Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[super_realist]

First topic message reminder :

Just wondering what ailment you have which does not have a proven cure from modern medicine but for which Chinese "medicine" does.
Mac is the secretive one, not me.

[super_realist]

I'd be giving him loads of shots anyway as he's a hacker.

[dynamark]

I'm sure Nasty Nicola is keeping you locked in north of the border.looks like boris has never played golf or he would know its not really a singles sport.
Baby steps

[super_realist]

I'm sure Nasty Nicola is keeping you locked in north of the border.looks like boris has never played golf or he would know its not really a singles sport.
Baby steps

Looks to me like she's positioning herself to try to get a political angle for it all. She's never done anything before that didn't feed her agenda, so it would seem unlikely she'd start now.
Horrid woman.

[beninho]

If you are allowed to meet someone in a park or away from the home and keep social distancing measures, why are you not allowed to play golf with them, golf course is basically a park, if you are keeping social distancing measures?

[dynamark]

I'm sure you are right Super always got her agenda up front and also as labour and unions are starting to show.Len McLuskey just been on Tv disgraceful and thick.
Ben agree and its a private park.Twoballs would be sensible

[super_realist]

If you are allowed to meet someone in a park or away from the home and keep social distancing measures, why are you not allowed to play golf with them, golf course is basically a park, if you are keeping social distancing measures?

The only thing that I can think of is that if one "sport" gets special consideration then every other sport will ask a load of questions as to why they can't start. If you keep it to one player, then tennis, football, cricket etc can't wade in with demands as you can't play them on your own.

Certain things like hillwalking, fishing, golf, cycling, rowing, etc can be done fine, and in my view are at least no different to what is going on at the moment elsewhere.

[beninho]

If you are allowed to meet someone in a park or away from the home and keep social distancing measures, why are you not allowed to play golf with them, golf course is basically a park, if you are keeping social distancing measures?

The only thing that I can think of is that if one "sport" gets special consideration then every other sport will ask a load of questions as to why they can't start. If you keep it to one player, then tennis, football, cricket etc can't wade in with demands as you can't play them on your own.

Certain things like hillwalking, fishing, golf, cycling, rowing, etc can be done fine, and in my view are at least no different to what is going on at the moment elsewhere.

They've said Tennis is allowed, as is basketball! According to Oliver Dowding. Its all over the place.

[Soul Requiem]

If you are allowed to meet someone in a park or away from the home and keep social distancing measures, why are you not allowed to play golf with them, golf course is basically a park, if you are keeping social distancing measures?

The only thing that I can think of is that if one "sport" gets special consideration then every other sport will ask a load of questions as to why they can't start. If you keep it to one player, then tennis, football, cricket etc can't wade in with demands as you can't play them on your own.

Certain things like hillwalking, fishing, golf, cycling, rowing, etc can be done fine, and in my view are at least no different to what is going on at the moment elsewhere.

They've said Tennis is allowed, as is basketball! According to Oliver Dowding. Its all over the place.

All over the place in what way?

You can play golf, tennis, basketball (shooting hoops) and go fishing with those who live in your household, seems pretty straightforward to me.

[beninho]

If you are allowed to meet someone in a park or away from the home and keep social distancing measures, why are you not allowed to play golf with them, golf course is basically a park, if you are keeping social distancing measures?

The only thing that I can think of is that if one "sport" gets special consideration then every other sport will ask a load of questions as to why they can't start. If you keep it to one player, then tennis, football, cricket etc can't wade in with demands as you can't play them on your own.

Certain things like hillwalking, fishing, golf, cycling, rowing, etc can be done fine, and in my view are at least no different to what is going on at the moment elsewhere.

They've said Tennis is allowed, as is basketball! According to Oliver Dowding. Its all over the place.

All over the place in what way?

I doth my cap, to you knowledge.

You can play golf, tennis, basketball (shooting hoops) and go fishing with those who live in your household, seems pretty straightforward to me.

No confusion in anything, either announced by Johnson or mentioned Raab today? All makes complete sense to you?

But as its a golf board, does it make sense that you can meet a friend or family in a park but not on a golf course?

I

[George1507]

Basketball? Really? I'd be surprised.

Golf, tennis, fishing, bowls etc are fine. There's no contact, and if people are careful, they shouldn't be rubbing shoulders.

[Soul Requiem]

I don't actively go looking to be confused by government statements so yes it makes complete sense.

