Coronavirus Sars-CoV-2/Covid-19 Megathread

[Sheilbh]

I.e. people should be allowed to break the rules a little bit, so they feel happier about obeying the rules the rest of the time.

Sort of - people think rules are fair depending on how fairly they perceive rules being applied. We're asking people to fundamentally change the way they behave. If people don't think rules are fair then you need a heavier police presence/enforcement.

There's no malice or intention to break the rule in this or family groups going running over the Peak District in the Derbyshire Police drone - it's not clear in either case that people are acutally breaking the rules (as published by the government today). Arguably in both cases it's people trying to follow the rules - there's no video but certain in the Peak District video I didn't see any group (except for what looked like households) being within 2 metres of each other.

As I say - to me, this feels like, as with the Derbyshire Police, a bit of dick-swinging about the new powers they have rather than sensible enforcement. Does this make people more or less likely to stick to the 2m rule, or more likely to view it as a bit of a joke/challenge?

Which gets us back to the question you responded to: what is the quota and how is it distributed?  Does each individual get to cheat 10% of the time?  Or does the Wiltshire quota go to birdwatchers because they're so loveable and quirky?

Will all the other residents of Wiltshire now have a steely resolve to obey restrictions because 15 birdwatchers were allowed to gather in a field?

I don't think it's about the individuals. I think it's about the police - this isn't a normal crime, this is something we need people to do voluntarily. So does this help galvanise support for that (like shutting down pubs that have been opening illegally as has happened in other areas of the country) or doesn't it? Because here and in Derbyshire it sort of looks like people who might be trying to do the right thing are being hit.

[mongers]

One odd consequence of this is ...... car drivers are being a lot more considerate to me when I'm on the bike, notice this especially this evening.

:we need a this has never happened to me before smilie:

[Admiral Yi]

Shelf: I think one fundamental difference between you and I is how we perceive the 2 meter rule.  You see it as the limit of the state's/police authority.  Yeah, we're in a park, but the family groups are all (mostly?) 2 meters apart from each other, so the bloody coppers can bugger off.

Whereas I see it as the maximum permissable.  I say: stay in your house, don't come in contact with anyone, and when you absolutely have to come in contact, stay 2 meters apart.

I agree perception of fairness is important.  Zero tolerance for everyone is fair.  Even cuddly bird tit enthusiasts.

[Sheilbh]

Shelf: I think one fundamental difference between you and I is how we perceive the 2 meter rule.  You see it as the limit of the state's/police authority.  Yeah, we're in a park, but the family groups are all (mostly?) 2 meters apart from each other, so the bloody coppers can bugger off.

Whereas I see it as the maximum permissable.  I say: stay in your house, don't come in contact with anyone, and when you absolutely have to come in contact, stay 2 meters apart.

You're probably right, my view is we're allowed out for essential journeys and exercise. If you're outside on an essential journey or for exercise and you're within 2m, or if you're with people from your household - then the state/police can fuck off.

But there is a bit of this that could be from my situation. Because of an injury I've been in the house for about two months. The weather is gorgeous right now and I have been going for a walk, but I also just want to sit in a park/outside on my own away from people and not be harassed by the police for it.

But I'd also say I think what we're doing has to be sustainable for 3 months - for me that means we have to maximise the freedom people have within social distancing, rather than imposing a very strict approach that isn't sustainable.

I agree perception of fairness is important.  Zero tolerance for everyone is fair.  Even cuddly bird tit enthusiasts.

I can't think of a single example of zero-tolerance policing that's increased perceptions of fairness - I mean it could maybe work, but I think in practice there needs to be a bit of discretion. Especially, as I say, because I dont think this is a normal crime. If the focus of policing in three weeks time is still people who are leaving a crowded area to go to and bird-watch/jog then I think it'll undermine the change we're trying to make.

[Admiral Yi]

Zero tolerance for murder and rape seem to be pretty successful.

[viper37]

Trump wants to send troops to the Canadian border.

Forget the fact there's no reason for troops there, you shouldn't be ordering anyone to move anywhere!  Shelter in place!

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-trump-border-coronavirus-1.5510853

Yeah, I guess he read his map inverted.  I seem to recall people illegally crossing the border from the US to Canada, not the opposite.  But hey, got to keep those pesky Canadians were they belong!

If it keeps Americans from entering Canada during the next four months or so, I am all for it.

too late!

I'm curious... You are of hispanic origins, a people not very well liked by your current administration.  You enter Canada at the same time as your government is deploying soldiers along our border, thinking no one here would suspect an hispanic of working for Trump...  I don't believe in coincidence... I think you are spying on us, studying our defenses, our very own Maginot line and you are planning something with a radical Albertan separatist group!  You have been unmasked! 

[Admiral Yi]

I think it's interesting that Fredo and Shelf have been taking essentially the same line but the responses they've received have differed substantially.

[Oexmelin]

Zero tolerance for murder and rape seem to be pretty successful.

They are called different things. It's built in. Manslaughter is less-than-zero tolerance for murder. There is a whole process deployed to determine in what kind of circumstances another person has lost their lives. Some people who have effectively killed others, are receiving a wide variety of judgments, including innocent.

