On 02/06/2020 19:40, wrote:
On 02/06/2020 17:00, wrote:
On 2 Jun 2020 15:30:08 GMT
Jeremy Double wrote:
Recliner wrote:
David Jones wrote:
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
forcingÂ* their decisions on other people.Â* I'm fed up with the
lycras aroundÂ* here who've decided social distancing is
unnecessary.

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

And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social
distancing"Â* 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*.

*or possibly not if you are an Audi driver

No. "Social distancing" allows one to be close to anyone of the same
housewhold, while at leasat 2m from anyoned else


In the UK. In most other countries, it's 1.5m or 1m, or 6' in the
US. The
WHO recommends at least 1m.

This article, looking at scientific studies, says the virus will be
passed
on more if the social distancing distance is reduced from 2m:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ould-double-if

-2-metre-rule-reduced-study-finds

Using that logic lets make the social distance 10m. No wait, lets make it
100m! Or better yet lets just lock people up in their houses until
they're
given a booked date and time to come out and go shopping.

Life is full of compromises and if the government persist with this 2m
nonsense even against the advice of the WHO then they are going to
utterly kill
the economy of this country. Not just in retail, leisure and travel
but in
factories that can't operate efficiently - if at all - with 2m
distancing of
their employees.

I'm sure Bozo the Clown knows this but he's too in thrall to a bunch of
"experts" whose expertise seems to be based on little more than
suck-it-and-see
statistics.

So little is known about the virus that suck it and see is the best we
have at the moment.Â* However we are learning and presumably the
modelling is getting better.

At the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that people are
not going to sit back and put up with lockdown indefinitely. Sooner or
later, people will say enough is enough.

My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday
in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..?
When will the shops reopen..? How many will reopen, how many will go to
the wall..?

Personally, I have just about had enough. In one food shop today the
cashier peremptorily ordered me back over the "social distance" line
marked on the floor because I was rather anxious to put down the heavy
basket I was carrying before I dropped it. The previous customer had
already paid and was well over "2m" (ye gods it's 6ft) away from me,
finishing packing and 5 seconds later had left. Who was going to infect
who, and does the dreaded virus know what the line marked on the floor
is for..?

Heaven preserve us, because nobody else is going to.



--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]

MissRiaElaine wrote:
On 02/06/2020 19:40, wrote:
On 02/06/2020 17:00, wrote:
On 2 Jun 2020 15:30:08 GMT
Jeremy Double wrote:
Recliner wrote:
David Jones wrote:
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
forcingÂ* their decisions on other people.Â* I'm fed up with the
lycras aroundÂ* here who've decided social distancing is
unnecessary.

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

And the next person who utters the appalling phrase "social
distancing"Â* 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*.

*or possibly not if you are an Audi driver

No. "Social distancing" allows one to be close to anyone of the same
housewhold, while at leasat 2m from anyoned else


In the UK. In most other countries, it's 1.5m or 1m, or 6' in the
US. The
WHO recommends at least 1m.

This article, looking at scientific studies, says the virus will be
passed
on more if the social distancing distance is reduced from 2m:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ould-double-if

-2-metre-rule-reduced-study-finds

Using that logic lets make the social distance 10m. No wait, lets make it
100m! Or better yet lets just lock people up in their houses until
they're
given a booked date and time to come out and go shopping.

Life is full of compromises and if the government persist with this 2m
nonsense even against the advice of the WHO then they are going to
utterly kill
the economy of this country. Not just in retail, leisure and travel
but in
factories that can't operate efficiently - if at all - with 2m
distancing of
their employees.

I'm sure Bozo the Clown knows this but he's too in thrall to a bunch of
"experts" whose expertise seems to be based on little more than
suck-it-and-see
statistics.

So little is known about the virus that suck it and see is the best we
have at the moment.Â* However we are learning and presumably the
modelling is getting better.

At the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that people are
not going to sit back and put up with lockdown indefinitely. Sooner or
later, people will say enough is enough.

My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday
in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..?


Surely shoes are available to purchase online?


Anna Noyd-Dryver

On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:30 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
MissRiaElaine wrote:
At the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that people are
not going to sit back and put up with lockdown indefinitely. Sooner or
later, people will say enough is enough.

My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday
in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..?


Surely shoes are available to purchase online?

Buying shoes without trying them on first? Really?

In message , at 08:25:30 on Wed, 3 Jun
2020, remarked:
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:30 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
MissRiaElaine wrote:
At the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that people are
not going to sit back and put up with lockdown indefinitely. Sooner or
later, people will say enough is enough.

My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday
in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..?


Surely shoes are available to purchase online?

Buying shoes without trying them on first? Really?

Thanks to the EU's Distance Selling Directive (which some people
apparently want to see flushed down the toilet as part of the bundle of
Brussels rule-taking) your purchase isn't final until you've had a
chance to try them on and potentially send them back.

I happen to know my shoe size, and haven't bought a pair in person for
as long as I can remember. Seeing if the style is right... that's
classic B-Arc stuff [shoe event horizon, you know].
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:38:49 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:25:30 on Wed, 3 Jun
2020, remarked:
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:30 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
MissRiaElaine wrote:
At the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that people are
not going to sit back and put up with lockdown indefinitely. Sooner or
later, people will say enough is enough.

My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday
in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..?


Surely shoes are available to purchase online?

Buying shoes without trying them on first? Really?

Thanks to the EU's Distance Selling Directive (which some people
apparently want to see flushed down the toilet as part of the bundle of
Brussels rule-taking) your purchase isn't final until you've had a
chance to try them on and potentially send them back.

