What is a “circuit breaker lockdown”

[DB]

No, I'm advocating increasing the penalties and enforcement of a law that already exists, which may have some sort of chance of making people actually follow it!

But what you are advocating would in practice be unenforceable

 

[Ianno87]

Whoop, whoop, its da sound of da Pol-ice...

As I and others have said before, we don't have the resources to run a full on Police State, especially when there are real criminals out there. And as for filling the prisons, well think about it....

Oh and how are those countries you so admire getting on...??

There is also the irony that Police moving house to house, going inside to check, sounds like a bloody fantastic way of spreading a virus.

Bat**** crazy doesn't even come close.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But what you are advocating would in practice be unenforceable

Nonsense.

 

[Bantamzen]

Well, for one example the Isle of Man has next to no cases.

Well whoopie do. Any small islands with no comparison to much larger countries you'd like to cite? I was thinking about the countries with much more stringent policing than us that are also seeing more positive cases?

There is also the irony that Police moving house to house, going inside to check, sounds like a bloody fantastic way of spreading a virus.

Bat**** crazy doesn't even come close.

True dat!

 

[birchesgreen]

To be honest normal citizens being afraid of the authorities knocking on your door at night and harsh punishments for benign unapproved behaviour is not the sort of road this country should even be considering going down.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be honest normal citizens being afraid of the authorities knocking on your door at night and harsh punishments for benign unapproved behaviour is not the sort of road this country should even be considering going down.

If people actually complied with the restrictions then there would be no need. Speed cameras, to use an example, only exist because they make money, and they only make money because people are too thick, pig-ignorant and selfish to read the number in a circle on the big sign in front of them and make sure that the needle also in front of them points at a number below it.

The only other viable option I see is a reinstatement of "Project Fear", but I'd rather we were honest with people.

 

[Bikeman78]

If people actually complied with the restrictions then there would be no need. Speed cameras, to use an example, only exist because they make money, and they only make money because people are too thick, pig-ignorant and selfish to read the number in a circle on the big sign in front of them and make sure that the needle also in front of them points at a number below it.

The only other viable option I see is a reinstatement of "Project Fear", but I'd rather we were honest with people.

I think that threatening people with prison for the "crime" of going to visit their parents is simply another version of project fear.

 

[Freightmaster]

There is no point having a law against meeting people in the home unless you're going to have high penalties and door knocking, because people will just shut the curtains and ignore it.

So you are saying that if 79 year old Mavis who lives in Lancashire and doesn't understand the restrictions,
invites a similarly elderly/frail neighbour round for a cup of tea and a chat, they should both be fined £5000
(despite barely having enough money to heat their homes) and/or thrown into jail??

The only other viable option I see is a reinstatement of "Project Fear", but I'd rather we were honest with people.

What do you mean by 'reinstatement'? Project Fear is alive and well, especially on this thread...




MARK

 

[Yew]

The only other viable option I see is a reinstatement of "Project Fear", but I'd rather we were honest with people.

I'm not sure that we could, there is more known about this virus; I think most claims, apart from the most emotive, could probably have a reasonable level of scientific rebuttal.

 

[trebor79]

@Bletchleyite
Are people actually ignoring the restrictions to the extent suggested though?
Isn't it more a case that is most people are asymptomatic, then it's quite clear to see how somebody going to different social interactions, all within the facile "rule of 6" could be infecting lots of other people.

Just because measures aren't having the desired effect, doesn't mean that people aren't complying. It could just be that the measures are a load of old b******s and ineffctive (cf face masks in shops).

 

[Bletchleyite]

So you are saying that if 79 year old Mavis who lives in Lancashire and doesn't understand the restrictions,
invites a similarly elderly/frail neighbour round for a cup of tea and a chat, they should both be fined £5000
(despite barely having enough money to heat their homes) and/or thrown into jail??

See my thread on communication, which addresses this exact issue.

Are people actually ignoring the restrictions to the extent suggested though?

I reckon so, yes.

Isn't it more a case that is most people are asymptomatic, then it's quite clear to see how somebody going to different social interactions, all within the facile "rule of 6" could be infecting lots of other people.

In most of the North West the "rule of 6" does not apply other than in outdoor public places. In all other settings it's a "rule of 0", i.e. one household only, with only very limited exceptions e.g. childcare.

 

[DB]

I'm not sure that we could, there is more known about this virus; I think most claims, apart from the most emotive, could probably have a reasonable level of scientific rebuttal.

And it would rely on the media being onboard, as they were back in April. Not sure that the government could rely on this now!

 

[trebor79]

In most of the North West the "rule of 6" does not apply other than in outdoor public places. In all other settings it's a "rule of 0", i.e. one household only, with only very limited exceptions e.g. childcare.

OK, I was forgetting that. However, there must be a point at which restrictions like that cease to be effective. So if the rule of 6 reduces transmission by 80% (totally made up number, but just for the purposes of illustration), then if you've got 100 people walking around only 20 of them will transmit. But if you've got 100,000 infected people walking around 20,000 of them will pass it on.
Similarly with "rule of 0", which isn't achievable for many practical and humane reasons.

 

[Bikeman78]

See my thread on communication, which addresses this exact issue.



I reckon so, yes.

That is not surprising. People went along with the original lockdown because many were probably worried about getting the virus and because of concerns about the NHS being swamped. Six months later the NHS appears to be no better and of course many people have realised that the virus poses little threat to them. In short, people are fed up. Many leisure options are still closed, and people aren't supposed to meet in them in lockdown areas anyway. So why is anyone the least bit surprised that people are meeting at home instead?