Here, police officers are asked to make a judgment then and there. In those circumstances, there will always be discretionary power, unless you want to have police officers apply the rule automatically and unthinkingly. That is never truly possible, whenever power is delegated. Thus, there will always be two different sorts of unfairness: either the rule will be applied rigidly, and some will be confined that ought to have not, or it will be applied selectively, ans some people will get a pass who ought not.

[Oexmelin]

I think it's interesting that Fredo and Shelf have been taking essentially the same line but the responses they've received have differed substantially.

I think it's related to two things:

1) Whether the activity proposed can conceivably be done while respecting the spirit of confinement, i.e., can I be in the park/bird watching and still be socially isolated.

2) How both have framed their thinking. Dorsey framed it as actively finding justifications and loopholes for his expressed preference, finding arguments worthy of attention in the process. Sheilbh framed it as concern over the expansion of police powers, finding personal arguments in the process.

I think both approaches begin with different concerns.

[Admiral Yi]

They are called different things. It's built in. Manslaughter is less-than-zero tolerance for murder. There is a whole process deployed to determine in what kind of circumstances another person has lost their lives. Some people who have effectively killed others, are receiving a wide variety of judgments, including innocent.

Here, police officers are asked to make a judgment then and there. In those circumstances, there will always be discretionary power, unless you want to have police officers apply the rule automatically and unthinkingly. That is never truly possible, whenever power is delegated. Thus, there will always be two different sorts of unfairness: either the rule will be applied rigidly, and some will be confined that ought to have not, or it will be applied selectively, ans some people will get a pass who ought not.

Yes we have different gradations of murder, but within those gradations we still have zero tolerance.  We don't allow people to commit a certain number of murders in the belief that everyone else will feel the laws against murder are more fair, and therefore commit fewer murders.

I agree there will be cases in which the rules will be applied to rigidly, and that people will be confined (or in this case, shooed off the heather) when they shouldn't have been.  But to return to one of my original points, the only way to enforce these restrictions with zero chance of false positives is to deploy resources that we do not possess.  Basically we would have to assign one police officer to each civilian in the country and have him follow the civilian around with a tape measure.  Every time you engage in activity that puts in the maybe innocent/maybe guilty zone (such as 15 twit watchers on a hill side) you're consuming law enforcement resources that are better used elsewhere.

[Oexmelin]

I agree there will be cases in which the rules will be applied to rigidly, and that people will be confined (or in this case, shooed off the heather) when they shouldn't have been.  But to return to one of my original points, the only way to enforce these restrictions with zero chance of false positives is to deploy resources that we do not possess.  Basically we would have to assign one police officer to each civilian in the country and have him follow the civilian around with a tape measure.  Every time you engage in activity that puts in the maybe innocent/maybe guilty zone (such as 15 twit watchers on a hill side) you're consuming law enforcement resources that are better used elsewhere.

Yes. But you and Sheilbh are simply emphasizing different methods to answer the same problem of delegated authority.

In any society, compliance stems first from the belief that one ought to comply. It's the only reason why we do not need 1 police officer per person. That belief may be formed through a variety of means, after all, monarchical societies employed much, MUCH less police officers than most democratic societies have. What you want, is that the message be, "comply, or else you will be dealing with authority". Sheilbh wants the message to be, "comply, for it is the essence of citizenship". You seem to disparage the efficacy of his approach, and he is fearful of the consequences of yours.

[Admiral Yi]

Yes. But you and Sheilbh are simply emphasizing different methods to answer the same problem of delegated authority.

In any society, compliance stems first from the belief that one ought to comply. It's the only reason why we do not need 1 police officer per person. That belief may be formed through a variety of means, after all, monarchical societies employed much, MUCH less police officers than most democratic societies have. What you want, is that the message be, "comply, or else you will be dealing with authority". Sheilbh wants the message to be, "comply, for it is the essence of citizenship". You seem to disparage the efficacy of his approach, and he is fearful of the consequences of yours.

But that leaves unanswered the question of what, if anything, we should do if Shelf's approach doesn't work.  Hey you twit watchers, don't gather together because the Queen wants you not to.  <Twit watchers gather.>

[jimmy olsen]

 

https://twitter.com/BNODesk/status/1243340753427980289

Thursday's major coronavirus updates:
-USA: +16,980 cases, +256 deaths
-Spain: +8,271 cases, +718 deaths
-Germany: +6,615 cases, +61 deaths
-Italy: +6,153 cases, +712 deaths
-France: +3,922 cases, +365 deaths
-Iran: +2,389 cases, +157 deaths
-Global: +60,099 cases, +2,764 deaths

[crazy canuck]

Trump wants to send troops to the Canadian border.

Forget the fact there's no reason for troops there, you shouldn't be ordering anyone to move anywhere!  Shelter in place!

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-trump-border-coronavirus-1.5510853

Yeah, I guess he read his map inverted.  I seem to recall people illegally crossing the border from the US to Canada, not the opposite.  But hey, got to keep those pesky Canadians were they belong!

If it keeps Americans from entering Canada during the next four months or so, I am all for it.

too late!

I tried to get them to seal the border earlier - nobody ever listens to me.

[Fate]

Trump's national county risk stratification plan seems unworkable so as long as there's a constitutional right to freedom of movement. Any law nerds know if Oklahoma could legally prevent movement of an asympomatic Texan from Dallas County (presumably a hotzone/Trump high risk county) across the Red River? Florida and other states are enforcing 14 day quarantines but aren't actually banning the entry of NY citizens into their state.