It makes sense in the sense that these measures need to applied across the board so you don't confuse the public by having different measures for different sports.

[super_realist]

Be good to see driving ranges open. Those could work as you are further than two metres from someone.

[beninho]

Be good to see driving ranges open. Those could work as you are further than two metres from someone.

The ones near me are linked in via the shops. In an AG for example. I'm unsure when these shops can be open or not? I guess ones within courses should be fine if the course is open.

[super_realist]

Sure they could create some sort of corridor when the shop is fenced off.
Certainly practice areas of golf courses should be open. I see no reason why that can't be as they are usually quiet places.

[JAS]

I'm sure Nasty Nicola is keeping you locked in north of the border.looks like boris has never played golf or he would know its not really a singles sport.
Baby steps

Looks to me like she's positioning herself to try to get a political angle for it all. She's never done anything before that didn't feed her agenda, so it would seem unlikely she'd start now.
Horrid woman.

Politician takes political stance...shock!! Super like it or lump it, Krankie is/has been more in tune with her relevant electorate than any othe U.K. politician of the past 5-6 years. She does know how to play the political game. You don’t have to agree with her to accept that. It’s easier for me as an exiled Jock to see her political manoeuvring more objectively.

Where I would say she might well run into trouble is....let’s supposing things continue to improve in England and the lockdown gets properly lifted by late June (big if I know) but Sturgeon keeps Jockland at home. No big deal? Eh well except for that fact that the U.K. govt decides to end the furlough scheme at the end of June. Now all of a sudden Nicola is swimming naked and the tide has gone out. What does she do? Continue to pay Jocks to stay at home? If so funded from where? Or does she back down and send Jocks back to work? Or let them invite financial ruin by continuing to stay at home?

I’d concede that politically she has been smart but the above scenario would effectively be checkmate!! I just can’t see a way out for her if that happened. Her support base may be miffed and march more strongly toward Indy ref 2 but if the average Jock is starved or financially ruined, they ain’t gonna thank her are they?

[super_realist]

I'm sure Nasty Nicola is keeping you locked in north of the border.looks like boris has never played golf or he would know its not really a singles sport.
Baby steps

Looks to me like she's positioning herself to try to get a political angle for it all. She's never done anything before that didn't feed her agenda, so it would seem unlikely she'd start now.
Horrid woman.

Politician takes political stance...shock!! Super like it or lump it, Krankie is/has been more in tune with her  relevant electorate than any othe U.K. politician of the past 5-6 years. She does know how to play the political game. You don’t have to agree with her to accept that. It’s easier for me as an exiled Jock to see her political manoeuvring more objectively.

Where I would say she might well run into trouble is....let’s supposing things continue to improve in England and the lockdown gets properly lifted by late June (big if I know) but Sturgeon keeps Jockland at home. No big deal? Eh well except for that fact that the U.K. govt decides to end the furlough scheme at the end of June. Now all of a sudden Nicola is swimming naked and the tide has gone out. What does she do? Continue to pay Jocks to stay at home? If so funded from where? Or does she back down and send Jocks back to work? Or let them invite financial ruin by continuing to stay at home?

I’d concede that politically she has been smart but the above scenario would effectively be checkmate!! I just can’t see a way out for her if that happened. Her support base may be miffed and march more strongly toward Indy ref 2 but if the average Jock is starved or financially ruined, they ain’t gonna thank her are they?

This is not the time to be taking a political stance though and trying to make political capital. That's the point. Starmer is being more sensible on this.
Sturgeon stated yesterday that she didn't want to follow the UK route because the R value was "too high", then when asked immediately after what the R rate was in Scotland she said she "didn't know" That's hardly good leadership. That's what I'd expect from Flabbot. How could you turn up at a meeting and not know the R number when it's crucial to your entire policy?

Please leave the analogy of Sturgeon swimming naked out of it by the way :puke:
One of her big problems as you say is convincing the Scottish public Scotland could afford to finance something like this if it happened in an independent Scotland. I don't think she's capable of doing that given low tax income and high debt/deficit.

[dynamark]

JAS please far too much information .Luckily swimming pools are closed.
The fitness/gym industry would love to get moving and have submitted a plan to govt on how they would work but I just cannot see them getting go ahead for a good while

[JAS]

If we think about it that’s also a U.K. wide issue (not ACCURATELY knowing the R number when you put such a degree of importance on it). Between 0.5 and 0.9, that’s not exactly finger on the pulse is it? I.e. if it ticks up and they can still only estimate to within 0.4 so it could be anywhere between say 0.8 & 1.2!! So at 0.8 it would be much like now but at 1.2 it’s back on the exponential curve bus!!

