Coronavirus

[ram1964]

1 hour ago, Sith Happens said:

A good well thought out post.

As someone who had to shield I would be open to isolating for the good of the country,  but its easy for me to say as can work at home. 

Your post does demonstrate how different opinions are on the topic, many on here want to return to normal immediately, others don't feel the current restrictions go far enough. 

 

Whilst suffering with all these restrictions and having to be careful in going out, at least if the country was to start reopening and trying to function as normal as permitted with restrictions in place, at least the vulnerable would be able to make informed decisions on when to go out or where to visit,rather than nobody having any options at all.

[Sith Happens]

7 minutes ago, ram1964 said:

Whilst suffering with all these restrictions and having to be careful in going out, at least if the country was to start reopening and trying to function as normal as permitted with restrictions in place, at least the vulnerable would be able to make informed decisions on when to go out or where to visit,rather than nobody having any options at all.

I do agree. in fairness I did when shielding. 

I went for bike rides and walks. I made my own 'risk assessment ' and decided what was safe for me.

I'd continue to do so.

[Sith Happens]

26 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Great post and I'd like to see anyones arguments against this.

I thought I'd laugh at your post because I felt you might be feeling a bit confused that you posted in here and no one has randomly laughed at you yet ?

[G STAR RAM]

8 minutes ago, Sith Happens said:

I thought I'd laugh at your post because I felt you might be feeling a bit confused that you posted in here and no one has randomly laughed at you yet ?

I was beginning to think my posts had been blocked!

[Rev]

10 hours ago, rynny said:

Sounds better than the original. 

Heart of stone.

[Rev]

500+ pages of how well Australia have reacted and how we could all learn lessons from the convicts.

If only they'd put this much effort into finding an appropriate head of state instead of borrowing ours.

[G STAR RAM]

5 minutes ago, reverendo de duivel said:

500+ pages of how well Australia have reacted and how we could all learn lessons from the convicts.

If only they'd put this much effort into finding an appropriate head of state instead of borrowing ours.

That's a bit harsh!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There was also a post about Taiwan and South Korea.

[ram1964]

10 minutes ago, reverendo de duivel said:

500+ pages of how well Australia have reacted and how we could all learn lessons from the convicts.

If only they'd put this much effort into finding an appropriate head of state instead of borrowing ours.

Australia is in fairness much more adapted to outside recreation and a warmer climate assisting in a less contagious environment for Vivid to spread,although I am sure all countries could learn from one another 

[rynny]

30 minutes ago, reverendo de duivel said:

Heart of stone.

[Sith Happens]

34 minutes ago, reverendo de duivel said:

500+ pages of how well Australia have reacted and how we could all learn lessons from the convicts.

If only they'd put this much effort into finding an appropriate head of state instead of borrowing ours.

Half the problem here is those who live around us, putting us at risk,  pissing me off..in Australia its different because everybody needs good neighbours,  just a friendly wave each morning, helps to make a better day.

 

 

 

[Stive Pesley]

2 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Great post and I'd like to see anyones arguments against this.

I'd only argue against the last bit ("I don't believe any other party would have done any better or made any less blunders")

But politics is banned. Suffice to say having a bunch of disaster capitalists in charge during a pandemic is going exactly the way you'd expect it to go

 

Meanwhile this is an interesting history lesson isn't it?

 

[G STAR RAM]

2 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

I'd only argue against the last bit ("I don't believe any other party would have done any better or made any less blunders")

But politics is banned. Suffice to say having a bunch of disaster capitalists in charge during a pandemic is going exactly the way you'd expect it to go

 

Meanwhile this is an interesting history lesson isn't it?

 

What do you think Labour would have done differently?

Links to anything said at the time rather than in hindsight that leads you to believe we would be in a much better position today?

[alexxxxx]

27 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

What do you think Labour would have done differently?

Links to anything said at the time rather than in hindsight that leads you to believe we would be in a much better position today?

I suppose you'd argue it's the values of the parties. You'd expect Labour to take fewer risks and spend more money/impact the national economy than the Conservatives.

