Loading Notifications...

BMC guidance error (England)

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Si dH 20 Oct 2020

The link provided all over social media today... 

https://www.thebmc.co.uk/new-local-covid-alert-levels

...contains a fundamental error in the Tier 3 section which significantly affects any climbers living in or near a Tier 3 area.

The article says "People must not meet with anybody outside their household or support bubble in any indoor or outdoor setting, whether at home or in a public space."
Outdoors, that is categorically incorrect. For clarity, in Tier 3, if you are outdoors in a public space which you do not have to pay to enter, then you are free to meet up to six people. There are a couple of detailed exceptions but they are not relevant to climbing or mountaineering. This is covered in schedule 1 part 1 para 4 of the regulations. The actual intent of the ban on outdoor social interactions is to cover private gardens and hospitality (pub beer gardens, restaurant terraces) as per the general gov.uk guidance.  These would not be considered a public place. There are also specific exceptions in place for some places that are not public, eg botanical gardens and gardens of national trust type properties, so meeting there is not banned. Meeting in small groups at the crag or any countryside location is most definitely not banned. 

I am a supportive member of the BMC but this is the sort of thing you really need to get right. Please correct the article. 

Post edited at 20:29
9
 spenser 20 Oct 2020
In reply to Si dH:

Probably best to pass this to Rob or Cath, will drop them a message.

Is this the regulation which you are referring to with regards none private spaces etc?

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/1105/schedule/1/paragraph/2

My reading of it is that it prescribes meeting in groups of more than 6 outdoors in these spaces (i.e. as you have said up to 6 in these spaces is OK).

 Si dH 20 Oct 2020
In reply to spenser:

Sorry , you are right, it is paragraph 2 sub-paragraph 4, not paragraph 4 as I wrote.

I don't really see why or how the BMC have made this error. This aspect has even been reported on reasonably clearly in the Press for people who can't read legislation, the BMC are the first people I've seen state that you shouldn't meet people anywhere outside.

I also commented on their Facebook post, between that and this they should pick it up I hope.

Edit, I should also point out I was wrong to say you can meet up to six people. You can meet up to five, ie a group of six, I was writing too quickly. It's the same as Tier 1 and 2 in those settings.

Post edited at 21:57
 Si dH 20 Oct 2020
In reply to Si dH:

Ps the article also peddles Boris's line about the local Liverpool local authorities choosing to shut gyms and leisure centres (hence climbing walls) which actually they have been pushing back on - it was dictated to them by Govt. That winds me up but is more of a political point - the important bit is that if you are going to give out guidance on this it needs to be right.

4
 spenser 20 Oct 2020
In reply to Si dH:

Not disagreeing with your sentiments, just trying to make sure that things are as clear as possible. I wound up spending 10 minutes rereading the regulation thinking it was backwards in the regulation!

 Ian Parsons 20 Oct 2020
In reply to spenser:

> My reading of it is that it prescribes meeting in groups of more than 6 outdoors in these spaces (i.e. as you have said up to 6 in these spaces is OK).

I think you actually mean 'proscribes' here.

1
 Becky E 20 Oct 2020
In reply to Si dH:

Would you like to send a similarly excoriating message to the The Telegraph too?  

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/10/20/tier-3-lockdown-rules-high-alert-areas-restrictions/

"People must not meet anybody outside their household or support bubble in any indoor or outdoor setting, whether at home or in a public space. The “Rule of Six” applies in open public spaces like parks and beaches"

4
 Si dH 21 Oct 2020
In reply to Becky E:

I don't read the telegraph. I'm surprised as everywhere else I've seen has had it approximately correct. The BBC have a reasonably good article on it. Newspapers getting it wrong is irritating but a national body needs to be a more reliable source - particularly on the points in the regs which are of most importance to their members. So not really a relevant comparison.

1
 Becky E 21 Oct 2020
In reply to Si dH:

Arguably more people read the Telegraph, and it was high up the list when I googled Covid tier 3 rules. 

