#COVID19 | Page 351 | Vital Football

#COVID19

in_the_top_one said:
https://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news/now-illegal-someone-another-household-4180425

New laws being introduced into Parliament on Monday make it specifically illegal to have someone from a different household in your home in England.

Until now anyone visiting a home that isn't their own would have been breaking the law - now it is illegal for both the visitor and the host.

The rules apply even if you are in a relationship with the other person or they are famly.


The police last week made it clear they do not have the power to enter a garden to check how many people are there and if they are following the rules.


Farcical. Again.
Click to expand...

I'd love to know how me visiting my partner is more risky than crowded beaches but hey ho.
 
Calvin Plummer said:
I'd love to know how me visiting my partner is more risky than crowded beaches but hey ho.
Click to expand...
Well in a way it is more risky because outside transmission is low. But if you're going to live with her then that, in my view, should be considered a household.
It makes no sense to render both you and her criminals just because the deeds or rental agreement of the house you live in are in her name.


It is a different matter if you spend consecutive nights traveling around the country to all your girlfriends' houses.
 
“The World Health Organization struggled to get needed information from China during critical early days of the coronavirus pandemic, according to recordings of internal meetings that contradict the organisation’s public praise of Beijing’s response to the outbreak.

“The recordings, obtained by the Associated Press (AP), show officials complaining in meetings during the week of 6 January that Beijing was not sharing data needed to evaluate the risk of the virus to the rest of the world. It was not until 20 January that China confirmed coronavirus was contagious and 30 January that the WHO declared a global emergency.”


There should be punishment for this.
 
in_the_top_one said:
.


It is a different matter if you spend consecutive nights traveling around the country to all your girlfriends' houses.
Click to expand...

I suspect that would be very much dependent on one's child care availability status and whether one needed their eyes checking or not.
 
ZedRed said:
I don't think Trump is interested in peacekeeping. He's just deployed paratroopers to Washington DC.
Click to expand...

To be fair I have used Ronald Regan and Dulles airports regularly, even had the misfortune to use Washington North or Baltimore as it more commonly known once.
Given the choice I think parachuting in would be more preferable, and in the case of Baltimore safer.
 
Feco said:
To be fair I have used Ronald Regan and Dulles airports regularly, even had the misfortune to use Washington North or Baltimore as it more commonly known once.
Given the choice I think parachuting in would be more preferable, and in the case of Baltimore safer.
Click to expand...
Did you drive past Baltimore prison on the way into town?
It is pretty big and has quite a few bullet holes in it.
 
Calvin Plummer said:
Always trust the science :/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-world-health-organization-hydroxychloroquine
Click to expand...
It's a good rule of thumb but not flawless.
What you are drawing attention to is not good science. Which means it isn't really science at all. It will now be revisted and tested again (it almost certainly was already undergoing that process) and - likely - rejected. That's good science.

Mistakes are going to be made during this because it's a fast moving situation and people rightly want to stop anything that might be causing more damage then benefit. Obviously, this is looking like one of those mistakes but to besmirch "science", or an approach that is informed by science, is wrong. Honestly, consider the alternative. Where would we be without science? The dark ages. I'll take my chances with modern science, even accounting for the odd screw up.

Anyway, tell me more about this adult-content model. She sounds intriguing.
 
in_the_top_one said:
It's a good rule of thumb but not flawless.
What you are drawing attention to is not good science. Which means it isn't really science at all. It will now be revisted and tested again (it almost certainly was already undergoing that process) and - likely - rejected. That's good science.

Mistakes are going to be made during this because it's a fast moving situation and people rightly want to stop anything that might be causing more damage then benefit. Obviously, this is looking like one of those mistakes but to besmirch "science", or an approach that is informed by science, is wrong. Honestly, consider the alternative. Where would we be without science? The dark ages. I'll take my chances with modern science, even accounting for the odd screw up.

Anyway, tell me more about this adult-content model. She sounds intriguing.
Click to expand...

Science = climate change
 
Feco said:
To be fair I have used Ronald Regan and Dulles airports regularly, even had the misfortune to use Washington North or Baltimore as it more commonly known once.
Given the choice I think parachuting in would be more preferable, and in the case of Baltimore safer.
Click to expand...
Baltimore does offer it own unique set of challenges!!!!:grinning:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.