8 ms·

Covid: Women on exercise trip 'surrounded by police'

19 points by madjam002 6y ago

LatteLazy 6y ago
In fairness to the two women caught here, the UK has made near zero effort to actually enforce any of the restrictions. People routinely don't wear masks in supermarkets or on public transport, no one washes their hands, work places are taking no measures to stop spread. So it is fair to be surprised they were caught. Hopefully this is an actual crackdown and not just bored cops. We really need one as we're on the verge of collapse of medical services.
- madjam002 6y ago
  Not sure about two people going for a walk out of town though, is that really a big issue? It’s not breaking any of the legislation and they were fined as what they did “wasn’t in the spirit of the lockdown”... what?!
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
    The legislation says it's up to the police if your action is reasonable. Police decided they could have walked closer to home. If they want, they can go to court and try and convince the magistrate/jury the police were wrong. I wish them luck (honestly). The issue we have is we haven't enforced the very important stuff. So now we're fucked. So now we have to enforce the lot, even if this particular event (2 people arriving separately etc) seems small. As far as I'm concerned, the more people see enforcement, the more lives will be saved. So it's a good thing whether either of these women actually transmitted and actual covid etc...
    - HappyDreamer 6y ago
      If they enforce the legislation far away in the forests or countryside, whilst ignore people walking in crowds in London on Christmas Eve [1], then I'm thinking this will lower the trust in the police and make people inclined to ignore the rules. Meaning, I think what the police did here, damages the trust in the legal system and covid response, slightly changing things for the worse. [1] London Christmas Lights Walk 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz7wJZln6Kw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz7wJZln6Kw
      - LatteLazy 6y ago
        I don't think compliance can get much lower tbh. I hope I'm right about that but it's just my jaded opinion. I completely agree we have a massive issue that the government created themselves: they've encouraged non-compliance in every imaginable way. It's criminally poor. Now they're stuck: they need to turn it around and do so quickly. So they'll arrest these women having allowed crowds to fill tube trains. The only problem is they're doing the right thing. We need compliance and we need it now. It's not fair to these women. After this is over Bojo should be arrested. But right now, its necessary. Salus populi suprema lex esto (The public safety is the highest law)
        HappyDreamer 6y ago
        > they've encouraged non-compliance in every imaginable way > Now they're stuck: they need to turn it around and do so quickly Situation about the same here where I live (also in Europe). Thanks for having written a bit more about how you're thinking.
- lhorie 6y ago
  I still remember the reporting when the epidemic started in Wuhan and thinking how incredibly draconian they were being with a complete shutdown of an entire city; stores, roads, everything. Now in hindsight, I pause to wonder if it isn't more draconian to keep enforcing these half-assed rules for months on end - and being clearly ineffectively, if reports of ICU capacity are any indication...
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
    I agree. I don't understand why we couldn't have closed the borders, had 2months of hardcore super lockdown and then been covid free. That's basically what happened in Melbourne. They had to do it twice because some idiot mixed with newly arrived travellers and spread it. But they're in a much better place than we are. Almost everything is open again.
    - salmon30salmon 6y ago