6
 kevin stephens 21 Oct 2020
In reply to Becky E:

But arguably not climbers?

2
 spenser 21 Oct 2020
In reply to Ian Parsons:

You are correct.

 Becky E 21 Oct 2020
In reply to Si dH:

Even the BBC have managed to get it wrong this morning, in reporting that South Yorkshire will be moving to Tier 3.  So clearly the BMC and Telegraph are not alone.

The legislation is badly written which does not make it easy to interpret.

So perhaps you could be a little gentler in your feedback.  You could have made your point in a much kinder way, and a pleasant email to the BMC office is probably better than a snarky post on here.

13
 Webster 21 Oct 2020
In reply to Becky E:

hardly snarky. his post was informative, and in a place where a good number of people are going to see it, which is the point - to inform.

1
 Offwidth 21 Oct 2020
In reply to Si dH:

I'm not sure that's the key factor given the other factors involved. The government advise no non essential travel to Tier 3 areas and sort of imply that in some media appearances within such areas.

I'm pretty sure 6 locals from different households can walk to their local crag to climb but certainly people from outside the area would struggle to claim its essential travel. In finding any border between these extremes the government is as ever a bit unclear

8
 Si dH 21 Oct 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

Travel in and out of tier 3 areas for any reason is not prohibited, only advised against. The law contains no restrictions whatsoever on travel in England, whereas it does contain restrictions on meeting up, which is why it's important to get those right.

 Si dH 21 Oct 2020
In reply to Webster:

Thank you

 DancingOnRock 21 Oct 2020
In reply to Si dH:

It is ‘most’ outdoor spaces. The exceptions being. 
 

You may continue to see friends and family you do not live with (or have formed a support bubble with) in groups of 6 or less in certain outdoor public spaces, such as:

parks, beaches, countryside, forests

public gardens (whether or not you pay to enter them), allotments

outdoor sports courts and facilities, and playgrounds

When you do so, you must not meet in a group of more than 6. In England, this limit of 6 includes children of any age.

and

Exceptions where people from different households can gather in groups larger than 6 people

for outdoor exercise and dance classes, organised outdoor sport and licensed outdoor physical activity

Post edited at 11:21
 Offwidth 21 Oct 2020
In reply to Si dH:

The reason we have this lockdown is because people ignored advice that wasn't prohibited at the time. Crags are highly unlikely to be policed so any prohibition is meaningless.

Post edited at 11:25
12
 timjones 21 Oct 2020
In reply to Si dH:

> I am a supportive member of the BMC but this is the sort of thing you really need to get right. Please correct the article. 

I am no longer a member of the BMC  their provision of Covid advice was the final straw.

Having different organisations peddling their own interpretations does nothing for overall clarity, it would be far better if they refrained from doing so.

10
 Offwidth 21 Oct 2020
In reply to timjones:

That's your opinion and I find it sad you left for that reason. Most climbers I know found the specific advice useful and more importantly valued the extensive lobbying on covid related access.

BMC individual membership is holding up well, much to my relief. If the organisation didn't exist we would need to invent it.

8
 Si dH 21 Oct 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

> The reason we have this lockdown is because people ignored advice that wasn't prohibited at the time. Crags are highly unlikely to be policed so any prohibition is meaningless.

No it isn't. It's because people did what they were encouraged to do - going to crowded bars and restaurants for half price food, and subsequently students going back to university. Government policy in key areas has caused the second wave.

I don't really know where to start with your last sentence. The government makes very conscious decisions about what should be prohibited in law and what should only be advisory, so that people can make their own sensibly risk-based decisions. Johnson has specifically refused to outlaw travel to/from Tier 2/3 areas on multiple occasions. What is in the law is what matters most when determining whether we can undertake low risk activities in the countryside, not what is given as additional advice to the general public.

Post edited at 11:43
1
 Rob Parsons 21 Oct 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

> The reason we have this lockdown is because people ignored advice that wasn't prohibited at the time.

