Covid travel restrictions and Police fines etc.

[JoshW]

Lockdown 1 was needed, but it was botched completely, we never went on the Covid elimination strategy meaning 1 and a half months of harsh lock-down 1 and closed borders for good meaning by now we would be completely free

Or we would all have starved to death as we rely heavily on imported food, so closing borders was never an option.

Elimination through lockdown is not, and never has been, a viable strategy for this country.

Close borders for all but essential transport (ie food/medicine etc).

Re the second part: what evidence do you have for that?

 

[Alex]

But NZ managed, they I assume still allow freight, just unload it by cranes, and turn this ship around, no one need disembark.

It's probably impossible doing this now as no one would listen anyway, just wish they had done that in Lockdown 1 and nipped in the bud when people were on side, and we will all be talking about cave entrances freezing over blocking access or something rather than this, and still have the mates around that those of us have lost.

But now... now it seems rather pointless, if the vaccines don't work against the new variants that I am sure will take over,  then there is no end to this and those people who were going to die will die anyway, just maybe a month or two later in lockdown 4 or 5 or 6 etc...

 

[Pitlamp]

The problem is that whatever strategy the government uses, we've all got to co-operate or it'd never work anyway. Individuals, uncoordinated, making their minds up to ignore rules, undermines everyone else's sacrifices.

I can't agree that Lockdown 1 was "botched completely". In March last year the disease was new and so little was known about it. I'm glad I wasn't a cabinet member at the time, trying to agonise over crucial decisions affecting peoples' lives, incomes - and potentially losses of life.

The R number is going down and the battle is being won, steadily. Let's not screw up this late in the game (or rather war).

 

[JoshW]

I can't agree that Lockdown 1 was "botched completely". In March last year the disease was new and so little was known about it. I'm glad I wasn't a cabinet member at the time, trying to agonise over crucial decisions affecting peoples' lives, incomes - and potentially losses of life.

By March there was already evidence from other countries that shutting things down and having effective testing and tracing, whilst enabling those affected to isolate worked.

We were told throughout that there was no point in track and trace being operational until the curve was ?flattened?, something that?s clearly a lie, and then effective track and trace never arrived.

The point of emergency planning is so that when something happens you can relatively quickly take action, just because somethings not happened in directly that way before ?unprecedented?, doesn?t mean you can?t predict the way things will happen based upon actions ?unpredictable?. Throughout this pandemic the government (and many commentators) have used these terms interchangeably which conveniently prevents any constructive criticism and accountability

Even without my admittedly biased stance, it?s clear to see that lockdown1 was at best mismanaged. The upsetting thing is that no lessons were learned about the importance of quick action.

 

[PeteHall]

Lockdown 1 was needed, but it was botched completely, we never went on the Covid elimination strategy meaning 1 and a half months of harsh lock-down 1 and closed borders for good meaning by now we would be completely free

Or we would all have starved to death as we rely heavily on imported food, so closing borders was never an option.

Elimination through lockdown is not, and never has been, a viable strategy for this country.

Close borders for all but essential transport (ie food/medicine etc).

Re the second part: what evidence do you have for that?

Well if you don't close the borders completely, as per the first part, you'll always have a risk of more cases popping up, so perpetual lockdown if you want elimination. Not 'completely free' as you suggest, quite the opposite.

But NZ managed, they I assume still allow freight, just unload it by cranes, and turn this ship around, no one need disembark.

Freight unloaded from ships by crane is very different to fresh food transported by lorry, as we have here. It's a completely different supply chain. You can't compare NZ to UK.

 

[mikem]

Their population is also only 7.5% of size of ours. Anyone who thinks we could have kept the virus out of UK is kidding themselves, however, it could have been better controlled. Chances are we'd still be in a similar situation with companies going out of business if we hadn't had a lockdown - there is no ideal route out of this & it's going to be hard for a lot of people.

 

[Pitlamp]

JoshW - you wrote: "The point of emergency planning is so that when something happens you can relatively quickly take action".

I agree with you. The problem was that, at the time, a lot of the nature of that "something" just wasn't known.

I dislike Boris Johnson as a PM and I disagree with much of what his cabinet has done in other areas of governing us. But they are our elected representatives and they were suddenly asked to deal with an unprecedented situation, for which they had no real experience - and hindsight is a wonderful thing. I'm absolutely fed up with being in lockdown but I do think it would help if more folk tried to be understanding of the government's difficult position.

Whether folk agree with the above sentiment is their choice (which I respect, of course). But we'll never sort this virus out if everybody simply does their own thing (as others have hinted at).

 

[Ed]

Question:
Is it not the case that in UK law you do not have to talk to a police officer, even if you are being arrested ("..You have a right to remain silent etc...")?

If this is the case then the obvious go-to is to not talk and therefore it means you don't need any excuse to be out and about whatsoever, 'cos if you ain't talkin', there's nothing to explain. You do have to stop when ordered to do so by a police officer but after that there's v little they can do. So I believe/understand.

