Coronavirus

[Nearly Sane]

So... 371 sleeps until Christmas

[Nearly Sane]

The Chinese are so clever: they invented a virus that specifically targets countries run by incompetent fuckwits.

[Anchorman]

We have online worship on our FB page - but not all our congregation can access FB.
As long as we are legally allowed to open our building, under whatever circumstances, we will do so.
Our minister has his last Sunday off - on the 27th - and yours truly has the pulpit again..under lockdown.
More sanitise than you can shake a stick at, all outer doors open, meaning the place is freezing, no singing...and still we're worried that we might get more than twenty in a building that sits six hundred at a push.
Mind you, if we end up with twenty five, well, I won't see 'em......

[Nearly Sane]

Anyone planning to stay up to midnight, drinking, to see in the new tier?

[Nearly Sane]

We have online worship on our FB page - but not all our congregation can access FB.
As long as we are legally allowed to open our building, under whatever circumstances, we will do so.
Our minister has his last Sunday off - on the 27th - and yours truly has the pulpit again..under lockdown.
More sanitise than you can shake a stick at, all outer doors open, meaning the place is freezing, no singing...and still we're worried that we might get more than twenty in a building that sits six hundred at a push.
Mind you, if we end up with twenty five, well, I won't see 'em......

And again this simply privileges religion, and while I appreciate the joke it simply is the same approach as Cumming. You want to claim the rules don't apply to you.

[Anchorman]

And again this simply privileges religion, and while I appreciate the joke it simply is the same approach as Cumming. You want to claim the rules don't apply to you.

   



Technically, and under the articles which established the reunited CofS in 1929, they don't - though I believe they should.
The state guarahteed not no interfere with anything concerned in the running of the Kirk, as long as the kirk did not interfere with the state.
Yes, it's picky, but it works so far.

[Nearly Sane]

   



Technically, and under the articles which established the reunited CofS in 1929, they don't - though I believe they should.
The state guarahteed not no interfere with anything concerned in the running of the Kirk, as long as the kirk did not interfere with the state.
Yes, it's picky, but it works so far.

I don't think that would hold up as laws cannot preclude reform. You cannot bind future parliaments 

[Anchorman]

I don't think that would hold up as laws cannot preclude reform. You cannot bind future parliaments 

   



The kirk may be labyrinthine, legalistic, and its' legislative process moves at the speed of a one-legged arthritic tortoise, but the legal bods who drew up the Act were devious - this being the kirk, after all. Apparently, any change in the arrangement would have to be agreed by parliament (presumably Westminster), and the General Assembly to ve enacted.
Since, with the infamous 'Barrier Act' of 1568 - yes, right date - no GA can legislate without consulting presbyteries and the report going to a subsequent GA for amending and - hopefully - ratification, I wouldn't hold my breath.
If the Lord Jesus returned tomorrow, it would take the Kirk a minimum three years to legislate for it.......

[Nearly Sane]

   



The kirk may be labyrinthine, legalistic, and its' legislative process moves at the speed of a one-legged arthritic tortoise, but the legal bods who drew up the Act were devious - this being the kirk, after all. Apparently, any change in the arrangement would have to be agreed by parliament (presumably Westminster), and the General Assembly to ve enacted.
Since, with the infamous 'Barrier Act' of 1568 - yes, right date - no GA can legislate without consulting presbyteries and the report going to a subsequent GA for amending and - hopefully - ratification, I wouldn't hold my breath.
If the Lord Jesus returned tomorrow, it would take the Kirk a minimum three years to legislate for it.......

They can have been as devious as you like but it doesn't matter. Your argument is not really that different from the people who talk about the weird Magna Carta stuff. There is no way in our current democracy to have a court abrogate its decision to the Kirk.  They can't retrospectively affect the principle that parliaments cannot bind their successors - not in the end because of the principle but because of power.   

[Aruntraveller]

So trying to find out something that is rambling around in my head.

Is the fact that the UK has allowed the virus to take hold at fairly high levels in the population responsible (partly or wholly) for the emergence of this new more transmissable variant earlier than would have happened if we had controlled the virus more effectively?

And how is it more transmissable? They are saying 70% more but by what mechanism is that taking place?

I've tried internet searches but it all seems a bit sketchy currently.

[SteveH]

I understand that principles of rationality, consistency and equality are things you have problems with. I offer my sympathy.

You don't need me to tell you where you can stick your sympathy.