That's Johnson's line - i.e. we are all to blame for the problem; nothing to do with the authorities at all - and it's bullshit.

3
 timjones 21 Oct 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

> That's your opinion and I find it sad you left for that reason. Most climbers I know found the specific advice useful and more importantly valued the extensive lobbying on covid related access.

At the time that I gave up my membership the restrictions included in the BMC guidance exceeded thoose in the government guidance, how do you square that with "extensive lobbying on covid related access"?

It wasn't the only reason it was just the final straw, there has been a tendency to drift towards taking a stance on environmental issues, advise  on how to vote at elections etc that I am not happy with.

> BMC individual membership is holding up well, much to my relief. If the organisation didn't exist we would need to invent it.

I'm sad to leave, the BMC is great for access etc but they need to steer clear of other issues. If I want to be an eco warrior I will join a relevant organisation, if I want to know how to vote I will read party manifestos etc. There is no mileage in paying subs to multiple organisations if one of them exceeds it's remit and campaigns on lines that are contrary to the lobbyinng done by other organisations that you belong to for representation in that area.

5
 trouserburp 21 Oct 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

There are lots of reasons people may ignore advice, some more valid than others. If something is prohibited many of these people will abide by it regardless: 1) it adds a level of sincerity to the advice, so challenging your personal opinion plus there are social cues to abide by law 2) there is a possible penalty for ignoring it, even if risk is low

To say we have prohibitions because people ignored advice, therefore prohibition is meaningless - seems a bit of a circular argument?

 Orkie 21 Oct 2020
In reply to Rob Parsons:

Of course there is the possibility that nobody is to 'blame' at all, and it is simply an act of nature which we are (at this point in our technological development) unable to do much about despite us arrogantly believing otherwise based on how far we've come in the last 200 years! A bit less blaming (and fear of being blamed) all around might make the world a more pleasant place at the moment...

 Offwidth 21 Oct 2020
In reply to timjones:

In what exact ways and for how long did the BMC advice exceed Welsh government advice? In fast moving situations you cannot expect 100% accuracy immediately and the BMC cannot sensibly provide contrary advice to government, when things are not absolutely prohibited (but they did rightly say they would campaign for change and acted on that where evidence in risk was contrary to government advice).

9
 RM199 21 Oct 2020
In reply to Orkie:

Well said completely agree!

I also believe the BMC overreached with its advice on Covid, and would have recinded my membership if I could. (I have membership through a club.

I would add that UKC also very much overreached with their advice too. 

Can’t we just let people use their own common sense? 

3
 timjones 21 Oct 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

It was  not Welsh governement advice but I believe that the BMC advice on outdoor excercise and travel to excercise was incorrect for a considerable period.  I checked and double checked the official government advice before making my decision.

There is quite simply no reason for different organisations to chip in with their own interpretations of the rules.

 DancingOnRock 21 Oct 2020
In reply to Si dH:

That’s not quite true either. 
 

It’s not a second wave. It’s the first wave that we can only suppress for so long before the economy collapses and we have bigger problems than healthcare. 
 

The lockdown was to buy time and suppress it to manageable levels. 
 

The reason it’s growing is because at some time we have to lift restrictions for a bit. 
 

As has already been said blaming politicians for the pandemic is a pointless exercise. Blame people for not saving for a rainy day, blame businesses for failing to have pandemic plans and cash reserves.

Personally I think the blame game is a bit pointless. Just do what you’re asked to do by the people who have the data and understand the implications of mass behaviour. 

Post edited at 12:14
5
 Offwidth 21 Oct 2020
In reply to Si dH:

The fundamental government advice has always been to take great care not to transmit the virus. Where essential contact was required, to socially distance and to take precautions (especially indoors), practice good hygiene etc. That parts of the population claim secondary advice excuses them from these basic practices, has led to people dying. This includes intelligent people I know who regularly do really dumb things (an example would be a few who have insisting on hugging those from other households throughout the pandemic). 

