Jump to content

*CRT enforcement of 14-day rule post lockdown and Tier 3 areas*


Featured Posts

Just now, Jim Riley said:

Because, the tories being a squabbling shambles with umpteen voting against boris, the only option was to let "the best of a bad lot" through, to at least have some restrictions. If Labour had voted against then the tories who want us all to die would have had their way, no restrictions, darwin rules.

That fails to address what I asked.

 

So I will rephrase it.

 

I wasn't asking why he didn't vote against them I was asking why he didn't vote FOR them.

 

If he was keen to push for harsh restrictions (as has been suggested by Arthur) why did he not push for his MP's to vote for the pretty harsh restrictions that were being proposed?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/12/2020 at 10:51, doratheexplorer said:

As usual, CRT are making themselves look remote, uncaring and foolish. 

 

The guidance for Tier 3 says; "avoid travelling outside of your area, including for overnight stays other than where necessary".  This is not outside of your tier, but outside of your area.  Area is not defined, but in the circumstances, it makes sense to define it in a similar way to "place" from the 1995 Waterways Act.  This means that anyone in Tier 3, in order to comply with the continuous cruising guidelines, will have to breach the covid guidelines. 

 

What's more important to CRT?  Enforcing a poxy waterways act (which allows longer stays where it's reasonable), or keeping your customers safe from a deadly pandemic? 

 

Remember what the act says:

 

"the applicant for the relevant consent satisfies the Board that the vessel to which the application relates will be used bona fide for navigation throughout the period for which the consent is valid without remaining continuously in any one place for more than 14 days or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances."

 

If it's not reasonable to stay put right now, then when the hell is it??

AGTDB3.jpg.a5b931da26653d2a8387b240ced483d4.jpg

Only when the cows are in danger of dying!!!...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Athy said:

But that doesn't alter the fact that it's unprecedented, surely?

:clapping:

A pair of rankers?

A major flu epidemic happened not long ago, killed a raft of people. Ebola abroad. The bird flu panic a few years back. Among other animals, foot and mouth. Myxamotosis. Dutch elm disease, if you happen to be a tree. Plenty others in humans, throughout history, going back to the postwar flu epidemic and the black death.  Of course there are precedents, we are just so arrogant we think they'll never happen again, or to us.

Calling it unprecedented is, I'm afraid, wilfully blinding yourself to history and making excuses for either incompetence or the,  more likely, deliberate disregard for public safety because it costs money that can be better squirreled away amongst one's friends in power.

  • Greenie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Athy said:

Jim, and others: this topic is not in the political section, so no more controversial and/or inflammatory political comments, please.

thanks Athy.

 

I'm considering sticking where I am over Christmas, if I do I will notify CRT. Seems bloody daft to be shuffling about to some arbitrary rule at the moment. Just as daft as seeing shiny boats out for jollies over the last few weekends; though of course I'm judging them to not be CCers moving for water or whatever

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Happy Nomad said:

That fails to address what I asked.

 

So I will rephrase it.

 

I wasn't asking why he didn't vote against them I was asking why he didn't vote FOR them.

 

If he was keen to push for harsh restrictions (as has been suggested by Arthur) why did he not push for his MP's to vote for the pretty harsh restrictions that were being proposed?

Listen to what he said and you - just - might see the point? Why support a half-arsed system which has already failed once, when there's no proper support for those suffering, and when you know it's all going pearshaped in a month anyway? It just leaves you in the position that when it fails, as you know it will, you get told "well, you supported it! So it's your fault it was crap too."  Better to sit it out and let the blame fall in the proper place.

Or the credit, obviously, when it turns out Johnson is right (as he has been so often before) and the virus disappears and we're all out celebrating at Christmas, and there's no third wave in January.

Credit where credit's due, i say.

ETA Just seen Athy's request for us to leave off the politics, so I'll leave it there and not respond again!

