these events will happen the longer people are told they can't do something, despite the use of emotive language to try and guilt trip people. The effect of this language has worn off on me now and I daresay it's not going to be long before it starts to do the same on more people.
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,096
Boris's enforced absence from the helm was another factor, but it shouldn't have been a problem. Maybe Boris is a one-man band and doesn't share his thoughts, or have universal agreement within the Cabinet. That would not be good news, and maybe that is the cause of that problem.
Boris (and/or Cummings) deliberately chose Cabinet members who wouldn't challenge him on any level, with possibly two exceptions, those being Gove and Javid. Javid, it was probably thought, had to be in the Cabinet but, at any sign of him or his advisers going native, he'd be culled, and that is what happened. Gove is a far more interesting case and imo not nearly enough attention is given to his pivotal role in things. Given Johnson's propensity for dropping anyone who disagrees with him publically (and, probably, privately) and bearing considerable grudges it's amazing that the guy who put paid to his plans to become Tory leader immediately post-Cameron is still in the fold UNLESS it was an unbreakable part of the deal that Cummings pulled off to secure his seemingly impregnable position now. I've no doubt that Gove is the cleverest person in the Cabinet, and possibly the most Machiavellian, but then he wasn't born with the silver spoon in his mouth, unlike so many of them.
 

greyman42

Established Member
Joined
14 Aug 2017
Messages
4,947
I think the worm will turn on the approach to Christmas at the latest. I can't see people being told they can't meet up with friends and family, and socialise over the festive season being acceptable on a population scale.
In the real world, people are already meeting up with who they want, when they want and doing what they want.
 

87electric

Member
Joined
27 Jan 2010
Messages
1,023
After some deep thought, I feel I can provide a more developed opinion on the question posed in the title of the thread.

The world has not 'gone mad', this virus has simply highlighted one of the key issues with today's modern society.

As a species, throughout history we have always had a fear of death and mortality. . We have been conditioned as a species through psychological evolution to fear death and to not think about it until the time is near, when we are finally forced to accept the eventual end to life that we face as mortal human beings. As society has developed throughout the centuries, society in general has deemed death as 'the worst possible thing ever'. Death has for centuries been used as the main deterrent to try and prevent people from doing things deemed by those in power as 'wrong' or 'unacceptable' through capital punishment. For centuries one of the things we have worked hardest on and devoted the most time to are those which prevent or delay death, this includes permanently locking away or even executing those who may cause someone to die and developing vaccines and medicines to try and slow down or prevent death from occurring through diseases prematurely. This is, in my opinion, a very positive fact for the most part, however it has some perhaps lesser known societal impacts.

Due to the fact that, essentially throughout history death has been our main enemy as a species, we have been conditioned to think that it is the worst possible outcome in life, and must be avoided at all costs. This is, for the most part a good thing as it allows us to live a long life without worrying about whether we'll die from a disease or get killed around the corner. However, what has happened here has highlighted one thing to us (or at least those of us that are able to take a step back and look at the wider picture), we have become so afraid of death, that it completely diminishes our perception of other risks and aspects of society. This pandemic has perfectly highlighted this fact. As soon as a virus that might cause preventable deaths, we as a species are programmed to immediately intervene as this has, in the culture and society we have developed, been conditioned as the 'right' thing to do. This is essentially what has happened here, and we have stopped almost all aspects of society to combat the one thing in society we are collectively all programmed to fear. This is arguably human nature, and this motivation to intervene and stop any preventable deaths from occurring has, throughout history, created some fantastic work. As a species we have created vaccines, medicines and healthcare systems dedicated to this cause, and this has allowed us to extend our life expectancy to avoid the one thing we as a species fear most for as long as possible. This psychological conditioning has however, in this situation, had an previously unseen side effect. Our fear of death has grown so great, it has blinded us to any other damage that may impact the society we have constructed or that may impact anything else in our lives.