      I've said it many times, Australia and New Zealand are both islands, this makes restricting ingress far easier than land borders controlled by many different authorities. Furthermore, many countries have laws that prohibit house arrest, which is essentially what you are suggesting here. Finally, unless the entire world did the same, we would not be "covid-free". As soon as one person with covid entered the country post-lockdown, cases would grow. If Australia had actually beaten covid, then they could welcome people back. But they didn't beat it! That isolated themselves from the world and continue to do so. That isn't beating it at all. You may be right that almost everything is open again, but there are also leaving thousands of their citizens stranded abroad. This is an absurd payoff for a virus that, at worst, kills .5% of people who contract it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/australia-coronavirus-stranded-quarantine-travel/2020/12/10/6d990c60-2e0d-11eb-9dd6-2d0179981719_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/australia-...
      - LatteLazy 6y ago
        Sorry, I should have clarified: I'm a limey brit so closing our (my) border is almost as easy as it is for the aussies. Similarly, we have no constitution or bill of rights, so a house arrest law is easy and quick to pass. The issue with the .5% figure is that 5% of covid patients would die if they didn't receive care. So the death rate is only 0.5% until your last hospital bed / ventilators / nurse is busy. Then it's 5%. We've fucked about letting more and more people get it. Which is fine because 0.5% and because we're following the "herd immunity" strategy. Unlike Aus that went for eradication. But now, so many people are sick the hospitals are full. London expects to run out of beds within 2 weeks. Rest of the UK in 3 weeks. Given the 5-6 day incubation period, that means we need to reduce the R number below 1 by Monday in London (where people are densely packed and rely on public transport). You have 7 more days for the rest of the place. Or we accept the 5% marginal death rate. 5% is pretty fucking high. Look around your office, your sports team, your family and fields. Pick 1 in 20 to die. And that's 5% across the board. It's higher for your grandparents, your sick cousin etc. Plus you have people permanently disabled and "Long Covid" to factor in. So having encouraged people to go out, having let people test the rules and find them unenforced, and having done all the easy cheap shit (office worked wfh), the government finds it has to get very strict, convince people it means it this time, and get them to stay home, all in the next few days. Oh, and the current government was elected by the people most likely to die of this. And the current leader is dumb and lazy. And he's spent the last year promising his party no more lockdowns...
rubycon22 6y ago
This is the same place that sends police to your door if you post unapproved opinions on the internet. Doesn't surprise me at all.
monksy 6y ago
So there is a regulation to prevent people from gathering. These two go to a remote location. How are the police to know that they aren't going there to gather. I hear the same argument applied to closing the beaches "BuT wErE JuSt At ThE BeAcH DiSTanCeD!" The intent is to prevent groups from getting together and unknowingly spread. It sucks but we're still in an emergency crisis because people have been gathering and refusing to distance.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
duxup 6y ago
COVID type restrictions are inherently vague and broad unlike say a typical law that has all sorts of specifics, or has been litigated enough that we know what can be expected. Any kind of enforcement, for better and worse will result in this kind of thing. In both countries that are used to very broad law about moments ... but even more so those that aren't used to enforcing such laws. That's not a justification, but IMO the reality of the situation.
myWindoonn 6y ago
"I genuinely thought someone had been murdered," says one of them. Do these people not understand that folks die from the plague? There's a serious deficit of empathy happening here.
- salmon30salmon 6y ago
  Don't be so sanctimonious. People also die from loneliness, isolation, lack of exercise, depression, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, malnutrition. Do you even fucking realize how much our response to COVID has impacted food programs worldwide? How shutting down major economies has pushed our children back by _years_ of educational attainment? People die from everything, for fucks sake. People die from TB, which inoculations against are way down this year. People die from lack of clean water, which financial assistance from developed nations has tanked this year.This is not even counting the delay in cancer treatment, heart treatment. Hospitals in my state were