I do agree those particular government policies were always risky (and based on saving the necessary alternative government financial support) and I would say that the return of students to halls of residence was plain immoral, as the government had enough scientific behavioural input to know the very likely outcome we now witness. However, if all people followed the fundamental rules the level of outbreaks would have been much lower and R would have not moved above 1. People need to take individual responsibility as well as the government

I personally have no scientific issue with the very low risk of 6 covid careful people travelling from outside Tier 3 to visiting crags together in a Tier 3 area but the BMC cannot and should not advise in direct contradiction to government advice in a pandemic.

3
 Webster 21 Oct 2020
In reply to Orkie:

thats far too sensible a suggestion to have a place on a UKC forum, less compassion and common sense in your posts please! ;) 

 Offwidth 21 Oct 2020
In reply to timjones:

Give us the evidence. I know the Welsh BMC access officer very well and how hard he worked on behalf of members to maintain the best advice he could for Wales.

7
 JHiley 21 Oct 2020
In reply to Offwidth: 

> The reason we have this lockdown is because people ignored advice that wasn't prohibited at the time. Crags are highly unlikely to be policed so any prohibition is meaningless.

Maybe. Or maybe it's because people followed the advice to get back to the office even if they don't need to be there, "eat out to help out" !!!???, go to University.

We had months of falling or flat cases with no laws restricting people's basic human needs to meet loved ones. Then they tell people to get back to the office and University's start up and cases start rising a couple of weeks later.

Maybe the government should treat people more like human beings and less like empty economic production units.

1
 DancingOnRock 21 Oct 2020
In reply to timjones:

Good points. I think BMC should remain apolitical, however there are going to be areas where remaining silent is at odds with what it’s trying to achieve. It’s a fine line. 
 

I’m a member of England Athletics. They interpreted the guidance and suggested how clubs should behave. However, what is important here is they have to give guidance covering thousands of people in hundreds of different locations. They are also quite tightly bound to their insurance obligations. 
 

There is also the added complication that society at large has to feel that everyone is doing their bit. 
 

So while it is perfectly legal to have hundreds of climbers out at a face, arriving by car, overwhelming the honeypot areas (because, remember, lots of people were on furlough), stressing mountain rescue - does this give the sport a good image? Is it going to help future promotion. 

Post edited at 12:22
 JHiley 21 Oct 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

> The fundamental government advice has always been to take great care not to transmit the virus. Where essential contact was required, to socially distance and to take precautions (especially indoors), practice good hygiene etc. That parts of the population claim secondary advice excuses them from these basic practices, has led to people dying. This includes intelligent people I know who regularly do really dumb things 

This is one of the most insidious pieces of bullshit I've seen posted on this. Government advice since late march has been against coming into contact with any person you don't live with (family, friends anyone). I don't know a single person (outside of public internet forums and smug media interviews) who has even attempted to stick to this. This isn't because they're morally wrong or somethings wrong with them it's because the advice (and later, now, laws) are inhuman and well beyond the scope of legitimate government power.

Show me a person who claims to have stuck to this advice and I'll show you a shameless, lying hypocrite

Post edited at 12:31
13
 Offwidth 21 Oct 2020
In reply to trouserburp:

It's not circular as both issues are true at the same time. Individuals make choices and the risks of covid transmission on crags in Tier 3 are very low but many will choose to follow government advice and go elsewhere. That something is prohibited where policing is  very unlikely and the level of proof required to fine those (being well behaved at a crag) based on more than 6 in a group makes any concern about legality irrelevant (in contrast say to 15 people caught packed in a minibus in a Tier 3 car park used for a crag).

 Offwidth 21 Oct 2020
In reply to JHiley:

Most people I know who really care about reducing transmission are doing their very best. It's impossible to be perfect but that's mainly as individuals can't control for the behaviour of others around them. They are nothing like hypocrites. 