Nations across the world have 'locked down' in order to save lives and stop any preventable deaths from occurring through this virus. This has been with good intent to save lives and follows the instincts of the human species. However, we are now at a point where we are starting to see the problems of being so 'afraid' of death as a society. We are now at a point where, in order to allow society to continue to function and to allow for the best outcome for the greatest majority (my beliefs are mostly utilitarian as you can probably tell), we now have to do the one thing that throughout history we have been conditioned to never do. We need to accept death, and that in order for us to continue as a functional society, we are going to have to allow some preventable deaths to occur. The issue with this situation is that modern human culture, which is essentially a product of historical and social beliefs, deems allowing any preventable deaths as 'wrong', so we are now at a point where we either do the 'right' thing and actually hinder the development (benefitting the minority, hindering the majority) of the society we have constructed due to a historical belief, or we do the 'wrong' thing and we allow us as a species to continue developing and shaping the society we live in (benefitting the majority, hindering the small minority). In my personal opinion, it would be better to accept that there will be some preventable deaths and that this is a small price to pay to allow our species to continue living in a functional society. If we do not accept this, then we face the situation that until we are able to prevent the preventable deaths through other means, society will be paused, freedoms restricted, and livelihoods (another construct of society) will be lost. It seems that our government, alongside many others in the world, are afraid to admit that we will have to accept preventable deaths, and understandably so as it goes against our psychological construct as a species, however it is, in my opinion for the greater good and the sooner we are able to accept that this is a unique situation and that, whilst it is extremely sad we will lose people to this virus, it's not worth sacrificing the economy, the education of our children, our livelihoods, our mental wellbeing, our freedoms, and many more aspects of our current society.

Inevitably, if we do not want to stay in this societal limbo until we obtain a vaccination for this virus, we have no choice but to accept that a small number of preventable deaths will occur, and that this is, whilst very sad, a necessary fact to face in order to benefit the vast majority and to prevent many aspects of our current society, including the economy and our level of education (school/unis closing) from being lost due to not being willing to expose a very small number of those in society to the one thing that as a species we are conditioned to fear most.

You are spot on.
I will add that fear of death as a species has been amplified (worldwide) to extraordinary heights by television/radio/newspapers in the last 6 months. If you take that out of the equation then we would simply have had a different virus that kills humans at the usual time of year but we would have gone about our lives normally. Fear has been used as a controller from the year dot in every society, and will continue to be.
 

Bobdogs

On Moderation
Joined
19 Dec 2017
Messages
167
Location
Carmarthenshire
The recreation ground in my local town for instance. 2 football pitches and a cricket field plus acres of grass with a perimeter footpath next to the river.
Closed and barriered off.
Why?
Because people with dogs will not be able to pass each other safely as the footpath is only 1 yard wide and dogs are banned from the grass.
As if in normal times I am going to stay on the path and have my dog savaged by some chav owned PitBull
..
 

Richard Scott

Established Member
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
3,696
In the real world, people are already meeting up with who they want, when they want and doing what they want.
The number of people who I've spoken to in Wales who are blatantly ignoring the 5 mile rule would add substance to this. Mostly because they can't see the point, if you must have a rule then it needs to be for a good reason and trotting out the 'Save the NHS, Save lives' constantly has worn too thin with many. We stuck to the rules now people have had enough and their own common sense is telling them that the politicians in Wales are playing political games, this rule has no substance so they're ignoring it. The Politicians should be honest, with sensible rules then people are more likely to stick to them. They've lost control of this lockdown now.
 

MotCO

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
4,135
After some deep thought, I feel I can provide a more developed opinion on the question posed in the title of the thread.

The world has not 'gone mad', this virus has simply highlighted one of the key issues with today's modern society.

As a species, throughout history we have always had a fear of death and mortality. . We have been conditioned as a species through psychological evolution to fear death and to not think about it until the time is near, when we are finally forced to accept the eventual end to life that we face as mortal human beings. As society has developed throughout the centuries, society in general has deemed death as 'the worst possible thing ever'. Death has for centuries been used as the main deterrent to try and prevent people from doing things deemed by those in power as 'wrong' or 'unacceptable' through capital punishment. For centuries one of the things we have worked hardest on and devoted the most time to are those which prevent or delay death, this includes permanently locking away or even executing those who may cause someone to die and developing vaccines and medicines to try and slow down or prevent death from occurring through diseases prematurely. This is, in my opinion, a very positive fact for the most part, however it has some perhaps lesser known societal impacts.