essentially shut down all Spring and Summer when we had incredibly low community spread. So the woman who is six months late for her mammogram, is her cancer less important than COVID? When you say people die and it is a big deal, are you only concerned for well-off white people in developed nations? Because I do say you've turned a blind eye to all the death and famine around the world to suddenly be on your high horse when it comes to COVID. Edit: I am sorry but I need to come back to this. Do you have any idea what these lockdowns are doing to mental health of teens and adults? Suicidal ideation is on the rise as is self-reported depression. So are you saying that those who kill themselves from despair and depression aren't as entitled to support to help _them_. We closed down a nation to support those at risk from COVID. What will we do to support those who are dying from other means, due to our response?
  - myWindoonn 6y ago
    Look closer at these ladies: https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/0436/production/_116387010_walk1.jpg https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/0436/production/... Do you notice that they are holding drinks purchased from Starbucks while not wearing masks? Their entire attitude, from their words to their daily actions, smacks of an unconcern towards the affairs of others. I see elsewhere in this comment thread, where you are being a denier about the severity of COVID-19. I have family who work in an ICU, and I'm going to trust them over you. This cramps the entirety of your whataboutist rant somewhat. If you want to think globally, you're going to have to consider how we're trying to lower the HIV and AIDS rates in southern Africa. Safe sex is akin to wearing a mask and social distancing, and it requires government support, including discouraging gatherings which are likely to spread disease. Finally, your edit. You've seen the rest of our society, outside our homes, right? Abusive family and roommates are not the ultimate cause of all mental health issues. These folks were free to do what I have the rough equivalent of doing: Going to a nearby park, with a mask on, to get fresh air and exercise and communion with nature. As a long-term sufferer from depression and suicidal ideation, I think that it is infantile for you to take the stance that you've taken. Your selfish attitude, when shared by millions of others, has killed thousands of people over the past year. We can conquer measles, we can conquer ebola, but COVID-19 is somehow special? No, what is special is the politically-motivated and ignorant response that you've espoused throughout this thread.
megaman821 6y ago
Is there any evidence whatsoever that outside walks are serious vector of transmission. For as many people that this will scare into compliance, it will make just as many defiant.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
monikapastor 6y ago
Should we ask police for a permission to breathe, soon?
tetromino_ 6y ago
Genuine question: how many documented instances are there of Covid transmission in a public park or similar outdoors, non-enclosed, low-density environments?
- mikestew 6y ago
  It's a question I'd love to have an answer to, even if terribly imprecise; just get me in the neighborhood. Because everything I hear is about indoor dining and weddings. But me running 5-10m away without a mask? One side of me says that if a hypothetical someone gets covid from me in that scenario, we're all screwed. But I'm open to just about anything that resembles contrary evidence.
heraclius 6y ago
This is ludicrous. Guidance is not law, and unclear laws are not to be interpreted at the discretion of the police. The notion that merely going outside on a walk far from others contributes non-negligibly to the risk of transmission is misconceived: unlike most prohibited activities, it would be fine if everyone were to do it.
cosmiccatnap 6y ago
After looking at them, I think this is fine.
bsimpson 6y ago
As a Californian, I'm shocked that most of the comments here are in defense of the officers. 5 miles is the length of Golden Gate Park. I bike it out-and-back every day. To argue it's leaving your "local area" is absurd. To back that assertion with fines is incomprehensible. To send a pack of police officers to issue those fines is a wanton abuse of power. Glad the BBC wrote an article about it. Fuck the Derbyshire Police.