How’s that going to be addressed? More testing? Postal testing & guessing the results? No, this is the period when they really need to sort their Poopie out over mass testing, that’s issue number 1. Issue number 2. Is look at the absolute calamity over PPE and that was with ICU capacity not getting much over half capacity. When the inevitable 2nd wave comes (which may well use much more ICU capacity) we had better hope that PPE manufacture and supply lines will have been robustly fixed.
Issue number 3 is the continued ambiguity over work/essential work. I don’t think we ever had a proper lock down, what starting to ease will do to employment and continued social distancing we have no idea.
Issue number 4 and an emerging one is the quality of the information government supplies. It has a fine line to tread between telling us the full facts on the one hand and not panicking the population on the other. They are now coming close to failing on both points. If the population doesn’t believe what’s being said then trust is lost. When you lose trust you lose compliance.

[JAS]

Btw...Rule number1 of a good analogy....Make it memorable!! :-p

[super_realist]

She was making the point that Scotland had a different R number to England and therefore had to give it different conditions but when pressed on it, wouldn't give a number, and then the following day said it was between 0.7 and 1, which is what the rest of the UK is saying. So it doesn't appear to be significantly different, so why is she taking a different tack?

[beninho]

https://twitter.com/imbadatlife/status/1259750551002251264?s=09

Thread of the ups and downs and confusions from the government on what you can do, where and with whom.

No idea why they didn't call out SR2. He would have sorted it straight off, with his expert knowledge on the situation.

[JAS]

She was making the point that Scotland had a different R number to England and therefore had to give it different conditions but when pressed on it, wouldn't give a number, and then the following day said it was between 0.7 and 1, which is what the rest of the UK is saying. So it doesn't appear to be significantly different, so why is she taking a different tack?

So we’re being told it’s between 0.5 & 0.9 (not sure if that’s England or U.K. as a whole) but that’s not the same if the upper limit in Scotland is at 1. Obviously there WILL be regional differences in the same sort of way there are national differences. Who was it that was arguing last week about the dangers of international comparisons??

The other factor of course is that there’s a balance to be drawn between public health and economic implications, I don’t think it’s any secret that Krankie would draw the line on that balance somewhere left of where Boris would draw the same line.

[kwinigolfer]

She was making the point that Scotland had a different R number to England and therefore had to give it different conditions but when pressed on it, wouldn't give a number, and then the following day said it was between 0.7 and 1, which is what the rest of the UK is saying. So it doesn't appear to be significantly different, so why is she taking a different tack?

How do they calculate the R number?
I've seen loads of links purporting to offer explanation but no easy explanation. I know what it means, but how do they figure it?

[dynamark]

The r number must be nigh on impossible to calculate other than if infections are falling its below the 1 .But we don't have any idea of infections other than hospital admissions numbers.
Always going to be an educated guess surely ?

[super_realist]

She was making the point that Scotland had a different R number to England and therefore had to give it different conditions but when pressed on it, wouldn't give a number, and then the following day said it was between 0.7 and 1, which is what the rest of the UK is saying. So it doesn't appear to be significantly different, so why is she taking a different tack?

So we’re being told it’s between 0.5 & 0.9 (not sure if that’s England or U.K. as a whole) but that’s not the same if the upper limit in Scotland is at 1. Obviously there WILL be regional differences in the same sort of way there are national differences. Who was it that was arguing last week about the dangers of international comparisons??

The other factor of course is that there’s a balance to be drawn between public health and economic implications, I don’t think it’s any secret that Krankie would draw the line on that balance somewhere left of where Boris would draw the same line.

The point is that Sturgeon is making decisions claiming its on the basis of the R number, but when pressed, admits to not knowing the R number. Even an idiot would at least be armed with a figure to present to back this up.
I'm not saying you should compare, but if you are going to use a criteria for separating you from the rest of the country, you should be pretty clear why you deem it necessary. She didn't.

[McLaren]

Kwini

I assume that they can't really calculate it. Especially given the lack of testing. It will be an estimate based on new deaths and +ve tests for a given time period. The error bar will be large.

[McLaren]

Ben/super

Do you think the vagueness of the UKG advice was an accident? They can now pretty much just make stuff up day to day.