4
 Offwidth 21 Oct 2020
In reply to Rob Parsons:

If all people understood how covid transmits and acted on that, the regularly idiotic and at times lethal behaviour of our government would have been irrelevant. That we are where we are, with 60k+ covid deaths and R above 1 across most of England, required idiocy on both fronts

Post edited at 12:40
6
 JHiley 21 Oct 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

> Most people I know who really care about reducing transmission are doing their very best. It's impossible to be perfect but that's mainly as individuals can't control for the behaviour of others around them. They are nothing like hypocrites. 

Doing your/ their best is admirable. Pretending publicly to follow/ support utterly unrealistic, harmful and inhuman guidelines/ laws and shaming other people for not following them is despicable.

6
 Offwidth 21 Oct 2020
In reply to JHiley:

Most people know full well where to draw any lines. Having indoor crowded parties at one extreme and visiting a desperate relative in technical breach at the other are simply not equivalent. Support bubbles were formally designed to deal with the most egregious issues.

4
 timjones 21 Oct 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

How much evidence do you want?

The BMC were quite clearly advising us not to travel in order to climb or walk at a time when this was not the law.

 timjones 21 Oct 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Good points. I think BMC should remain apolitical, however there are going to be areas where remaining silent is at odds with what it’s trying to achieve. It’s a fine line. 

> I’m a member of England Athletics. They interpreted the guidance and suggested how clubs should behave. However, what is important here is they have to give guidance covering thousands of people in hundreds of different locations. They are also quite tightly bound to their insurance obligations. 

I am also a member of EA by default as a member of a running club. Unless I'm mistaken this situation is slightly different as insuurance for club coaching etc is covered  by that membership?

 DancingOnRock 21 Oct 2020
In reply to timjones:

Yes. That’s just one point though. 
 

What needs to be considered is that in England at least, the mountains. crags and particularly local infrastructure (small towns and villages) have limited capacity. 
 

Guidance is not just about what you ‘can’ do, it’s also about what you ‘should’ do. 

3
 DancingOnRock 21 Oct 2020
In reply to JHiley:

Despicable? Really? Who is actually doing all this shaming?

Harmful and inhumane? Are you trolling?

4
 DancingOnRock 21 Oct 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

>Individuals make choices

 

They do, but they often fail to realise the implications of hundreds of individuals making the choice to go climbing to what is usually a quiet spot. A lot of people lack foresight and imagination. 

 Offwidth 21 Oct 2020
In reply to timjones:

The travel advice for Wakes in lockdown may not have been legally enforceable initially but it was the advice and it soon was made law and enforced.

1
 timjones 21 Oct 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Guidance is not just about what you ‘can’ do, it’s also about what you ‘should’ do. 

Exactly, and when an organisation starts overstepping it's remit in the guidance that it offers I reserve the right to cancel my membership.

 timjones 21 Oct 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

I am not just talking about Wales, the reason that I cancelled my membership was due to advice that  was applied to England.

It is not the BMC's job to embellish governement advice on disease control measures.  Do they have enough staff that are qualified to issue such advice.

1
 Offwidth 21 Oct 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

I've not seen much evidence of that in the Peak on grit. If anything honeypotting seems to be as bad as ever, especially parking (more cars due to covid restrictions on car sharing for walkers and climbers) with only small increases in climbing traffic in quieter places that are better options in such times, like Wharncliffe. People here made a fuss about MUMC and Castle Naze but they walked up and planned to operate in 5 teams of 6 on top-ropes (being sympathetic to other crag users)... hardly hogging a crag.

Post edited at 14:51
2
 Offwidth 21 Oct 2020
In reply to timjones:

English government advice in lockdown was also not to travel for non essential reasons and to exercise from home.

1
 Cobra_Head 21 Oct 2020
In reply to kevin stephens:

> But arguably not climbers?


Can you show your workings?