19 points by madjam002 6y ago

In fairness to the two women caught here, the UK has made near zero effort to actually enforce any of the restrictions. People routinely don't wear masks in supermarkets or on public transport, no one washes their hands, work places are taking no measures to stop spread. So it is fair to be surprised they were caught. Hopefully this is an actual crackdown and not just bored cops. We really need one as we're on the verge of collapse of medical services.

madjam002 6y ago
Not sure about two people going for a walk out of town though, is that really a big issue? It’s not breaking any of the legislation and they were fined as what they did “wasn’t in the spirit of the lockdown”... what?!
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  The legislation says it's up to the police if your action is reasonable. Police decided they could have walked closer to home. If they want, they can go to court and try and convince the magistrate/jury the police were wrong. I wish them luck (honestly). The issue we have is we haven't enforced the very important stuff. So now we're fucked. So now we have to enforce the lot, even if this particular event (2 people arriving separately etc) seems small. As far as I'm concerned, the more people see enforcement, the more lives will be saved. So it's a good thing whether either of these women actually transmitted and actual covid etc...
  - HappyDreamer 6y ago
    If they enforce the legislation far away in the forests or countryside, whilst ignore people walking in crowds in London on Christmas Eve [1], then I'm thinking this will lower the trust in the police and make people inclined to ignore the rules. Meaning, I think what the police did here, damages the trust in the legal system and covid response, slightly changing things for the worse. [1] London Christmas Lights Walk 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz7wJZln6Kw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz7wJZln6Kw
    - LatteLazy 6y ago
      I don't think compliance can get much lower tbh. I hope I'm right about that but it's just my jaded opinion. I completely agree we have a massive issue that the government created themselves: they've encouraged non-compliance in every imaginable way. It's criminally poor. Now they're stuck: they need to turn it around and do so quickly. So they'll arrest these women having allowed crowds to fill tube trains. The only problem is they're doing the right thing. We need compliance and we need it now. It's not fair to these women. After this is over Bojo should be arrested. But right now, its necessary. Salus populi suprema lex esto (The public safety is the highest law)
      - HappyDreamer 6y ago
        > they've encouraged non-compliance in every imaginable way > Now they're stuck: they need to turn it around and do so quickly Situation about the same here where I live (also in Europe). Thanks for having written a bit more about how you're thinking.
lhorie 6y ago
I still remember the reporting when the epidemic started in Wuhan and thinking how incredibly draconian they were being with a complete shutdown of an entire city; stores, roads, everything. Now in hindsight, I pause to wonder if it isn't more draconian to keep enforcing these half-assed rules for months on end - and being clearly ineffectively, if reports of ICU capacity are any indication...
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  I agree. I don't understand why we couldn't have closed the borders, had 2months of hardcore super lockdown and then been covid free. That's basically what happened in Melbourne. They had to do it twice because some idiot mixed with newly arrived travellers and spread it. But they're in a much better place than we are. Almost everything is open again.
  - salmon30salmon 6y ago
    I've said it many times, Australia and New Zealand are both islands, this makes restricting ingress far easier than land borders controlled by many different authorities. Furthermore, many countries have laws that prohibit house arrest, which is essentially what you are suggesting here. Finally, unless the entire world did the same, we would not be "covid-free". As soon as one person with covid entered the country post-lockdown, cases would grow. If Australia had actually beaten covid, then they could welcome people back. But they didn't beat it! That isolated themselves from the world and continue to do so. That isn't beating it at all. You may be right that almost everything is open again, but there are also leaving thousands of their citizens stranded abroad. This is an absurd payoff for a virus that, at worst, kills .5% of people who contract it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/australia-coronavirus-stranded-quarantine-travel/2020/12/10/6d990c60-2e0d-11eb-9dd6-2d0179981719_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/australia-...
    - LatteLazy 6y ago
      Sorry, I should have clarified: I'm a limey brit so closing our (my) border is almost as easy as it is for the aussies. Similarly, we have no constitution or bill of rights, so a house arrest law is easy and quick to pass. The issue with the .5% figure is that 5% of covid patients would die if they didn't receive care. So the death rate is only 0.5% until your last hospital bed / ventilators / nurse is busy. Then it's 5%. We've fucked about letting more and more people get it. Which is fine because 0.5% and because we're following the "herd immunity" strategy. Unlike Aus that went for eradication. But now, so many people are sick the hospitals are full. London expects to run out of beds within 2 weeks. Rest of the UK in 3 weeks. Given the 5-6 day incubation period, that means we need to reduce the R number below 1 by Monday in London (where people are densely packed and rely on public transport). You have 7 more days for the rest of the place. Or we accept the 5% marginal death rate. 5% is pretty fucking high. Look around your office, your sports team, your family and fields. Pick 1 in 20 to die. And that's 5% across the board. It's higher for your grandparents, your sick cousin etc. Plus you have people permanently disabled and "Long Covid" to factor in. So having encouraged people to go out, having let people test the rules and find them unenforced, and having done all the easy cheap shit (office worked wfh), the government finds it has to get very strict, convince people it means it this time, and get them to stay home, all in the next few days. Oh, and the current government was elected by the people most likely to die of this. And the current leader is dumb and lazy. And he's spent the last year promising his party no more lockdowns...

rubycon22 6y ago

This is the same place that sends police to your door if you post unapproved opinions on the internet. Doesn't surprise me at all.

monksy 6y ago

So there is a regulation to prevent people from gathering. These two go to a remote location. How are the police to know that they aren't going there to gather. I hear the same argument applied to closing the beaches "BuT wErE JuSt At ThE BeAcH DiSTanCeD!" The intent is to prevent groups from getting together and unknowingly spread. It sucks but we're still in an emergency crisis because people have been gathering and refusing to distance.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

duxup 6y ago

COVID type restrictions are inherently vague and broad unlike say a typical law that has all sorts of specifics, or has been litigated enough that we know what can be expected. Any kind of enforcement, for better and worse will result in this kind of thing. In both countries that are used to very broad law about moments ... but even more so those that aren't used to enforcing such laws. That's not a justification, but IMO the reality of the situation.