Edited by Arthur Marshall
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Listen to what he said and you - just - might see the point? Why support a half-arsed system which has already failed once, when there's no proper support for those suffering, and when you know it's all going pearshaped in a month anyway? It just leaves you in the position that when it fails, as you know it will, you get told "well, you supported it! So it's your fault it was crap too."  Better to sit it out and let the blame fall in the proper place.

Or the credit, obviously, when it turns out Johnson is right (as he has been so often before) and the virus disappears and we're all out celebrating at Christmas, and there's no third wave in January.

Credit where credit's due, i say.

I would reply but.

 

1 hour ago, Athy said:

Jim, and others: this topic is not in the political section, so no more controversial and/or inflammatory political comments, please.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/12/2020 at 10:30, The Happy Nomad said:

Anti vaxers, anti maskers and the like should be denied free NHS care if they need NHS care for Covid. Not denied care just charged for it at the going rate. If they require a stint in critical care and survive that should cost them a tidy sum, if they snuff it the cost should pass to the next of kin.

 

(Of course this will never be implemented).

 

And not allowed in pubs, restaurants, cinemas or any other public indoor buildings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rickent said:

let me make this quite clear as you are not taking it in.

Vaccines are a fantastic tool in the fight against deadly diseases, I cannot stress this enough but the pfizer vaccine and the moderna vaccine are not like previous traditional vaccines , they are a novel vaccine the likes of which has never been licenced for human use, this is my issue, we are being asked to step into the unknown, I do not see why this is such a big issue with people, if you are happy to take it, fine , that's up to you but please do not label people with genuine reservations about its safety as anti vaxxers or conspiracy theorists.

All new medical treatments, are by definition, new.  At some point, they have to be implemented.  Your idea is that we wait a few years to see if any of the trial cohort suffer side effects.  Of course the big problem with that approach is that c.80 million people will die.  That's a pretty big side effect of your post.

 

I am very well aware of the innovations around some of the new vaccines.  I have a degree in Biology and a Masters in Public Health.  I work in neither field now, but the general principles still rattle around my head.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

All new medical treatments, are by definition, new.  At some point, they have to be implemented.  Your idea is that we wait a few years to see if any of the trial cohort suffer side effects.  Of course the big problem with that approach is that c.80 million people will die.  That's a pretty big side effect of your post.

 

I am very well aware of the innovations around some of the new vaccines.  I have a degree in Biology and a Masters in Public Health.  I work in neither field now, but the general principles still rattle around my head.

I'd rather trust in the vaccine than take a chance on the unknown long term effects of the virus.

 

Keith

  • Greenie 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Steilsteven said:

I'd rather trust in the vaccine than take a chance on the unknown long term effects of the virus.

 

Keith

And therein lies a huge dilemma.

I spent a great many years assertively treating people with all kinds of medications, watching their lives improve vastly.

Then the metabolic side effects started as well as issues with the Qt interval.

That causes cardiac issues.

So we ended up with obesity, diabetes and cardiac problems in a cohort of young population.

These issues took some time to emerge, from medications described as cutting edge and less damaging than the previous psychotropics that we had employed.

There is always a trade off, its whether its worth it or not, and sadly only hindsight will inform us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, roland elsdon said:

And therein lies a huge dilemma.

I spent a great many years assertively treating people with all kinds of medications, watching their lives improve vastly.

Then the metabolic side effects started as well as issues with the Qt interval.

That causes cardiac issues.

So we ended up with obesity, diabetes and cardiac problems in a cohort of young population.

These issues took some time to emerge, from medications described as cutting edge and less damaging than the previous psychotropics that we had employed.

There is always a trade off, its whether its worth it or not, and sadly only hindsight will inform us.

Which conditions were you treating for?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Arthur Marshall said:

Well that IS the job of an opposition. It's suppose to criticise to make the other lot think harder.  It can't really do much else.

In my civil service  days, there would have been outcry if jobs had been handed out to the boss's mates without a public tender - in fsct, it was illegal to do so. And may well still be, as fas I know.