(though I'd like to think you are correct)

 DancingOnRock 21 Oct 2020
In reply to timjones:

It’s guidance. You don’t have to follow it. You just have to understand why it’s being given, then make a decision as an individual whether you follow it.
 

Most people understand why the guidance is as it is and follow it. 
 

Look at the guidance from the government about exercise. It was for once a day. People were asking all sorts of stupid questions, is that a half hour, an hour, all day? Can I go for a run and then take my dog for a walk? Can I run to the shops and back? 
 

People want their hands held over every step of their life, then others complain about the nanny state. 

 Cobra_Head 21 Oct 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> As has already been said blaming politicians for the pandemic is a pointless exercise. Blame people for not saving for a rainy day, blame businesses for failing to have pandemic plans and cash reserves.

Most people aren't blaming politician for the pandemic, but for their handling of the pandemic, there's a massive difference.

Look at NZ, there aren't many people BLAMING Jacinda, for the deaths they've had.

> Personally I think the blame game is a bit pointless. Just do what you’re asked to do by the people who have the data and understand the implications of mass behaviour. 

How do you hold people to account?

1
 spenser 21 Oct 2020
In reply to timjones:

Bearing in mind the twitchiness of locals in small villages at the start of the pandemic that request probably helped us retain access to a few crags where it would have been put at risk. Things started to calm down a bit when lockdown was relaxed as people began to slowly return to the crags initially with housemates/ partners and subsequently with friends. There was a VERY strong anti city feeling back at the start of the pandemic from what I saw and hoards of furloughed workers heading straight for Stanage Popular would have rather defied the point of them being furloughed.

The Welsh government closed paths up Snowdon at one point and Elfyn worked bloody hard to convince them that was unnecessary and to reopen them, on the access front the BMC has done a pretty damn good job this year both in terms of staff and volunteer work. The subject of this thread is a relatively minor error which has been flagged to the author of the article for correction within a day of the article being published.

 DancingOnRock 21 Oct 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

Not everyone who walks is a member of the BMC. If they were maybe the BMC should be checking membership cards on the queues at the top of Snowdon. 😂

 DancingOnRock 21 Oct 2020
In reply to Cobra_Head:

>How do you hold people to account?

 

That’s not my job.
 

My job is to understand and follow the guidance given to me by my government. New Zealand followed their government. You can’t have it both ways. We elected a government and we listen to our scientists.

There are too many entitled people in this country. All know their rights but none of them know their responsibilities. If the government believed we’d all follow advice and wouldn’t all go on holiday to Spain, or Brighton or go sunbathing in the parks or head up Snowdon en mass at the first opportunity I’m sure they would have given suitable advice. 

6
 Offwidth 21 Oct 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

Fully aware of that, most trad climbers are not BMC members either (seems dumb to me given its worth it for those not severely financially constrained for the 3rd party insurance on its own) . I'm sure if the BMC had even half of the serious climbers and hillwalkers in its membership the improved peer pressure and lobbying would have noticeably enhanced aspects of access and conservation.

2
 Si dH 21 Oct 2020
In reply to Si dH:

This thread has gone way off topic. 

For what it's worth the BMC have now made an update to their article after seeing my Facebook comment on their post - thanks BMC. The error still exists but is at least then corrected with a new subsequent paragraph. 

 Offwidth 21 Oct 2020
In reply to Si dH:

Next time email them direct maybe?

8
 JHiley 21 Oct 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> Despicable? Really? Who is actually doing all this shaming?

> Harmful and inhumane? Are you trolling?

Are you? Rules preventing people interacting with anyone close to them are harmful and inhumane. Those giving (knowingly dishonest, hypocritical) support to rules like that and criticising people for example for hugging a close friend friend / family member need to be called out.

5
 JHiley 21 Oct 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

> Most people know full well where to draw any lines. Having indoor crowded parties at one extreme and visiting a desperate relative in technical breach at the other are simply not equivalent.

Agree with this completely, though the majority of human interaction is at neither of these extremes. To be clear I'm happy with reasonable rules and guidelines and more relevantly think the BMC has done about as good a job on this as is possible under the circumstances.