Getting your money back isn't the issue, its the hassle of having to send
them back plus not having the shoes to wear in the meantime. Why are some
people so wedded to online that they'll avoid going to an actual shop even
when its a lot simpler?

On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:00:02 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:38:49 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:25:30 on Wed, 3 Jun
2020, remarked:
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:30 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
MissRiaElaine wrote:
At the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that people are
not going to sit back and put up with lockdown indefinitely. Sooner or
later, people will say enough is enough.

My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday
in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..?


Surely shoes are available to purchase online?

Buying shoes without trying them on first? Really?

Thanks to the EU's Distance Selling Directive (which some people
apparently want to see flushed down the toilet as part of the bundle of
Brussels rule-taking) your purchase isn't final until you've had a
chance to try them on and potentially send them back.

Getting your money back isn't the issue, its the hassle of having to send
them back plus not having the shoes to wear in the meantime. Why are some
people so wedded to online that they'll avoid going to an actual shop even
when its a lot simpler?

You leave your shoes until the last available pair falls apart ?

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:00:02 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:38:49 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:25:30 on Wed, 3 Jun
2020, remarked:
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:30 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
MissRiaElaine wrote:
At the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that people are
not going to sit back and put up with lockdown indefinitely. Sooner or
later, people will say enough is enough.

My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday
in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..?


Surely shoes are available to purchase online?

Buying shoes without trying them on first? Really?

Thanks to the EU's Distance Selling Directive (which some people
apparently want to see flushed down the toilet as part of the bundle of
Brussels rule-taking) your purchase isn't final until you've had a
chance to try them on and potentially send them back.

Getting your money back isn't the issue, its the hassle of having to send
them back plus not having the shoes to wear in the meantime. Why are some
people so wedded to online that they'll avoid going to an actual shop even
when its a lot simpler?

You leave your shoes until the last available pair falls apart ?


Yes, that's what surprised me: a woman with only one pair of shoes!

On Wed, 03 Jun 2020 10:08:18 +0100
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:00:02 +0000 (UTC), wrote:

On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:38:49 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:25:30 on Wed, 3 Jun
2020, remarked:
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:30 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
MissRiaElaine wrote:
At the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that people are
not going to sit back and put up with lockdown indefinitely. Sooner or
later, people will say enough is enough.

My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday
in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..?


Surely shoes are available to purchase online?

Buying shoes without trying them on first? Really?

Thanks to the EU's Distance Selling Directive (which some people
apparently want to see flushed down the toilet as part of the bundle of
Brussels rule-taking) your purchase isn't final until you've had a
chance to try them on and potentially send them back.

Getting your money back isn't the issue, its the hassle of having to send
them back plus not having the shoes to wear in the meantime. Why are some
people so wedded to online that they'll avoid going to an actual shop even
when its a lot simpler?

You leave your shoes until the last available pair falls apart ?

What?

In message , at 09:00:02 on Wed, 3 Jun
2020, remarked:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:38:49 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:25:30 on Wed, 3 Jun
2020, remarked:
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:30 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
MissRiaElaine wrote:
At the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that people are
not going to sit back and put up with lockdown indefinitely. Sooner or
later, people will say enough is enough.

My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday
in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..?


Surely shoes are available to purchase online?

Buying shoes without trying them on first? Really?

Thanks to the EU's Distance Selling Directive (which some people
apparently want to see flushed down the toilet as part of the bundle of
Brussels rule-taking) your purchase isn't final until you've had a
chance to try them on and potentially send them back.

Getting your money back isn't the issue, its the hassle of having to send
them back

Print out a label, drop it into an inconvenience store. Simples.

plus not having the shoes to wear in the meantime.

Order them in plenty of time.

Why are some people so wedded to online that they'll avoid going to an
actual shop even when its a lot simpler?

In my case it's because the choice is so much wider, especially in the
smallish size which I take.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 10:43:18 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 09:00:02 on Wed, 3 Jun
2020, remarked:
On Wed, 3 Jun 2020 09:38:49 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:25:30 on Wed, 3 Jun
2020, remarked:
On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 23:08:30 -0000 (UTC)
Anna Noyd-Dryver wrote:
MissRiaElaine wrote:
At the end of the day it boils down to the simple fact that people are
not going to sit back and put up with lockdown indefinitely. Sooner or
later, people will say enough is enough.

My other half needs new shoes. The high street still looks like Sunday
in the sixties, will she have to go barefoot before she can get any..?


Surely shoes are available to purchase online?

Buying shoes without trying them on first? Really?

Thanks to the EU's Distance Selling Directive (which some people
apparently want to see flushed down the toilet as part of the bundle of
Brussels rule-taking) your purchase isn't final until you've had a
chance to try them on and potentially send them back.

Getting your money back isn't the issue, its the hassle of having to send
them back

Print out a label, drop it into an inconvenience store. Simples.

If you mean parcel them back up, go queue in the post office for hours behind
some pensioners, hand over money for delivery then yes, its simples.

plus not having the shoes to wear in the meantime.

Order them in plenty of time.

I don't think many people buy shoes or clothes because they're about to run out.

Why are some people so wedded to online that they'll avoid going to an
actual shop even when its a lot simpler?

In my case it's because the choice is so much wider, especially in the
smallish size which I take.

Thats up to you. I only order online when I don't have a choice because shops
don't sell it - eg gym equipment. Otherwise going to a physical shop is a lot
simpler.