But the crucial error in your post is to say this was unprecedented. It wasn't. There was even a major exercise a few years ago which stated what was needed in the case of a pandemic, the likelihood of one happening (high) and where current practices fell short. It was first buried, then ignored.  Ministers said they'd had enough of experts, they went with common sense. 

Captain Hindsight? Starmer's been pushing all along for better support and tighter restrictions. Damn sight better than Major Disaster and his best mate, Private Profit.

I think unprecedented is about OK - in UK it is about a century since the last on this scale. I think you were reading it as saying unanticipated - or unforeseeable - which you would be right to criticise, just for the reasons you cite. We were particularly unprepared - for policy reasons to do with economics. It was assessed that the risk and cost made it justifiable to ignore the option of stockpiling in readiness. Such as was stockpiled was, I believe, often out of date. Again, a lack of expenditure on a system fit for purpose. But that is the job of policy to make collective judgements on behalf of society as a whole. The point about risk assessment is that it is not risk avoidance or prevention. Sometimes it is possible to make the wrong call. The real lack of readiness was to forget to prepare to justify the decision that was taken in the past not to be ready on the grounds that the public would not want to pay for it. Sometimes, populism costs a shed load of money. We are in the midst of seeing just how big that shed can be especially when two 100 year events collide.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, dor said:

Common sense tells you that anything that can reduce the range and volume of virus-laden particles offers real, if not complete, protection.

If it was common sense we'd all be born with one attached to our faces. I've never seen anyone cough in people's faces or over food but I guess a mask is a good idea for those who do. 

Edited by Rambling Boater
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rambling Boater said:

I get 'political', but 'controversial'? What's the point of a forum if we can't discuss different views? 

The principal point of this forum is to discuss different views on the world of canals. Hence other topics have their own specific area so they don’t pollute the main purpose of the forum. The request is simply that the political content in this thread that is not related to boating is taken there; it isn’t that you can’t discuss different views.

  • Greenie 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Rambling Boater said:

If it was common sense we'd all be born with one attached to our faces. I've never seen anyone cough in people's faces or over food but I guess a mask is a good idea for those who do. 

Providing everybody covered their face well enough every time they sneezed or coughed you might be right.   However it isn't a case of coughing in peoples faces or over food it is leaving the virus floating in the air in confined spaces such as shops and pubs.   Without a mask the virus spreads severzal metres and develops into small aerosol particles which hang in the air for a long (ish) time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jerra said:

Providing everybody covered their face well enough every time they sneezed or coughed you might be right.   However it isn't a case of coughing in peoples faces or over food it is leaving the virus floating in the air in confined spaces such as shops and pubs.   Without a mask the virus spreads severzal metres and develops into small aerosol particles which hang in the air for a long (ish) time.

Transmission by touch is considered to be non-trivial.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Transmission by touch is considered to be non-trivial.

True no transmission is trivial.  However the consensus of scientific opinion is that the majority of infections are by viruses in the air in enclosed spaces.  This is why the government reduce mixing indoors as far as possible.  The three cases examined on the el pais website illustrate this admirably.

Edited by Jerra
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/12/2020 at 03:44, Rambling Boater said:

If it was common sense we'd all be born with one attached to our faces. I've never seen anyone cough in people's faces or over food but I guess a mask is a good idea for those who do. 

Ah! So that's why we were all born wearing clothes and shoes then.

 

Keith

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Steilsteven said:

Ah! So that's why we were all born wearing clothes and shoes then.

 

Keith

It doesn't matter whether masks do any good or not, much the same as wearing clothes. If people are going to be upset if you don't, why not make the slight effort to let them feel comfortable in your presence?

  • Greenie 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

So, re: CRT enforcement of 14-day rule post lockdown and Tier 3 areas, should you notify CRT if you're not visiting your boat as it's moored in Tier 3 area (and you live in another area e.g. Tier 2) or not? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.