Coronavirus

[Albert]

Maxjam: Whinges about 'needing to have the last word' and 'straying'. 

Also Maxjam: Posting spam to make sure they've had the final word. 

3 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Someone just shoot me.  Please.

In all seriousness, if you don't have anything else to discuss regarding the response, why post? 

[EtoileSportiveDeDerby]

 

51 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.

The waffle and complete non sense is impressive, Sprinkle the odd latin word in there and you could be PM.

[Stive Pesley]

1 hour 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?

There's little point me answering at length, as it's all just opinion - and you'll disagree whatever. 

Plus, it's not really Tories vs Labour here.

I believe that any party which is not being run by corrupt, disaster capitalists would have done a better job. Even the Monster Raving Loonies! Any party that followed the science and not the money basically

 

 

 

[Chester40]

8 minutes ago, Albert said:

It's not that 'I'm refusing to admit there is any validity', I've shown that there's not. 

'In your opinion' should be auto-replied to almost all of your posts at periodic points. 

8 minutes ago, Albert said:

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. 

Here...for example 

8 minutes ago, Albert said:

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. 

And here...

But it's also difficult to swallow you criticising other people for not admitting they may have been in error! 

You have occasionally been pulled up on something factually clearly incorrect and had to hold your hands up...but 'discussion' implies that you are actually sharing ideas. You do not do that, as anything that is merely a theory, is not yet known, is clearly unprovable, or open to interpretation..you are always absolute in your head that there is only you who can be correct. In amongst the patronising tone and misplaced certainty are some decent points and you clearly are intelligent but I wouldn't trust anyone who is so unbelievably devoted to their own train of thought. Your posts appear unhealthily devoted to your own slavish need to prove yourself right and anyone who disagrees wrong, without any reflection that may not always be true. 

[Albert]

9 minutes ago, Chester40 said:

'In your opinion' should be auto-replied to almost all of your posts at periodic points. 

'In your opinion' is usually code for 'I have no response'. 

9 minutes ago, Chester40 said:

Here...for example 

And here...

Excellent stuff. 

9 minutes ago, Chester40 said:

But it's also difficult to swallow you criticising other people for not admitting they may have been in error! 

Do you feel you have a case where I have been in error and not admitted it? 

9 minutes ago, Chester40 said:

You have occasionally been pulled up on something factually clearly incorrect and had to hold your hands up...but 'discussion' implies that you are actually sharing ideas. You do not do that, as anything that is merely a theory, is not yet known, is clearly unprovable, or open to interpretation..you are always absolute in your head that there is only you who can be correct. In amongst the patronising tone and misplaced certainty are some decent points and you clearly are intelligent but I wouldn't trust anyone who is so unbelievably devoted to their own train of thought. Your posts appear unhealthily devoted to your own slavish need to prove yourself right and anyone who disagrees wrong, without any reflection that may not always be true. 

'Merely a theory', a classic of people who have a limited understanding of how science works. I'd be interested to know these examples of where you feel that I have rejected something that is 'not yet known' or 'open to interpretation'. 

The rest is just the usual tired points you get from people who don't really have an argument, but are upset that one against their position has been presented use. If you actually thought any of this was true about my position, you'd back it with examples for each point you're claiming, rather than just wildly stating that this is the case. 

[G STAR RAM]

27 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said:

There's little point me answering at length, as it's all just opinion - and you'll disagree whatever. 

Plus, it's not really Tories vs Labour here.

I believe that any party which is not being run by corrupt, disaster capitalists would have done a better job. Even the Monster Raving Loonies! Any party that followed the science and not the money basically

How can I disagree if you show me evidence of where the opposition had a plan for us not reaching the point we have?

You're right it's not about Tories vs Labour, but if you're going to say other parties would have done better it would be nice to know what youre basing it on.

I think you'll actually find that alot of Tories are currently very critical of the handling of the pandemic.

Also how many instances can you give of 'the science' not being followed?

Who is it that provides 'the science'?

If it is Sage have they not pretty much been followed at every step?

[1of4]

3 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

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

Who decides who the most vulnerable are? What happens to people who consider themselves vulnerable but are not deemed to be part of the 20% of the population that is getting support to isolate? How long will it take to put an isolation scheme into place?

As I said in an earlier post I await the first post on here complaining about, someone isolating and claiming financial support, that shouldn't be in the isolation scheme.

As for reopening businesses and getting the country back up and running, while isolating the vulnerable 20%. Will we then dispense with masks the need to social distancing? 

After going back to pre pandemic living, should we accept the number of cases of people contracting the virus  along with those unfortunately dying, as part ofevery day life. Do we just carry on, even if those numbers rise dramatically?

Yes I too would like to see us return to some kind of normality. But isolating the vulnerable 20% while fully opening up the rest of the country is not that simple. Unless we are happy to live with the resulting consequences.

[jimmyp]

Been spending quality time with my children for a few days before I go back to work so I’ve not kept up with this thread.

Has anybody yet answered how we protect  the vulnerable and run the NHS at the same time, whilst everyone else gets on with their lives? 

Are people still denying that there was actually only one initial response to Covid19 that led to a reduction in infections and deaths (total lockdown)?

Are we generally now accepting of the fact that if behaviours within society and government continue the way they are now, we will be faced with a rapidly worsening economic situation and ever increasing death toll?