 Cobra_Head 21 Oct 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> That’s not my job.

You could say that about most things in life, abrogating responsibility to someone else and keeping your own gob shut, can lead to some very dark places.

> My job is to understand and follow the guidance given to me by my government. New Zealand followed their government. You can’t have it both ways. We elected a government and we listen to our scientists.

And if the government said we should share toothbrushes with every household in the street?

I'm not asking to have it both ways, I'm asking for logical, and prompt action, maybe value for money too, consistency might not go a miss, and honesty.

I didn't elect this government, this government was elected by the system which made my vote irrelevant. I live in a Tory stronghold, so my vote, and therefore, "WE" doesn't come into it.

> There are too many entitled people in this country. All know their rights but none of them know their responsibilities. If the government believed we’d all follow advice and wouldn’t all go on holiday to Spain, or Brighton or go sunbathing in the parks or head up Snowdon en mass at the first opportunity I’m sure they would have given suitable advice. 

That may well be true, but what about the people who didn't go to Spain, me being one of them? or the people who did do as they were told?

Post edited at 16:18
 DancingOnRock 21 Oct 2020
In reply to JHiley:

>Rules preventing people interacting with anyone close to them are harmful and inhumane.

 

They are. But we have no such rules. 

 DancingOnRock 21 Oct 2020
In reply to Cobra_Head:

>That may well be true, but what about the people who didn't go to Spain, me being one of them? or the people who did do as they were told?

 

What about them? You either design rules that 100% will adhere to, or you design rules that a large %age of people will adhere to. 
 

If you design rules for 100% knowing full well that 100% won’t follow, then you’re wasting your time. 
 

How your population usually behave will steer how you design your policy. The R figure is behaviour dependent. 
 

Just because you didn’t vote for someone doesn’t mean you can do as you wish. They’re your government. 

1
 JHiley 21 Oct 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

You're right in the sense that the law has remained generally more sensible than the guidelines but the guidelines are frequently presented as rules and more recently the law has started to encroach on peoples one on one social interactions. E.g. in private homes. My (admittedly slightly unhinged)* response to offwidth was specifically about guidelines though.

*I was triggered by a post apparently blaming people who didn't follow an impossible set of guidelines for causing deaths.

1
 JHiley 21 Oct 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

Apologies for the tone of my initial response, this issue does seem to "trigger" me somewhat

 Martin Hore 21 Oct 2020
In reply to JHiley:

>  it's because the advice (and later, now, laws) are inhuman and well beyond the scope of legitimate government power.

We elected this government, democratically. The powers they are using to control this virus were granted by parliament, democratically. What's not legitimate? If this government have made mistakes, and they've probably made more than governments in many other countries, we all share the blame. We elected them.

By the way, would you say the same if this was ebola?

Martin

3
 Offwidth 21 Oct 2020
In reply to JHiley:

Apologies accepted, these are very difficult times.

 DancingOnRock 21 Oct 2020
In reply to JHiley:

Cool. 
 

The problem is the power of self-important main-steam media and loud voices on social media. Confusing the message and deliberately mis-understanding for either financial, or political reasons. 
 

It’s important that we, as individuals, are able to see through that. The rules are clear, the guidance is there to help, but it’s down to the people in the end. 

 JHiley 21 Oct 2020
In reply to Martin Hore:

> We elected this government, democratically. The powers they are using to control this virus were granted by parliament, democratically. What's not legitimate? If this government have made mistakes, and they've probably made more than governments in many other countries, we all share the blame. We elected them.

A democratic mandate doesn't necessarily make something right or legitimate. Some awful things have been done by democratically elected leaders, though I'd argue democracy a superior system than any other.