Not if you are a suspect or a witness - they do have to give you some details, like their name reason etc.

If you don't give name you can then be arrested ---- leading to further charges

 

[Benfool]

Yep, you only have to identify yourself if you're suspected of a crime (unless you're driving a motor vehicle).

In the case of breaking Covid restrictions, simply being outside your house is evidence of breaking the restrictions - so it would be against the law to refuse to identify to a police officer. If you refused to give an satisfactory excuse of why you were outside of your home, then you would be in breach of the regulations and you will be read your rights, fined and/or taken to court.

If you refused to give a valid excuse when questioned, then subsequently gave one in court then your defence would be severally damaged (as per your right to silence, ie Miranda rights).

Much easier to say "I'm out for my daily exercise"  and let the cops prove otherwise.

B

 

[mikem]

But mostly they currently just stop cars, as they can get the owner's name electronically.

 

[Fishes]

I agree with you. The problem was that, at the time, a lot of the nature of that "something" just wasn't known.

Actually the UK and other governments have been "war gaming" for a pandemic very much like this for several years.

As a member of the public with no special knowledge, but an interest in international news I had started stocking up for supply chain disruption caused by a new and virulent resparatory disease that was reported in December 2019. I was anxious about meeting colleagues from China at a sales meeting in the fist week of Jan 2020 and also travelling to Germany by air in the second week.

I had also sorted everything I needed for remote working well in advance of the first lockdown. My partner thought I was going over the top with preparations and I may well have been but now it seems not. I wish I had been wrong.

If our government had given thought about anything other than stupid Brexit for the last few years then I'm sure they would have been more prepared and its likely that a lot fewer people would have died.

 

[NewStuff]

Anyone who thinks we could have kept the virus out of UK is kidding themselves

If we had a government with a spine, of course we could have, we're a sodding island. Despite what rabid right-wingers would have you believe, we control our borders, and can close them if needs be. It's not rocket science. The fly in the ointment was the inpet shower that were seemingly determined to be America Lite edition and pretend nothing was happening and that a stiff upper lip, Blitz Spirit etc would see this posky bug off.

 

[Ed]

Yep, you only have to identify yourself if you're suspected of a crime (unless you're driving a motor vehicle).

or a witness to an offence
and you will be read your rights, fined and/or taken to court.

you have not "rights" .You will however, be cautioned

If you refused to give a valid excuse when questioned, then subsequently gave one in court then your defence would be severally damaged (as per your right to silence, ie Miranda rights).

Much easier to say "I'm out for my daily exercise"  and let the cops prove otherwise.

B

And its not just Police --- same applies for any agency enforcing the legislation (obviously their bit) - HSE, EA, Environmental Health, HMRC, Revs & Ben, VOSPA, Borders Agency,  etc...All caution under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Code C. Failure to supply details to these agency can also lead to arrest (by police).

Env Health - aren't enforcing on the induvial in relation to Covid, but are on businesses. However, if you are at  a premise breaking the Covid Reg we may question you under caution : name, address, DoB etc....

You do not have to say anything.
But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court.
Anything you do say may be given in evidence.

Then normally asked if you understand the caution and its implication (good practise not Code)

 

[crickleymal]

I agree with you. The problem was that, at the time, a lot of the nature of that "something" just wasn't known.

I dislike Boris Johnson as a PM and I disagree with much of what his cabinet has done in other areas of governing us. But they are our elected representatives and they were suddenly asked to deal with an unprecedented situation, for which they had no real experience - and hindsight is a wonderful thing.

There was a huge exercise in 2016 specifically aimed at testing the UK's response to a SARS type pandemic. The outcome of which was that we were unprepared. The government totally ignored the results of this exercise and refused to put anything in place.
I saw the reports coming out of China in 2019 and so we prepared by getting in a load of food in case we were locked down. If I could see it coming then surely the government..........

 

[Rob]

Really interesting thread, even if a little winding at times.

For me it's the challenge of where we each chose to sit between the what we should be doing verse what we are allowed to be doing.

At one extreme end we should all hide away as much as possible and let the virus diminish. That has been true since it arrived in this country, regardless of what restrictions the gov impose on us. Obviously if we all do what we should, then we'd do nothing, with dire consequences in many walks of life.

The opposite end of the spectrum is to do what we are legally allowed. This does rely on those in control knowing what they're doing, but at least puts people on a level playing ground so there should be no claims of people acting selflessly or immorally whilst still acting within the law. This however is seemingly a minefield when the guidance is not matched by law, and is a health area to debate.

We each have different positions within this spectrum, for different personal reasons, but as long as we are each operating within it (and therefore not illegally) then i think we should not harshly criticise one another.

For me i feel comfortable with my own balance - in general very little exposure, but caving (legally i think) once a week. I don't judge anyone else's choices, as long as they are legal.

 

[ChrisJC]

There was a huge exercise in 2016 specifically aimed at testing the UK's response to a SARS type pandemic. The outcome of which was that we were unprepared. The government totally ignored the results of this exercise and refused to put anything in place.

