Bosley Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 7 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said: The laws, as they were at the time, applied to all of us. It doesn’t mean they were either right or proportionate with the actual risks. Has anyone produced a report which confirms that jailing a significant part of your population had any overall impact on covid transmission at all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RecklessAbandon Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 So which particular measures did you circumvent to go about your life? And what was so important about your life that you felt circumventing them was the right thing to do for yourself and the greater community? 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 4 minutes ago, Bosley said: It doesn’t mean they were either right or proportionate with the actual risks. Has anyone produced a report which confirms that jailing a significant part of your population had any overall impact on covid transmission at all? It wasn't to directly impact on transmission but to send a very strong message, particularly to those who thought they could get away with little infringements as 'it wouldn't do any harm'. So how did you conduct your life to ensure the restrictions had minimal impact on you? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 27 minutes ago, philwebs said: You will be delighted to know there is another pandemic in the offing, so you can play this game again, probably in the Spring. This time its Monkey Pox (sorry, that one fizzled as its an STD) This one is Avian Flu. Said to be deadly to most of the population. Remember to get multiple infections, wear a mask, maintain safe distancing, stay behind the perspex screens, lock up your grannies for their safety, etc, etc. And jail all infringers, or put them in concentration camps. Make your choices. The politicians will do as they are instructed to do. Result will be more economic carnage, and all the side effects most people do not see. Good luck. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/bird-flu/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosley Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 1 minute ago, Gladys said: It wasn't to directly impact on transmission but to send a very strong message, particularly to those who thought they could get away with little infringements as 'it wouldn't do any harm'. If you want strong messages as I said above why don’t we just shoot people next time. That will really send the message out. Caught buying a sarnie in Tescos and just drag them out into the carpark and stick a bullet in the back of their head. That makes about as much sense as chucking someone in prison so that they don’t accidentally cough on someone. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RecklessAbandon Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 1 minute ago, Bosley said: If you want strong messages as I said above why don’t we just shoot people next time. That will really send the message out. Caught buying a sarnie in Tescos and just drag them out into the carpark and stick a bullet in the back of their head. That makes about as much sense as chucking someone in prison so that they don’t accidentally cough on someone. Not helping your case there with that kind of nonsense. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 Just now, Bosley said: If you want strong messages as I said above why don’t we just shoot people next time. That will really send the message out. Caught buying a sarnie in Tescos and just drag them out into the carpark and stick a bullet in the back of their head. That makes about as much sense as chucking someone in prison so that they don’t accidentally cough on someone. It was not to stop them accidentally coughing on someone. You really aren't getting it, but hey ho. My advice is that if there is a next time, you should go and buy as many sarnies as you can. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosley Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 Just now, RecklessAbandon said: Not helping your case there with that kind of nonsense. In what way was jailing anyone an effective disease transmission deterrent? Please answer. Let’s look at this for a second - so rather than one person being out when they shouldn’t have been and putting petrol in their car and paying at a counter where the staff member was behind a big plastic screen with a mask on and simply going home. The police were called and the petrol filler was then in close contact around maybe the one or two police officers who arrested them. They were then checked into the cells where several others would have been near them as they went through the process. Then taken to court in a police van by other people in close contact. Then stood before a court with other people in close contact. Then driven to Jurby in a van in close contact with other officers. Then thrown into prison potentially exposing another 100 people to covid. All this close contact happening right the way through a process rather than just going home after they’ve filled their tank and having contact with nobody other than one person with a mask on behind a screen. It’s literally an insane way of managing virus transmission. Shooting would be a much more effective way of managing the risks really. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RecklessAbandon Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 4 minutes ago, Bosley said: Shooting would be a much more effective way of managing the risks really. . Or, the person could have not filled up with petrol. My guess is that you are framing all your "arguments" based off of third hand or worse hearsay and you are offended on other peoples behalf without all the information. At all stages that interpersonal interactions took place, "contamination" protocols would have been in place to mitigate cross transmission as much as possible, but to be clear all of those steps would have been negated if the instigating incident either didn't happen in the first place or the interaction with the police didn't escalate to the point where an arrest was necessary. Quote So which particular measures did you circumvent to go about your life? And what was so important about your life that you felt circumventing them was the right thing to do for yourself and the greater community? Answer this if you don't mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 9 minutes ago, Bosley said: In what way was jailing anyone an effective disease transmission deterrent? Please answer. Let’s look at this for a second - so rather than one person being out when they shouldn’t have been and putting petrol in their car and paying at a counter where the staff member was behind a big plastic screen with a mask on and simply going home. The police were called and the petrol filler was then in close contact around maybe the one or two police officers who arrested them. They were then checked into the cells where several others would have been near them as they went through the process. Then taken to court in a police van by other people in close contact. Then stood before a court with other people in close contact. Then driven to Jurby in a van in close contact with other officers. Then thrown into prison potentially exposing another 100 people to covid. All this close contact happening right the way through a process rather than just going home after they’ve filled their tank and having contact with nobody other than one person with a mask on behind a screen. It’s literally an insane way of managing virus transmission. Shooting would be a much more effective way of managing the risks really. . If they demonstrate they can't be trusted to self-isolate then doing it for them seems a very reasonable way forward to me. Surely even you can see that...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosley Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 1 minute ago, RecklessAbandon said: Or, the person could have not filled up with petrol. But if they ran out of petrol they would still have been arrested for being out and about out of isolation so it’s Catch 22 isn’t it? Get arrested for getting petrol, or get arrested for running out of petrol and not isolating. The whole thing was bollocks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RecklessAbandon Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 9 minutes ago, Bosley said: But if they ran out of petrol they would still have been arrested for being out and about out of isolation so it’s Catch 22 isn’t it? Get arrested for getting petrol, or get arrested for running out of petrol and not isolating. The whole thing was bollocks. Can you attest that the car was genuinely running on fumes, and that the journey to get petrol was considered an "essential journey"? Can you also attest that the police simply just arrived on scene and arrested the driver for no reason other than "just being out"? What is your connection to the driver or the situation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RecklessAbandon Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 Quote So which particular measures did you circumvent to go about your life? And what was so important about your life that you felt circumventing them was the right thing to do for yourself and the greater community? Also, can you answer this please? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosley Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 Just now, RecklessAbandon said: Can you attest that the car was genuinely running on fumes, and that the journey to get petrol was considered an "essential journey"? The lady had got off the ferry. So how else was she going to get home? If you’re running on empty and ran out before you got home you’d be in the exact same situation under our genuinely mental rules. You’re out of isolation. Jail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosley Posted July 23 Share Posted July 23 2 minutes ago, RecklessAbandon said: Also, can you answer this please? I’m not answering you. You’re clearly some sort of deranged covid nutter. You don’t seem to understand anything but totalitarian ridiculousness. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.