[kwinigolfer]

Thanks dyna, Mac,

Beats the sh1t out of me how they can set policy based upon a metric that they can't calculate.
Smoke and mirrors.

[super_realist]

Ben/super

Do you think the vagueness of the UKG advice was an accident? They can now pretty much just make stuff up day to day.

Only vague if you're a moron Mac, which sadly plenty people are.

[Soul Requiem]

Ben/super

Do you think the vagueness of the UKG advice was an accident? They can now pretty much just make stuff up day to day.

Only vague if you're a moron Mac, which sadly plenty people are.

So very true, i'm not really sure what people (Labour voters) are struggling with.

[JAS]

She was making the point that Scotland had a different R number to England and therefore had to give it different conditions but when pressed on it, wouldn't give a number, and then the following day said it was between 0.7 and 1, which is what the rest of the UK is saying. So it doesn't appear to be significantly different, so why is she taking a different tack?

So we’re being told it’s between 0.5 & 0.9 (not sure if that’s England or U.K. as a whole) but that’s not the same if the upper limit in Scotland is at 1. Obviously there WILL be regional differences in the same sort of way there are national differences. Who was it that was arguing last week about the dangers of international comparisons??

The other factor of course is that there’s a balance to be drawn between public health and economic implications, I don’t think it’s any secret that Krankie would draw the line on that balance somewhere left of where Boris would draw the same line.

The point is that Sturgeon is making decisions claiming its on the basis of the R number, but when pressed, admits to not knowing the R number. Even an idiot would at least be armed with a figure to present to back this up.
I'm not saying you should compare, but if you are going to use a criteria for separating you from the rest of the country, you should be pretty clear why you deem it necessary. She didn't.

It does hark back to one of my points above. If politicians want to continue to carry public trust they have to be more open an honest about their numbers and how they arrived at them, especially in this situation where there is supposed to be a difference that has subsequently dictated a different approach. I’d be quite interested in the regional R numbers being plotted on the daily graphs with the other chart that shows regional differences.

Must admit I do consider myself quite fortunate to live in the Southwest, we’ve really missed the worst of it. Just hope that when summer comes, given that foreign travel is going to be pretty decimated, we don’t get overrun by a wave of infections from other areas.

Anyone see the various pictures from the Tube this morning. Looks like last nights broadcast delivered a clear and unambiguous message “Get back to work, shag social distancing, my billionaire mates are losing money and giving me a hard time and you lot are expendable”

[beninho]

Ben/super

Do you think the vagueness of the UKG advice was an accident? They can now pretty much just make stuff up day to day.

Leaking to the press about ending lock down, was also not an accident. More people out at the weekend then usual, congas. Its a way to twist any blame away from the mixed messages onto the people.

Even the stay alert rather then stay at home is pretty deliberate, and the colours from red and yellow to green and yellow.

[super_realist]

She was making the point that Scotland had a different R number to England and therefore had to give it different conditions but when pressed on it, wouldn't give a number, and then the following day said it was between 0.7 and 1, which is what the rest of the UK is saying. So it doesn't appear to be significantly different, so why is she taking a different tack?

So we’re being told it’s between 0.5 & 0.9 (not sure if that’s England or U.K. as a whole) but that’s not the same if the upper limit in Scotland is at 1. Obviously there WILL be regional differences in the same sort of way there are national differences. Who was it that was arguing last week about the dangers of international comparisons??

The other factor of course is that there’s a balance to be drawn between public health and economic implications, I don’t think it’s any secret that Krankie would draw the line on that balance somewhere left of where Boris would draw the same line.

The point is that Sturgeon is making decisions claiming its on the basis of the R number, but when pressed, admits to not knowing the R number. Even an idiot would at least be armed with a figure to present to back this up.
I'm not saying you should compare, but if you are going to use a criteria for separating you from the rest of the country, you should be pretty clear why you deem it necessary. She didn't.

It does hark back to one of my points above. If politicians want to continue to carry public trust they have to be more open an honest about their numbers and how they arrived at them, especially in this situation where there is supposed to be a difference that has subsequently dictated a different approach. I’d be quite interested in the regional R numbers being plotted on the daily graphs with the other chart that shows regional differences.  

Must admit I do consider myself quite fortunate to live in the Southwest, we’ve really missed the worst of it. Just hope that when summer comes, given that foreign travel is going to be pretty decimated, we don’t get overrun by a wave of infections from other areas.