[Nearly Sane]

You don't need me to tell you where you can stick your sympathy.

It is such a shame that these problems with rationality, consistency and equality that you have reduce your contributions to this. But I suppose that when you are trying to defend privileging the religious there's not much more you can do.

[Nearly Sane]

Chris Rea's full name is Christmas Rearrangements.

[Roses]

Our DS son is being brought over this afternoon so he can collect his Christmas gifts. They will stay in the car, whilst I put them in the boot, so there will be no contact, which is wise.

[Stranger]

So trying to find out something that is rambling around in my head.

Is the fact that the UK has allowed the virus to take hold at fairly high levels in the population responsible (partly or wholly) for the emergence of this new more transmissable variant earlier than would have happened if we had controlled the virus more effectively?

And how is it more transmissable? They are saying 70% more but by what mechanism is that taking place?

I've tried internet searches but it all seems a bit sketchy currently.

I have no specific information but...

Obviously there is a statistical connection between the amount of the virus in a given area and the chance of a significant mutation in that area.

It's going to be a lot easier to work out that a variant is more transmissible and by how much (by directly measuring how much more it has spread relative to the other variant) than to work out the specific mechanisms it uses. The lack of information to date would suggest that we don't know the answer yet.

[Nearly Sane]

I have no specific information but...

Obviously there is a statistical connection between the amount of the virus in a given area and the chance of a significant mutation in that area.

It's going to be a lot easier to work out that a variant is more transmissible and by how much (by directly measuring how much more it has spread relative to the other variant) than to work out the specific mechanisms it uses. The lack of information to date would suggest that we don't know the answer yet.

The Daily Telegraph, of course, had a columnist asking WHERE the mutation came from.

[SteveH]

It is such a shame that these problems with rationality, consistency and equality that you have reduce your contributions to this. But I suppose that when you are trying to defend privileging the religious there's not much more you can do.

I'm not rising to your bait and getting myself suspended again.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not rising to your bait and getting myself suspended again.

More seriously, part of my annoyance with this is that given the average age of congregations will be relatively high  and exemptions like this could lead to my sainted mother who is 90 thinking it's ok to attend. I will talk to her later today and try and persuade her not to, though I hope that her church will behave sensibly like jeremyp's parents' church and take the decision not to hold services.


So your original comment about this being about a Scrooge view of religion was part of your need to thoughtlessly attribute motivation   based on no knowledge or understanding and led you to taking up a position that you were incapable of defending. I don't have sympathy for you, I have pity. Pity that your thinking is so limited. Pity that you react so mindlessly to the poster, rather than the post, or rather the small-minded caricature of posters that you seem to need to create.

[Nearly Sane]

Belguim, Italy, and The Netherlands ban flights from UK

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55385768

[SteveH]

To clarify: I don't know why religion is being especially privileged; it is one of many inconsistencies and illogicalities of the government's response to the lurgy. I certainly do not believe that religion should have any special privileges, and have frequently argued against such privilege, in the shape of church schools supported by taxpayers, the established church, bishops in the House of Lords, etc. I did, though, think it was typical of NS to pick on that one inconsistency out of many to have a pop at.

[Nearly Sane]

To clarify: I don't know why religion is being especially privileged; it is one of many inconsistencies and illogicalities of the government's response to the lurgy. I certainly do not believe that religion should have any special privileges, and have frequently argued against such privilege, in the shape of church schools supported by taxpayers, the established church, bishops in the House of Lords, etc. I did, though, think it was typical of NS to pick on that one inconsistency out of many to have a pop at.

  My original comment on it did not have a 'pop at it', just said that I found it baffling, and then after that agreeing with jeremyp that his patent's church had made a wise decision to not hold services. It's just you debating with your view of posters rather than the posts themselves that seems to have caused you to make up a motivation that was wrong.

[SteveH]

OK, maybe I was a bit over-touchy, but you didn't have to be so infuriatingly superior and patronising.

[Roses]

Belguim, Italy, and The Netherlands ban flights from UK

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55385768

One of my sisters has a second home in Bruges, she and her husband usually visit it every couple of weeks.  They are not likely to be going back there for sometime, especially as their British home is now in tier 4!

[Nearly Sane]

OK, maybe I was a bit over-touchy, but you didn't have to be so infuriatingly superior and patronising.

I accept your apology.

[SteveH]

I accept your apology.

I endure your continuing sneery arrogance.