HiFi Subjectivist ¦ Audio Forum ¦ NVA User Group

valvesRus wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 10:22 pm

CN211276 wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 10:12 pm A few eeediots racing motor bikes on the largely deserted roads near us.

Perhaps they were going to a distant shop for essential supplies, or visiting a dependent relative ?

Geoff.R.G wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 2:48 pm In the week ending 7 Mar 2020 there were 35,000 reported Influenza Like Infections. Up to that point there had been a total of 2626 Covid19 infections confirmed. Around 17,000 people a year die of Flu, so far 400 have died of Covid19. Draw your own conclusions.

scotty38 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2020 5:14 pm

Geoff.R.G wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 2:48 pm In the week ending 7 Mar 2020 there were 35,000 reported Influenza Like Infections. Up to that point there had been a total of 2626 Covid19 infections confirmed. Around 17,000 people a year die of Flu, so far 400 have died of Covid19. Draw your own conclusions.

Tragically up to 6159 in less than a couple of weeks....

Geoff.R.G wrote: ↑Wed Apr 08, 2020 7:50 pm

scotty38 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 07, 2020 5:14 pm

Geoff.R.G wrote: ↑Wed Mar 25, 2020 2:48 pm In the week ending 7 Mar 2020 there were 35,000 reported Influenza Like Infections. Up to that point there had been a total of 2626 Covid19 infections confirmed. Around 17,000 people a year die of Flu, so far 400 have died of Covid19. Draw your own conclusions.

Tragically up to 6159 in less than a couple of weeks....

7000 now, WITH the virus, not necessarily from the virus.

Lindsayt wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2020 10:49 am

Daniel Quinn wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2020 8:50 am The offer is there . Or you could just do the sensible thing and admit it is far to early in the life of the virus to make declarations and a government as no choice but to act as they are doing despite all these audiophiles with perfect knowledge.

The Governement has no choice? Just like the US Government, in the wake of 9/11 had no choice when it came to torturing people to save lives?

All I want is for the Government to act in a totally legal and ethical way.

I'm not convinced that that's the case at the moment.

It appears that they are using this virus crisis to implement restrictions in some areas that they are not legally entitled to implement.

Furthermore, section 51 of the Coronavirus Bill appears to be a bad piece of legislation. It contains the following sections:

Powers to direct or remove persons to a place suitable for screening and assessment6
(1) This paragraph applies if, during a transmission control period, a public health officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person in England ispotentially infectious.
(2) The public health officer may, subject to sub-paragraph
(3)—(a)direct the person to go immediately to a place specified in thedirection which is suitable for screening and assessment,
(b)remove the person to a place suitable for screening and assessment,or
(c)request a constable to remove the person to a place suitable for screening and assessment (and the constable may then do so)

And:

Powers exercisable after assessment14
(1) This paragraph applies where, during a transmission control period—
(a)a person in England has been screened and assessed by a publichealth officer (under paragraph 10 or otherwise) and—
(i)the screening confirmed that the person is infected orcontaminated with coronavirus, or
(ii)the screening was inconclusive, or
(b)a person in England has been assessed by a public health officer(under paragraph 10 or otherwise) and the officer has reasonablegrounds to suspect that the person is potentially infectious.

(2) A public health officer may at any time during the transmission control period impose such requirements and restrictions on the person as the officer considers necessary and proportionate—(a)in the interests of the person,(b)for the protection of other people, or(c)for the maintenance of public health.

(3) Requirements under this paragraph may include requirements—
(a)to provide information to the public health officer or any specifiedperson;
(b)to provide details by which the person may be contacted during aspecified period;
(c)to go for the purposes of further screening and assessment to aspecified place suitable for those purposes and do anything that maybe required under paragraph 10
(1);(d)to remain at a specified place (which may be a place suitable forscreening and assessment) for a specified period;
(e)to remain at a specified place in isolation from others for a specifiedperiod.

(4) Restrictions on a person under this paragraph may include restrictions, fora specified period, on—
(a)the person’s movements or travel (within or outside the UnitedKingdom);
(b)the person’s activities (including their work or business activities);
(c)the person’s contact with other persons or with other specified persons


The Bill does not appear to clarify what are reasonable grounds for a public health officer to suspect that a person is infectious. Bearing in mind that an over-zealous or vindictive public health officer could claim that a "suspected infectious person" is currently in the incubation period of this virus.
And an overzealous or vindictive public health officer could well claim that he or she considers requirements and restrictions on a particular person as necessary and proportionate, when they are - in fact - overzealous or vindictive.