Anyone see the various pictures from the Tube this morning. Looks like last nights broadcast delivered a clear and unambiguous message “Get back to work, shag social distancing, my billionaire mates are losing money and giving me a hard time and you lot are expendable”

A bit like last week JAS, you were doing well until the last point.
Just nonsense.

[beninho]

Ben/super

Do you think the vagueness of the UKG advice was an accident? They can now pretty much just make stuff up day to day.

Only vague if you're a moron Mac, which sadly plenty people are.

So very true, i'm not really sure what people (Labour voters) are struggling with.

Well, we know Raab also struggled. And Bridgen. I don't think they are labour voters.

[Soul Requiem]

She was making the point that Scotland had a different R number to England and therefore had to give it different conditions but when pressed on it, wouldn't give a number, and then the following day said it was between 0.7 and 1, which is what the rest of the UK is saying. So it doesn't appear to be significantly different, so why is she taking a different tack?

So we’re being told it’s between 0.5 & 0.9 (not sure if that’s England or U.K. as a whole) but that’s not the same if the upper limit in Scotland is at 1. Obviously there WILL be regional differences in the same sort of way there are national differences. Who was it that was arguing last week about the dangers of international comparisons??

The other factor of course is that there’s a balance to be drawn between public health and economic implications, I don’t think it’s any secret that Krankie would draw the line on that balance somewhere left of where Boris would draw the same line.

The point is that Sturgeon is making decisions claiming its on the basis of the R number, but when pressed, admits to not knowing the R number. Even an idiot would at least be armed with a figure to present to back this up.
I'm not saying you should compare, but if you are going to use a criteria for separating you from the rest of the country, you should be pretty clear why you deem it necessary. She didn't.

It does hark back to one of my points above. If politicians want to continue to carry public trust they have to be more open an honest about their numbers and how they arrived at them, especially in this situation where there is supposed to be a difference that has subsequently dictated a different approach. I’d be quite interested in the regional R numbers being plotted on the daily graphs with the other chart that shows regional differences.  

Must admit I do consider myself quite fortunate to live in the Southwest, we’ve really missed the worst of it. Just hope that when summer comes, given that foreign travel is going to be pretty decimated, we don’t get overrun by a wave of infections from other areas.

Anyone see the various pictures from the Tube this morning. Looks like last nights broadcast delivered a clear and unambiguous message “Get back to work, shag social distancing, my billionaire mates are losing money and giving me a hard time and you lot are expendable”

What a truly pathetic post.

[beninho]

Realist, do you not think Sundays message will see an increase in people retuning to work and using public transport?

I will add, the generally poorer, will be returning to work. The ones who can't work at home.

[kwinigolfer]

JAS,
That's certainly the Drumpf message, certainly not "nonsense" over here.

And your characterisation is certainly not "pathetic" . . . . . .

[super_realist]

Realist, do you not think Sundays message will see an increase in people retuning to work and using public transport?

I will add, the generally poorer, will be returning to work. The ones who can't work at home.

The instructions were clear that if you can return to work safely and don't have to use public transport you can do.
Perhaps have a word with Sadiq Khan, he's the one responsible for TFL.
There's been images of packed underground trains all throughout this, now you're blaming a lack of clarity from the government on their advice instead of the mayor's office who reduced the number of tube trains running? Bravo.

[beninho]

Realist, do you not think Sundays message will see an increase in people retuning to work and using public transport?

I will add, the generally poorer, will be returning to work. The ones who can't work at home.

The instructions were clear that if you can return to work safely and don't have to use public transport you can do.
Perhaps have a word with Sadiq Khan, he's the one responsible for TFL.
There's been images of packed underground trains all throughout this, now you're blaming a lack of clarity from the government on their advice instead of the mayor's office who reduced the number of tube trains running? Bravo.

Even your confused. It was try to avoid public transport if possible. Nothing about don't work if you have to use public transport. So, you've also misunderstood.

For many londoners its not possible to avoid public transport to get around the city. Its all a bit vague again from Johnson.

[Soul Requiem]

Realist, do you not think Sundays message will see an increase in people retuning to work and using public transport?

I will add, the generally poorer, will be returning to work. The ones who can't work at home.

The instructions were clear that if you can return to work safely and don't have to use public transport you can do.
Perhaps have a word with Sadiq Khan, he's the one responsible for TFL.
There's been images of packed underground trains all throughout this, now you're blaming a lack of clarity from the government on their advice instead of the mayor's office who reduced the number of tube trains running? Bravo.