Due to the fact that, essentially throughout history death has been our main enemy as a species, we have been conditioned to think that it is the worst possible outcome in life, and must be avoided at all costs. This is, for the most part a good thing as it allows us to live a long life without worrying about whether we'll die from a disease or get killed around the corner. However, what has happened here has highlighted one thing to us (or at least those of us that are able to take a step back and look at the wider picture), we have become so afraid of death, that it completely diminishes our perception of other risks and aspects of society. This pandemic has perfectly highlighted this fact. As soon as a virus that might cause preventable deaths, we as a species are programmed to immediately intervene as this has, in the culture and society we have developed, been conditioned as the 'right' thing to do. This is essentially what has happened here, and we have stopped almost all aspects of society to combat the one thing in society we are collectively all programmed to fear. This is arguably human nature, and this motivation to intervene and stop any preventable deaths from occurring has, throughout history, created some fantastic work. As a species we have created vaccines, medicines and healthcare systems dedicated to this cause, and this has allowed us to extend our life expectancy to avoid the one thing we as a species fear most for as long as possible. This psychological conditioning has however, in this situation, had an previously unseen side effect. Our fear of death has grown so great, it has blinded us to any other damage that may impact the society we have constructed or that may impact anything else in our lives.

Nations across the world have 'locked down' in order to save lives and stop any preventable deaths from occurring through this virus. This has been with good intent to save lives and follows the instincts of the human species. However, we are now at a point where we are starting to see the problems of being so 'afraid' of death as a society. We are now at a point where, in order to allow society to continue to function and to allow for the best outcome for the greatest majority (my beliefs are mostly utilitarian as you can probably tell), we now have to do the one thing that throughout history we have been conditioned to never do. We need to accept death, and that in order for us to continue as a functional society, we are going to have to allow some preventable deaths to occur. The issue with this situation is that modern human culture, which is essentially a product of historical and social beliefs, deems allowing any preventable deaths as 'wrong', so we are now at a point where we either do the 'right' thing and actually hinder the development (benefitting the minority, hindering the majority) of the society we have constructed due to a historical belief, or we do the 'wrong' thing and we allow us as a species to continue developing and shaping the society we live in (benefitting the majority, hindering the small minority). In my personal opinion, it would be better to accept that there will be some preventable deaths and that this is a small price to pay to allow our species to continue living in a functional society. If we do not accept this, then we face the situation that until we are able to prevent the preventable deaths through other means, society will be paused, freedoms restricted, and livelihoods (another construct of society) will be lost. It seems that our government, alongside many others in the world, are afraid to admit that we will have to accept preventable deaths, and understandably so as it goes against our psychological construct as a species, however it is, in my opinion for the greater good and the sooner we are able to accept that this is a unique situation and that, whilst it is extremely sad we will lose people to this virus, it's not worth sacrificing the economy, the education of our children, our livelihoods, our mental wellbeing, our freedoms, and many more aspects of our current society.

Inevitably, if we do not want to stay in this societal limbo until we obtain a vaccination for this virus, we have no choice but to accept that a small number of preventable deaths will occur, and that this is, whilst very sad, a necessary fact to face in order to benefit the vast majority and to prevent many aspects of our current society, including the economy and our level of education (school/unis closing) from being lost due to not being willing to expose a very small number of those in society to the one thing that as a species we are conditioned to fear most.

A fantastic summing up of the current situation and reflects very much the way I feel.

Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that. Those that break the lockdown may not be putting themselves in danger, but they may inadvertently put others in danger. If they are carrying the disease, the lockdown helps preventing others being infected. If they go out, they may infect those who have to go out - e.g. carers. The carers have no choice; those that break the lockdown rules do have a choice.
 

Peter Mugridge

Veteran Member
Joined
8 Apr 2010
Messages
14,836
Location
Epsom
You are spot on.
I will add that fear of death as a species has been amplified (worldwide) to extraordinary heights by television/radio/newspapers in the last 6 months. If you take that out of the equation then we would simply have had a different virus that kills humans at the usual time of year but we would have gone about our lives normally. Fear has been used as a controller from the year dot in every society, and will continue to be.