 

[Eddie]

4 hours ago, rammieib said:

Hold on, your lad should only have to isolate if you sister gets any symptoms. That's the Track and Trace Rules....Only your daughter needs to isolate (silly in itself) so I suggest you send your lad to school, you and your wife go to work and let the 6 year run riot around the house all day. ?

He should have to isolate if it is a Tuesday and he had fried eggs for breakfast, except when there is a Ford Focus parked outside, unless it has a damaged wing-mirror and its MOT is due to expire in a precise prime number of weeks. On days of the week other than Tuesday which contain the letter 'U', then self-isolation must commence immediately if you have a green stair-carpet, provided the bannister is painted in a colour which is not cream. Otherwise, self-isolation can be delayed for a period not exceeding seven and a half badgers.

[maxjam]

5 minutes ago, Eddie said:

He should have to isolate if it is a Tuesday and he had fried eggs for breakfast, except when there is a Ford Focus parked outside, unless it has a damaged wing-mirror and its MOT is due to expire in a precise prime number of weeks. On days of the week other than Tuesday which contain the letter 'U', then self-isolation must commence immediately if you have a green stair-carpet, provided the bannister is painted in a colour which is not cream. Otherwise, self-isolation can be delayed for a period not exceeding seven and a half badgers.

Either the lockdown is having a terrible effect on @Eddie mental health or he's running for Government.

Can't decide which.

[Eddie]

9 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Either the lockdown is having a terrible effect on @Eddie mental health or he's running for Government.

Can't decide which.

I'm drinking quite a lot - which certainly qualifies me for a cabinet position.

OK, drinks cabinet, perhaps.

[Albert]

8 hours ago, maxjam said:

I'm not going to forensically dissect why some countries are better placed than others to cope with pandemics - other than you, no one cares.  I typically make broad points in a short paragraph or two then post a link highlighting an issue to back up my point.

Also known as ad hoc sniping. This really doesn't represent any kind of real argument, and the ad hoc nature undermines the strength of any point you're attempting to make. 

8 hours ago, maxjam said:

In your opinion. 

I would also add that we could keep discussions going long after they had outlived their usefulness in the now defunct politics thread, this despite very strong and at times heated differences of opinion - no one ever slammed the door in anothers face by repeatedly dismissing their argument as moot. 

That's lovely. I was not on that thread, however, and so I wouldn't know what arguments were actually made. Your argument, however, has indeed been dealt with, and if you don't want your points dismissed, maybe make better points. 

Just repeatedly picking characteristics at random and going 'but [random characteristic]!' isn't an argument. 

8 hours ago, maxjam said:

I am not dropping links and running, I have taken a broad topic and used one small bit of it to highlight my argument - several times in some cases to broaden my 'defence'.  From what I can gather though, you simply refuse to admit there is any validity to my arguments and routinely dismiss them as tired, defeated and moot. 

It's not that 'I'm refusing to admit there is any validity', I've shown that there's not. Each of your points is rendered moot by those characteristics not being universal. If population density makes it impossible for the UK to handle the pandemic, then why are denser countries handling it better? If it's cultural factors, then why are culturally similar countries handling it better? If it's the interconnected nature of the country, then why are more interconnected countries handling it better? If it's the border situation, why are countries with more porous borders handling it better, etc. If your point is that it's the combination of factors, go ahead and show how that could be the case. What makes the UK's combination of factors special, and how could that possible preclude it from being successful. 

8 hours ago, maxjam said:

At first I considered that you were getting under my skin for some reason and tried to back out of arguments, but watching this thread develop have noted that 4 or 5 others are now shying away from engaging with you.  I understand that you have strong belief in your argument but the need to 'win', have the last word and outright dismiss others opinions about a pandemic that the world is still responding to will leave you arguing with yourself.

Now forgive me if I back out of this thread again for a bit but you and I are running around in circles and its probably strayed far enough from its original intentions.

