Non aviation content. Play nice – No religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
  • 1
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 67
#1755910
We all want a clear and effective test. Some suggest this should be fairly easy to discover, and then produce. Is this so?

Is there anything that uniquely defines Covid-19 rather than say Covids 1-18. With zero knowledge of this, I would assume they would all produce a very similar signature in whatever is used to test for them.
#1755916
Charles Hunt wrote:..

Is there anything that uniquely defines Covid-19 rather than say Covids 1-18. ..


In ignorance as ever :roll: , I had guessed that the -19 referred to outbreak identified in 2019. Happy to be corrected ..
#1755918
kanga wrote:
Charles Hunt wrote:..

Is there anything that uniquely defines Covid-19 rather than say Covids 1-18. ..


In ignorance as ever :roll: , I had guessed that the -19 referred to outbreak identified in 2019. Happy to be corrected ..


That was my understanding

WHO says this

https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/technical-guidance/naming-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-2019)-and-the-virus-that-causes-it
Charles Hunt liked this
#1756017
@Miscellaneous it’s good sense, but not required, to carry a letter explaining why the travel is necessary. If nothing else it shows that you are not making up an excuse on the spot.

Similarly it’s difficult to see how going to multiple shops on successive days would be compatible with a law that says that one of the lawful reasons to leave your home is to shop for essential supplies and then to do so as infrequently as possible. Should the police take a look in somebody’s boot and find a lot of goods then there could be an interesting conversation IMO.
#1756035
Thread drift:

I earnestly hope that when this is all over, the Chinese Government will instigate an Educational Programme to teach its population that eating bats and pangolins does not confer eternal life, any more than eating powdered rhino horn or elephants toe nail clippings makes one randy.

Peter :roll:
Flyin'Dutch', PaulB, Cowshed and 1 others liked this
#1756045
Leodisflyer wrote:@Miscellaneous it’s good sense, but not required, to carry a letter explaining why the travel is necessary. If nothing else it shows that you are not making up an excuse on the spot.

Similarly it’s difficult to see how going to multiple shops on successive days would be compatible with a law that says that one of the lawful reasons to leave your home is to shop for essential supplies and then to do so as infrequently as possible. Should the police take a look in somebody’s boot and find a lot of goods then there could be an interesting conversation IMO.


As far as I can see (and I'm not a lawyer) the SI doesn't mention frequency of leaving the house (no mention of once per day for exercise, either) but does require that you have a reasonable excuse for leaving the house and that it is necessary.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020 ... ion/6/made

Note that Boris's original 4 reasons for leaving have expanded a bit.
#1756046
Somebody needs to have a word.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-n ... e-52052830


A police force has had a surge in calls from people reporting their neighbours for "going out for a second run".

.....


Mr Adderley told the Local Democracy Reporting Service his officers will issue penalty notices if necessary, but wanted to educate the public first.

"We are getting calls from people who say 'I think my neighbour is going out on a second run - I want you to come and arrest them'.

"We have had dozens and dozens of these calls."


Curtain twitchers unite, your Stockholm Syndrome kicked in already! :roll:

It's a bit alarming how some people slip can into being oppressed and helping the oppressor. Obviously circumstances are unusual and time limited but those with power needs keeping an eye on to avoid mission creep and time extension. Thank goodness we have a libertarian PM right now.
#1756048
Not excusing those who waste police time like this, but those going for second runs (other reasons for leaving the house are available) should be considering whether it passes the necessity and reasonableness tests given the Government's "stay at home" advice.
kanga liked this
#1756050
Paul, while it doesn't meet with the PM's advice or, perhaps, the spirit of the law, I can't see anything to suggest that it doesn't meet the letter of the law. Likewise, I can't see anything to stop someone driving a few miles to have their daily walk in more pleasant and people free surroundings.

My favourite bit of that BBC report though was:

"My wife doesn't think her job is essential but I do and she's working from home. Is there anything I can do?"
#1756051
@PaulB there may well have been clarifications, but there’s a written version in law.

If somebody was going out harvesting as much as they could from multiple stores, as some have suggested may be happening, then it’s hard to see how that would a class as “as infrequently as possible ” if another person is getting by through being frugal and only going to shops every few days to get perishables and, at the same time, top up the things they need to maintain a 14 day or so isolation should it happen to them.
eltonioni, kanga liked this
  • 1
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 67