Even your confused. It was try to avoid public transport if possible. Nothing about don't work if you have to use public transport. So, you've also misunderstood.

For many londoners its not possible to avoid public transport to get around the city. Its all a bit vague again from Johnson.

Is it all too much for you to understand Ben?

[super_realist]

Not at all. If I was one of the people who had to use public transport I wouldn't work, or more likely I would walk/cycle.

My point was that JAS raised an image as if all of a sudden the tube has become busy, as if it wasn't before, and this was because of the greed of billionaires, which is just retarded.

[beninho]

Realist, do you not think Sundays message will see an increase in people retuning to work and using public transport?

I will add, the generally poorer, will be returning to work. The ones who can't work at home.

The instructions were clear that if you can return to work safely and don't have to use public transport you can do.
Perhaps have a word with Sadiq Khan, he's the one responsible for TFL.
There's been images of packed underground trains all throughout this, now you're blaming a lack of clarity from the government on their advice instead of the mayor's office who reduced the number of tube trains running? Bravo.

Even your confused. It was try to avoid public transport if possible. Nothing about don't work if you have to use public transport. So, you've also misunderstood.

For many londoners its not possible to avoid public transport to get around the city. Its all a bit vague again from Johnson.

Is it all too much for you to understand Ben?

What bit? Return to work but avoid public transport being different to what Realist thinks it was dont work if you have to get public transport?

How do you read it?

[beninho]

Not at all. If I was one of the people who had to use public transport I wouldn't work, or more likely I would walk/cycle.

My point was that JAS raised an image as if all of a sudden the tube has become busy, as if it wasn't before, and this was because of the greed of billionaires, which is just retarded.

Your point about public transport was wrong though, because you didn't understand what had been said. Well it would depend where you lived to walk or cycle, it may be easy in your sleepy part of the UK. Not so much round here.

And you wouldn't work? Do you think people should give up their jobs because the only way in is via public transport. Generally the lower paid such as cleaners etc.

[dynamark]

Calm down.Train drivers are hardly at risk.Passengers yes
WE have to live with this.It hurts old and vulnerable as does flu.It really has very little effect on children and healthy folk non smokers not sick they need to stay well away and for some time.
A bad dose of flu is very rough and pts a lot folk away every year sadly if they are not good

[super_realist]

A lot of people in London are within cycling distance of their work, many could cycle.
The government said if you can get to work safely you can work, but if you can't you don't have to. Why is that so hard to understand?
As for cleaners, they work at times when the offices are empty, so early or late, so the tube is quiet. Anyway, what are they cleaning if everyone else is working from home?

[beninho]

A lot of people in London are within cycling distance of their work, many could cycle.
The government said if you can get to work safely you can work, but if you can't you don't have to. Why is that so hard to understand?
As for cleaners, they work at times when the offices are empty, so early or late, so the tube is quiet. Anyway, what are they cleaning if everyone else is working from home?

Can you point out about the working safely or not at all bit. I may have missed something.

And the cycling bit, is a little pipe dream. My wife wouldn't cycle an hour and 46 mins into Central London from North West London. Its a bit of a route aswell.

[super_realist]

I didnt say your wife should, but plenty people in London could. As for working and travelling safely, isn't it pretty clear? Can you work (and get to work) and maintain a safe distance?
If yes you may work, if not, do not. I'm not sure why people find that so difficult to understand.

This is why we have this problem because people are too stupid

[beninho]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-lockdown-boris-johnson-speech-construction-manufacturing-work-return-a9507671.html%3famp

[super_realist]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-lockdown-boris-johnson-speech-construction-manufacturing-work-return-a9507671.html%3famp

Just ignore the "actively encouraged" bit eh?

It's funny how people demand that the NHS, Emergency services, supermarket workers, delivery drivers, Amazon pickers go to work, but now that we are in a position where some restrictions can be lifted the metropolitan elite are losing their minds.

[beninho]

I didnt say your wife should, but plenty people in London could. As for working and travelling safely, isn't it pretty clear? Can you work (and get to work) and maintain a safe distance?
If yes you may work, if not, do not. I'm not sure why people find that so difficult to understand.

Because, you are just making it up? It is your interpretation of vague details. Its difficult to understand because its not true, and wasn't said. Look it up.

[Sponsored content]