It's not about winning or losing, it's about the discussion itself. There's no need for 'belief', the argument has been put to you, you just don't have a proper response, hence the ad hoc stabs in the dark that you're doing. 

It's common for people to back away when their points are shown to be invalid. It's the gold standard for ad hoc sniping based arguments, as it gives the poster an out that doesn't involve admitting they may have been in error. 

[Albert]

4 hours ago, ram1964 said:

Since March both myself and my wife have pretty much self isolated, wore face masks tried to social distance as much as possible and reduced interaction between friends and family to pretty much Zero.

other than working  when able and a weekly shop we haven't felt able or been allowed due to restrictions too visit our children or grandchildren and our elderly parents, all who live in various parts of the country.This  has presented a scenario of no where to go, no one to see and nothing to do( especially now the weather is changing and nights are drawing in). Both myself and wife whilst healthy ( mid fifties) both have health concerns ,myself diabetic and wife chest problems so are at risk of Covid.

We now feel that the government need to allow business to reopen get the country running again whilst incorporating social distancing,the wearing of masks and any other precautions felt necessary ,this elivating much unnecessary hardship to many businesses,assisting mental health issues and getting the vast number of people  back to some form of normality.

In doing this the government could then concentrate on assisting the more vulnerable(20% of poulation ?) requiring to shield both financially and socially . The cost of supporting and assisting the vulnerable rather than subsidising a lockdown for the majority whilst businesses continue to decline to levels of poor recovery. We are both starting to feel down ,phycologically mentally fed up with the present situation with very little to look forward too ,so feel for those that have been more effected by this pandemic. The country now needs to start moving forward and as much of a hash this government have made of things I don't believe any other party would have done any better or made any less blunders.

I would disagree that the UK could not have done better, and it's very much a cop out to assume this. 

The issue with just hoping people follow restrictions is that they've simply not in the UK, if they did, cases wouldn't be ballooning. Simply easing restrictions now will only be adding fuel to the fire, which will only drive the businesses suffering to the cliff faster. It's too late for opening up to help them, any gains will rapidly be lost as people make the decision to not go out on their own if this balloons further. This has already been seen through the World, where it's not just restrictions damaging the businesses, but rather, the changes in human behaviour that goes with it. 

The gold standard for saving these businesses is to open up with the pandemic controlled, but for the UK that would be a long road now. The UK blew it when they had a chance, and this is where they are now. Unfortunately, those mistakes have likely driven those businesses to the wall, and without greater support, there may be no way back for them. 

[maxjam]

11 minutes ago, Albert said:

Also known as ad hoc sniping. This really doesn't represent any kind of real argument, and the ad hoc nature undermines the strength of any point you're attempting to make. 

That's lovely. I was not on that thread, however, and so I wouldn't know what arguments were actually made. Your argument, however, has indeed been dealt with, and if you don't want your points dismissed, maybe make better points. 

Just repeatedly picking characteristics at random and going 'but [random characteristic]!' isn't an argument. 

It's not that 'I'm refusing to admit there is any validity', I've shown that there's not. Each of your points is rendered moot by those characteristics not being universal. If population density makes it impossible for the UK to handle the pandemic, then why are denser countries handling it better? If it's cultural factors, then why are culturally similar countries handling it better? If it's the interconnected nature of the country, then why are more interconnected countries handling it better? If it's the border situation, why are countries with more porous borders handling it better, etc. If your point is that it's the combination of factors, go ahead and show how that could be the case. What makes the UK's combination of factors special, and how could that possible preclude it from being successful. 

It's not about winning or losing, it's about the discussion itself. There's no need for 'belief', the argument has been put to you, you just don't have a proper response, hence the ad hoc stabs in the dark that you're doing. 

It's common for people to back away when their points are shown to be invalid. It's the gold standard for ad hoc sniping based arguments, as it gives the poster an out that doesn't involve admitting they may have been in error. 

Someone just shoot me.  Please.

[Andicis]

1 minute ago, maxjam said:

Someone just shoot me.  Please.

Just don't engage with it. It's not worth it.