If China had not locked down originally, would any other country have done so?
 

BJames

Established Member
Joined
27 Jan 2018
Messages
1,365
Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that. Those that break the lockdown may not be putting themselves in danger, but they may inadvertently put others in danger. If they are carrying the disease, the lockdown helps preventing others being infected. If they go out, they may infect those who have to go out - e.g. carers. The carers have no choice; those that break the lockdown rules do have a choice.
It is as simple as that. The point being made was about managing risk. In your opinion how long should we continue to lockdown?

Don't forget the thousands of other illnesses that will go undetected and cause unnecessary deaths that only occur because people are too terrified to put pressure on the NHS, which is seeing its lowest levels of admissions in a very long time.
 

Bobdogs

On Moderation
Joined
19 Dec 2017
Messages
167
Location
Carmarthenshire
The number of people who I've spoken to in Wales who are blatantly ignoring the 5 mile rule would add substance to this. Mostly because they can't see the point, if you must have a rule then it needs to be for a good reason and trotting out the 'Save the NHS, Save lives' constantly has worn too thin with many. We stuck to the rules now people have had enough and their own common sense is telling them that the politicians in Wales are playing political games, this rule has no substance so they're ignoring it. The Politicians should be honest, with sensible rules then people are more likely to stick to them. They've lost control of this lockdown now.
5 miles is a ridiculous figure. My
nearest supermarket is 11 miles away. There are local shops but are expensive and do not sell the products I want.
I know people who travel more than 3 times that distance to shop in a county with the lowest infection rate. My favourite local beach is quite busy with people and families who have obviously travelled more than 5 miles.
Social distancing? Nobody wants to get within 200 yards of any body else!
Typical Welsh Assembly justifying its existence.
 

Djgr

Established Member
Joined
30 Jul 2018
Messages
1,680
Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that. Those that break the lockdown may not be putting themselves in danger, but they may inadvertently put others in danger. If they are carrying the disease, the lockdown helps preventing others being infected. If they go out, they may infect those who have to go out - e.g. carers. The carers have no choice; those that break the lockdown rules do have a choice.

It does need repeating (apparently) that when outside with social distancing it is extremely difficult to pass on the virus
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,412
Location
Ely
It does need repeating (apparently) that when outside with social distancing it is extremely difficult to pass on the virus

All the people I saw in London today wearing masks whole walking around in the open air seem to need to be told.

It seems a London problem though. I haven’t seen the same, bar the very occasional exception, anywhere else.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,872
Location
Yorkshire
It is as simple as that. The point being made was about managing risk. In your opinion how long should we continue to lockdown?

Don't forget the thousands of other illnesses that will go undetected and cause unnecessary deaths that only occur because people are too terrified to put pressure on the NHS, which is seeing its lowest levels of admissions in a very long time.
Exactly! There will be so many other problems if we do not get back to normal quickly.
 

Solent&Wessex

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2009
Messages
2,685
Apparently the virus can now jump from car to car.

20200610_142453b.jpg

A sign states "please keep your distance when parking" accompanied by an image of two cars spaced apart in a car park
 

185143

Established Member
Joined
3 Mar 2013
Messages
4,537
Spotted this sign while travelling to work this evening.

I'm truly lost for words. Waterstones quarantining books is one thing, but this is quite another!

I could just about accept a sign along the lines of "please respect social distancing guidelines as you and others leave your vehicles" as it could be easy to forget and breach the 2 metre distancing, though only for a very short time as you walk away from your vehicles. But suggesting that the *cars* now need to be 2 metres apart is utterly ludicrous!

This for the record is in a 250-ish space car park which since the end of March I haven't seen more than about 15 cars in.

I note @Solent&Wessex has made the same observations.
 

Attachments

  • 20200614_181035.jpg
    20200614_181035.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 52

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,745
Oh for crimony's sake. Are some companies that stupid?

A photogenic granny will get the virus and die and the relatives will start screaming that it was the companies fault for not enforcing distancing.