myWindoonn 6y ago

"I genuinely thought someone had been murdered," says one of them. Do these people not understand that folks die from the plague? There's a serious deficit of empathy happening here.

salmon30salmon 6y ago
Don't be so sanctimonious. People also die from loneliness, isolation, lack of exercise, depression, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, malnutrition. Do you even fucking realize how much our response to COVID has impacted food programs worldwide? How shutting down major economies has pushed our children back by _years_ of educational attainment? People die from everything, for fucks sake. People die from TB, which inoculations against are way down this year. People die from lack of clean water, which financial assistance from developed nations has tanked this year.This is not even counting the delay in cancer treatment, heart treatment. Hospitals in my state were essentially shut down all Spring and Summer when we had incredibly low community spread. So the woman who is six months late for her mammogram, is her cancer less important than COVID? When you say people die and it is a big deal, are you only concerned for well-off white people in developed nations? Because I do say you've turned a blind eye to all the death and famine around the world to suddenly be on your high horse when it comes to COVID. Edit: I am sorry but I need to come back to this. Do you have any idea what these lockdowns are doing to mental health of teens and adults? Suicidal ideation is on the rise as is self-reported depression. So are you saying that those who kill themselves from despair and depression aren't as entitled to support to help _them_. We closed down a nation to support those at risk from COVID. What will we do to support those who are dying from other means, due to our response?
- myWindoonn 6y ago
  Look closer at these ladies: https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/0436/production/_116387010_walk1.jpg https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/0436/production/... Do you notice that they are holding drinks purchased from Starbucks while not wearing masks? Their entire attitude, from their words to their daily actions, smacks of an unconcern towards the affairs of others. I see elsewhere in this comment thread, where you are being a denier about the severity of COVID-19. I have family who work in an ICU, and I'm going to trust them over you. This cramps the entirety of your whataboutist rant somewhat. If you want to think globally, you're going to have to consider how we're trying to lower the HIV and AIDS rates in southern Africa. Safe sex is akin to wearing a mask and social distancing, and it requires government support, including discouraging gatherings which are likely to spread disease. Finally, your edit. You've seen the rest of our society, outside our homes, right? Abusive family and roommates are not the ultimate cause of all mental health issues. These folks were free to do what I have the rough equivalent of doing: Going to a nearby park, with a mask on, to get fresh air and exercise and communion with nature. As a long-term sufferer from depression and suicidal ideation, I think that it is infantile for you to take the stance that you've taken. Your selfish attitude, when shared by millions of others, has killed thousands of people over the past year. We can conquer measles, we can conquer ebola, but COVID-19 is somehow special? No, what is special is the politically-motivated and ignorant response that you've espoused throughout this thread.

megaman821 6y ago

Is there any evidence whatsoever that outside walks are serious vector of transmission. For as many people that this will scare into compliance, it will make just as many defiant.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

monikapastor 6y ago

Should we ask police for a permission to breathe, soon?

tetromino_ 6y ago

Genuine question: how many documented instances are there of Covid transmission in a public park or similar outdoors, non-enclosed, low-density environments?

mikestew 6y ago
It's a question I'd love to have an answer to, even if terribly imprecise; just get me in the neighborhood. Because everything I hear is about indoor dining and weddings. But me running 5-10m away without a mask? One side of me says that if a hypothetical someone gets covid from me in that scenario, we're all screwed. But I'm open to just about anything that resembles contrary evidence.

heraclius 6y ago

This is ludicrous. Guidance is not law, and unclear laws are not to be interpreted at the discretion of the police. The notion that merely going outside on a walk far from others contributes non-negligibly to the risk of transmission is misconceived: unlike most prohibited activities, it would be fine if everyone were to do it.

cosmiccatnap 6y ago

After looking at them, I think this is fine.

bsimpson 6y ago

As a Californian, I'm shocked that most of the comments here are in defense of the officers. 5 miles is the length of Golden Gate Park. I bike it out-and-back every day. To argue it's leaving your "local area" is absurd. To back that assertion with fines is incomprehensible. To send a pack of police officers to issue those fines is a wanton abuse of power. Glad the BBC wrote an article about it. Fuck the Derbyshire Police.