The question of legitimacy is an abstract one. Do human's really have any real 'rights' or can the state just do what it wants (on the basis that it represents us)? Of course in the UK we have no constitution so legally speaking it's the latter, but in the US they subscribe to the view that people have some 'self evident' and 'inalienable' rights. So there are some limits on what demands are acceptable for the state to make of the individual. Though the American's get a bit silly and start including things like owning a gun as "rights"... 

For me it comes down to the basic needs of human beings, food, water, oxygen, security, probably healthcare and shelter, and the ability to interact socially. Human's are fundamentally social beings after all. There are exceptions. Prisoners forfeit certain rights, which introduces the need for more rights to ensure a fair process and they still get visitors. Short term measures are also different to those lasting many months or years. A "lockdown" of the type we saw in March/ April effectively interferes with basic rights but by it's nature it isn't sustainable so it isn't too concerning. Measures lasting many months need to be something people can live with.

At the end of the day, democracy or not, the extent of a government's (or any other bunch of people's) rights to tell other people what to do is entirely arbitrary. To flip your question on it's head, do you believe any rules passed by a democratically elected government of a sovereign state are legitimate and right?

> By the way, would you say the same if this was ebola?

This is obviously hypothetical since the virus doesn't seem to cause pandemics, largely due to it being so deadly and I don't think it would be right to sacrifice basic human rights on the basis of a hypothetical bogeyman. But since I don't want to wuss out of answering, in the context of a very deadly disease like smallpox or the plague, as it used to be, and in the context of long term restrictions preventing any meeting between individuals. I suppose I'll say yes I would say the same, with certain conditions. I would still support travel restrictions, short term lockdowns, mandatory ppe, strictly enforced group size limits, business closures, enforced quarantines and vaccinations and many other measures. It's just that stopping humans being humans isn't really realistic.

1
 Cobra_Head 21 Oct 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> >That may well be true, but what about the people who didn't go to Spain, me being one of them? or the people who did do as they were told?

> What about them? You either design rules that 100% will adhere to, or you design rules that a large %age of people will adhere to. 

> If you design rules for 100% knowing full well that 100% won’t follow, then you’re wasting your time. 

Like though shalt not murder?

> How your population usually behave will steer how you design your policy. The R figure is behaviour dependent. 

Maybe you policy will steer how your population behave. NZ for example, the people can obviously see how well their approach worked, to the point now where they don't need masks, social distancing or bans on sport, etc.. They have faith in their governement and they had simple and easy rules to negotiate, they can see that what they did worked and was very effective.

> Just because you didn’t vote for someone doesn’t mean you can do as you wish. They’re your government. 

You're putting words into my mouth, I never suggested anyone can do as they please. Please reread my post if you think that.

They're my government, yes, but I had no hand in electing them, two very different things.

2
 DancingOnRock 21 Oct 2020
In reply to Cobra_Head:

>Like though shalt not murder?

 

Great example. I’d expect 100% of people to follow that law.

In fact in 2019; 99.9988616666667% of people followed it.

That’s quite high compliance isn’t it? 

 Rob Parsons 22 Oct 2020
In reply to Offwidth:

> BMC individual membership is holding up well, much to my relief.

How do you know the current state of BMC individual membership? Are these figures publicly available somewhere? Or are you getting them by some other means?

4
 spenser 22 Oct 2020
 Rob Parsons 22 Oct 2020
In reply to spenser:

Ok thanks.

 Cobra_Head 22 Oct 2020
In reply to DancingOnRock:

> >Like though shalt not murder?

> Great example. I’d expect 100% of people to follow that law.

> In fact in 2019; 99.9988616666667% of people followed it.

> That’s quite high compliance isn’t it? 


Not 100% though is it? And we've obviously "designed rules for 100% knowing full well that 100% won’t follow". We've done this even though you suggested we shouldn't.

 JHiley 22 Oct 2020
In reply to Cobra_Head:

I read him as saying:

If we make rules for 100% to follow, but know full well that 100% will not follow i.e. we make the rule knowing there will be 100% non-compliance, we are wasting our time.

This is basically a summary of the current situation.

1

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.