I am sure there were also plenty of other exercises, showing we were unprepared for military conflict, industrial action by the food supply chain, sudden rises in the cost of oil, and so on. And we would have done sod all about any of them as the Government was already spending more than it earned.

It is only with hindsight that we can wail on about previous studies showing poor preparedness. If you take hindsight out of the equation, I see nothing wrong.

Chris.

 

[mikem]

If we had a government with a spine, of course we could have, we're a sodding island. Despite what rabid right-wingers would have you believe, we control our borders, and can close them if needs be. It's not rocket science. The fly in the ointment was the inpet shower that were seemingly determined to be America Lite edition and pretend nothing was happening and that a stiff upper lip, Blitz Spirit etc would see this posky bug off.

141 million people entered the UK in the year up to March 2020 (that's almost 400,000 per day), where were you thinking of quarantining them?

 

[JoshW]

If we had a government with a spine, of course we could have, we're a sodding island. Despite what rabid right-wingers would have you believe, we control our borders, and can close them if needs be. It's not rocket science. The fly in the ointment was the inpet shower that were seemingly determined to be America Lite edition and pretend nothing was happening and that a stiff upper lip, Blitz Spirit etc would see this posky bug off.

141 million people entered the UK in the year up to March 2020 (81 million UK nationals - obviously some on multiple trips), where were you thinking of quarantining them?

Unless I'm missing something, I'm not sure the relevance of that stat. But to get to the crux of your issue, yes, anyone entering the UK, after the UL gov knew about Coronavirus (significantly earlier than March) should have had to quarantine for 2 weeks. That's a proper quarantine, not a 'try and self isolate' or live with other people who can leave the house. It's what NZ did, it's what Vietnam did, it's what most successful countries who dealt with it successfully early without letting it spiral out of control.

I landed at Heathrow in March, and wouldn't have even known there was a virus going round. No impetus to wear a mask, no signs even saying that you should self isolate upon returning, no handwash etc available.

 

[pwhole]

Foresight is possibly an even more wonderful gift than hindsight, but few use it as it requires confidence and integrity as well as luck - and it may sometimes be wrong, whereas hindsight is always right, but that's why that's so fatuous when used by folks in charge. Most of us on here (and my other friends in life) have all been ahead of the curve compared to the government since this started - it's like watching a bunch of malevolent toddlers, frankly. Saying they're hopeless is giving them too much credit though, as much of this is sheer mendacity, and in many cases, pure evil. It's been my contention since last March that the government were following a policy of herd immunity for at least the first few months, and only reluctantly since have they accepted that such a policy is insane, though they're still hanging on by their fingertips in some cases.

There's been no serious effort to restrict travel, in or out - as NewStuff pointed out, we're an island, and could have eradicated this in two months if we'd really tried. Every policy has been counter-productive at best, deliberately dangerous at worst. 'Eat Out to Help Out' was the most irresponsible policy I can imagine in a pandemic - but the public could have pointed that out and refused to participate. But no, all the retards flocked out in their millions - I know, they were in the restaurant below my flat every night for a month, packed to the gills. One night I enjoyed myself by standing outside the window staring at a huge family gathering a metre away, scrutinising them like they were chimpanzees - it was really funny and I totally ruined their evening.

So I think in many cases, you get what you deserve. The country is in a woeful state in many, many areas, and the denial in facing up to them is staggering to see, both in the government and the population. Think about property in the City of London, most currently empty, and the cash value of all that, and then go to some shitty run-down estate in any city, where many are skint, ill or insane, and try and work out how this can happen here, the smartest, funniest, least racist and most liberal democracy on the planet. If you're better-off you'll never meet these people and could forget they exist, but there's millions of them out there, and they're not a happy or healthy bunch. Take-up levels of the vaccine in those areas will be much lower, and as has been pointed out all week on the news, the BAME community too are way, way down on 'indigenous white' (as they called us on the news) members of the public - so when people start realising that a huge chunk of the population aren't (or won't get) vaccinated, they will be shunned, like lepers. Vaccine passports will then start to be counterfeited to get round that, and off we go again. There's some foresight for you - 10th February 2021, PW.

JG Ballard would be loving this if he were still alive - so much good material for another novel.

 

[JoshW]

. 'Eat Out to Help Out' was the most irresponsible policy I can imagine in a pandemic - but the public could have pointed that out and refused to participate. But no, all the retards flocked out in their millions - I know, they were in the restaurant below my flat every night for a month, packed to the gills. One night I enjoyed myself by standing outside the window staring at a huge family gathering a metre away, scrutinising them like they were chimpanzees - it was really funny and I totally ruined their evening.

Part of the problem with eat out to help out was the way it was pushed on the public like it was our duty to save the hospitality industry, and to not eat out would make you some sort of bastard. Being cynical this is in line with everything the government has done throughout, find a way to place the blame on the public for their shortcomings, their late action or in most cases their inaction.