On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 10:03:14 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jun 2020 16:38:54 +0100
Robin wrote:
On 01/06/2020 14:39, MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 01/06/2020 10:07, wrote:

Allowing individuals to decide for themselves means they are forcing
their decisions on other people.Â* I'm fed up with the lycras around
here who've decided social distancing is unnecessary.

But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick or Harry
to force their decisions on us. You can't have it both ways.

And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social distancing"
will get a slap. Why can't they just say keep your distance..?


As with many such things "social distancing" started off as a term of
art among public health professionals and leaked into general usage from
them - starting many years ago.

Plus "social distancing" arguably now conveys something more specific
(in the UK, 2m) than "keeping your distance" which could more or less
depending on context - eg when drivinh on a motorway rather more than 2m*.

Social distancing in its current form was simply another method of scaring
the public. "No! Don't go near anyone, you might die!" Etc. Making people
afraid - sometimes with a visible enemy (real or fabricated), sometimes not
-
so you can control their behaviour more easily is a tried and tested method
of
governments down the ages. Its utterly cynical, anti democratic and I have
no
time for it.



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...s-chances-catc
hing-coronavirus-first-major/

Halving it from a 3% change of catching it in IIRC 15 mins down to 1.5% is
virtually irrelevant and certainly not worth thousands of businesses going
bust because of this stupid rule. Frankly I'm surprised retailers haven't just
given the goverment the finger and just ignore it since if I owned a business
that was on the verge of going bust if I didn't then whats to lose.