Interesting

[Dave_Mole]

Everyone - I closed the last CV thread as it had got out of hand - and yes I was one of the main contributors.

I think we should avoid going down that route again, so perhaps we can keep any CV discussion to it's impact on our access to the countryside?

er...

"I was a bit shocked when I heard about this around a week ago.

From what I have heard and read the first jab gives a person a partial immunity - say 70% and the 2nd tops it up to 90-95%.
A decision has been made to prioritise getting as many of the top level vulnerable to 70% as quick as possible and I believe other countries are planning similar.

It's on the basis that say having 1,000,000 at 70% is better than having 500,000 at 90% and 500,000 at 0%.

I don't think we have anyone on here qualified to critique it - although Oracle maybe could have advised what his wife thought of the policy had he still been on the forum. "

Care to lead by example?

[noel]

Everyone - I closed the last CV thread as it had got out of hand - and yes I was one of the main contributors.

I think we should avoid going down that route again, so perhaps we can keep any CV discussion to it's impact on our access to the countryside?

Good idea WP.

[noel]

In fact, here's a news story related to whether it's OK to drive short distances to meet one person to exercise. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-55560814

The police force involved, Derbyshire Police, said driving for exercise was "not in the spirit" of lockdown.

I find that quite alarming, and disagree with them on that.

*As always, I don't know the full details of the case, and the press always misrepresent news by design or incompetence.

[anthonykay]

In fact, here's a news story related to whether it's OK to drive short distances to meet one person to exercise. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-55560814



I find that quite alarming, and disagree with them on that.

*As always, I don't know the full details of the case, and the press always misrepresent news by design or incompetence.

It's obvious what the two women did wrong: they crossed the border from friendly, reasonable Leicestershire into spiteful, tyrannical Derbyshire. They should have known better: Derbyshire Police have form on this.

[Mossdog]

In fact, here's a news story related to whether it's OK to drive short distances to meet one person to exercise. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...shire-55560814



I find that quite alarming, and disagree with them on that.

*As always, I don't know the full details of the case, and the press always misrepresent news by design or incompetence.

It really does beggar belief, and of course this particular Police Force has form. One might ask why were there so many Police officers there in the first place when the carpark was deserted? Surely a bunch of officers sitting in their van and car represented a greater CV risk? Note to self- leave the energy gel/emergency snack at home least it be considered a 'picnic' and evidence of CV transgression!

[Fellbeast]

This is worrying for me, because if I cycle more than 7 miles from my house in a North Easterly direction I end up in Derbyshire and at this time of year I might be carrying food. If they're fining people £200 to drive 5 miles, will they start fining people with food who cycle 7 miles?

At the bottom of the story it said Derbyshire Police has also been giving fixed penalty notices to people who visit Calke Abbey and Elvaston Castle. I've been to all three locations (not within the last 12 months) and whilst they're not staggeringly beautiful, they're the sort of places that less active people would drive to take their dog(s) for a walk. A lot of people will view this as a money-making policy rather than a health measure.

As for me, it looks like I'm trapped on the South side of the River Mease - at least to No Man's Heath, where I can enter friendly Warwickshire and then possibly North into friendly Leicestershire

Not Derbyshire related but cycling related, some cycling friends of mine were worried about quite how far they might be allowed to cycle as ‘daily exercise’. I think they’ve taken advice from the bicycling association (or an association with a similar name?) who are saying that cycling local means that you need to be able to walk home from anywhere on your route. Which sort of makes sense to me.

As for Derbyshire police, what plonkers

[bigfella]

A barrister claims this not specified in the legislation so is not enforceable whereas Derbyshire Police claim it is open to interpretation by the individual officer. In this was it would appear the police had to justify their presence at this location and these 2 individuals were just unlucky.

[Dave_Mole]

Apparently the government are preparing to "ramp up" the stay at home message.

According to SAGE:
“Even if we vaccinated all over-80s today we would not see a change in the death rates for five weeks or so, and it will not impact on hospitalisation for a long time afterwards (when the over-60s have been vaccinated). It is impossible to overemphasise the seriousness of the current situation. We are in a much worse position than we were in March.” If public compliance with new national lockdown rules is not strong enough, government experts fear death rates may plateau rather than dropping sharply as they did after last year’s lockdown.

According to someone in the Department of Health: “Compliance is the big thing, and it’s important that people realise it’s not just egregious raves or parties – it’s individual, small acts that add up to a big impact.”

So: expect more Derbyshire-like reactions to people driving and perhaps more restrictions on leaving home at all.

Oh, and more people arguing about "guidance" and "legislation".

[bigfella]

I absolutely agree about obeying the guidance and it sounds as though these 2 individuals would have responded appropriatly to being spoken to and advised. As for dishing out a fine for something that is not against the law I'm not sure that sends the correct message when we need people to support the police and not challenge them.

[Travs]

Yet flights still roll in from all over the world.

Supposed to be a requirement for a negative test result next week, but there's a host of exceptions (certain occupations, children(?!?), and people who don't provide a negative test will not be refused entry, but simply fined (if a negative test is a requirement for boarding a UK-bound plane, then how can people arrive here without one to receive a fine?)

Whilst i'm fully complying with the restrictions, i can well understand any build up of frustration within the population.