The resulting publicity and court case will destroy the business.

Defensive restrictions are very much something that happens.
 

adc82140

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2008
Messages
2,936
Unless someone knowingly infected is going round deliberately coughing into air vent intakes when drivers have the ventilation running then no it's not going to happen.
 

DelayRepay

Established Member
Joined
21 May 2011
Messages
2,929
Well I will be making sure I park my car 2m from any other car. I presume we also need to leave a 2m gap when queuing at junctions and traffic lights? And presumably duel carriage ways need to be converted to single lane roads, and single lane roads turned into one way streets, to avoid breaking the 2m rule when passing cars coming the other way?

I've already had to replace two tyres and my rear windshield this year. My poor car has suffered enough, I don't want it catching Covid as well!
 

Smidster

Member
Joined
23 Oct 2014
Messages
562
Unfortunately, it's not as simple as that. Those that break the lockdown may not be putting themselves in danger, but they may inadvertently put others in danger. If they are carrying the disease, the lockdown helps preventing others being infected. If they go out, they may infect those who have to go out - e.g. carers. The carers have no choice; those that break the lockdown rules do have a choice.

The question then is surely what level of risk do you think is acceptable before modifying lockdown?

The latest ONS estimate was that about 0.06% (Or 1 in 1,700) of the population had the disease - So if you think about all the "close contacts" you have with people on a regular basis (so multiple minutes at close range / direct conversations for prolonged periods) you would have to be pretty unlucky to come into contact with an infected person

I am all in favour of sensible precautions and risk mitigation but honestly don't think this attitude we seem to be developing that if you pass someone on the pavement then you are trying to kill their parents is doing an awful lot of good.
 

nedchester

Established Member
Joined
28 May 2008
Messages
2,093
The question then is surely what level of risk do you think is acceptable before modifying lockdown?

The latest ONS estimate was that about 0.06% (Or 1 in 1,700) of the population had the disease - So if you think about all the "close contacts" you have with people on a regular basis (so multiple minutes at close range / direct conversations for prolonged periods) you would have to be pretty unlucky to come into contact with an infected person

I am all in favour of sensible precautions and risk mitigation but honestly don't think this attitude we seem to be developing that if you pass someone on the pavement then you are trying to kill their parents is doing an awful lot of good.

I strongly suspect that the 1 in 1,700 number is within the whole population. Take out those that are not mobile within the population (like Care Homes, still the main source of infection) and the probability drops much more possibly to 1 in 4,000. Therefore, with more people washing their hands, keeping some distance, wearing masks the risk drops even more.

Meanwhile other risks are increasing considerably. Think about all the undiagnosed Cancers and other conditions that are currently being missed. That's a separate epidemic.
 

6862

Member
Joined
3 Dec 2014
Messages
506
Meanwhile other risks are increasing considerably. Think about all the undiagnosed Cancers and other conditions that are currently being missed. That's a separate epidemic.

But it's not the deadly virus so it doesn't matter. Or so the mindset of the day goes. This is the most tragic and deadly impact of the madness which has taken over the world.
 

nedchester

Established Member
Joined
28 May 2008
Messages
2,093
But it's not the deadly virus so it doesn't matter. Or so the mindset of the day goes. This is the most tragic and deadly impact of the madness which has taken over the world.

Exactly. There's the worry and the very reason why we need to get a grip and get back to normal and yes that includes normal screening for potentially fatal conditions.
 

LAX54

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2008
Messages
3,759
Spotted this sign while travelling to work this evening.

I'm truly lost for words. Waterstones quarantining books is one thing, but this is quite another!

I could just about accept a sign along the lines of "please respect social distancing guidelines as you and others leave your vehicles" as it could be easy to forget and breach the 2 metre distancing, though only for a very short time as you walk away from your vehicles. But suggesting that the *cars* now need to be 2 metres apart is utterly ludicrous!

This for the record is in a 250-ish space car park which since the end of March I haven't seen more than about 15 cars in.

I note @Solent&Wessex has made the same observations.

The close contact thing is described as less then 1m for 15 mins or more
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top