For all the talk of people being selfish do we now realise that any discussion on covid-19 will lead to a selfish response? It has an impact on us all wether it be in relation to economics or for preservation of life. 

 

We don’t have answers for so many questions, yet we spend so much time rubbishing the true scientific evidence, for what reason? Is this a natural human reaction when faced with the daunting task of self preservation? 

I have seen so many tv interviews where people state they think they are being punished, punished for what exactly? 

Can we agree that however we got to the situation we face now, we are in a pretty pants place and there will be very few winners? 

 

 

[Eddie]

55 minutes ago, EtoileSportiveDeDerby said:

 

The waffle and complete non sense is impressive, Sprinkle the odd latin word in there and you could be PM.

Post-Mortem?

Two birds with one shot there - I almost impressed myself.

[ramit]

1 hour ago, maxjam said:

Someone just shoot me.  Please.

[rammieib]

2 hours 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?

 

lol, first the Spanish plague 100 years ago, now 300 years ago. I'm going to give you your Marseille plague and I raise you the Bubonic plague in Eyam in 1665. Whole town locked themselves down and still half of them died. Have our government learnt nothing? 

[ariotofmyown]

1 hour ago, jimmyp said:

Been spending quality time with my children for a few days before I go back to work so I’ve not kept up with this thread.

Has anybody yet answered how we protect  the vulnerable and run the NHS at the same time, whilst everyone else gets on with their lives? 

Are people still denying that there was actually only one initial response to Covid19 that led to a reduction in infections and deaths (total lockdown)?

Are we generally now accepting of the fact that if behaviours within society and government continue the way they are now, we will be faced with a rapidly worsening economic situation and ever increasing death toll?

For all the talk of people being selfish do we now realise that any discussion on covid-19 will lead to a selfish response? It has an impact on us all wether it be in relation to economics or for preservation of life. 

 

We don’t have answers for so many questions, yet we spend so much time rubbishing the true scientific evidence, for what reason? Is this a natural human reaction when faced with the daunting task of self preservation? 

I have seen so many tv interviews where people state they think they are being punished, punished for what exactly? 

Can we agree that however we got to the situation we face now, we are in a pretty pants place and there will be very few winners? 

 

 

Great post and also by @1of4. Your mistake though is that the world has changed. Your questions require thought and difficult solutions. We are living in a post-detail country. Say something simple that people want to hear and ignore the details. @Alberts posts are long and he addresses each point in turn. How boring, just pick up one small part of a post and pick a fault with that.

[Albert]

54 minutes ago, rammieib said:

lol, first the Spanish plague 100 years ago, now 300 years ago. I'm going to give you your Marseille plague and I raise you the Bubonic plague in Eyam in 1665. Whole town locked themselves down and still half of them died. Have our government learnt nothing? 

But the whole point in Eyam was that they locked themselves in to stop the spread, not to save themselves. It's like saying 'silly soldiers, going off to war and still dying'. 

[Chester40]

4 hours ago, ariotofmyown said:

Great post and also by @1of4. Your mistake though is that the world has changed. Your questions require thought and difficult solutions. We are living in a post-detail country. Say something simple that people want to hear and ignore the details. @Alberts posts are long and he addresses each point in turn. How boring, just pick up one small part of a post and pick a fault with that.

 

@jimmypasks some difficult questions that there are no easy answers to, I don't think anyone disagrees...

But the flipside is lockdown which hasn't worked other than delay the inevitable (in our country) and trash the economy too. We could ask the same awkward questions, how many businesses are ok to go to the wall, how many people are allowed to miss their cancer check ups etc. 

We agree there are awful outcomes regardless.

My issue with @Albertis that he has unwavering conviction that he has every answer about every economy, country, setting, across the entire world. 

Personally I am naturally anti-lockdown but can look at the tiniest detail and still be unsure. As an eg, say.. gyms in the UK. The figures show they have been very low in the places where outbreaks can be traced to. Its also good for mental health and fitness which is protective against the effect of Covid. But in my heart as a gym user, I am mistrustful of the figures..instinct tells me its indoors, its full of different people every time you go, everyone is sweating /wheezing, you are sharing equipment. But maybe people are aware of that and are extra careful. Or maybe people (track n trace) find it hard to pinpoint the gym as where they got it..its a transient place whereas if you pick it up in a school it's more obvious /easy to say 'oh so and so had it'. I also saw the gym owner in Liverpool who said he would go bust so may as well open regardless and just take the fine, and part of me thought 'I don't blame you' and part thought it was the declaration of anarchy. 

So, I don't think there are easy answers we can all agree to that. Right from the beginning personally I would have had some kind of 'lockdown' for the vulnerable and allowed the majority to carry on. Not paid millions of people who could have been at work, saving their business. I could probably be totally misguided and wrong in that, but no one can say that for sure because there are just too many unknowns. 

 

[Sith Happens]

6 hours ago, Albert said:

But the whole point in Eyam was that they locked themselves in to stop the spread, not to save themselves. It's like saying 'silly soldiers, going off to war and still dying'. 

Not sure @rammieib was being 100% serious with his eyam comment ?

[G STAR RAM]

7 hours ago, jimmyp said:

Been spending quality time with my children for a few days before I go back to work so I’ve not kept up with this thread.

Fair play to you. Took my kids to the seaside this weekend, as trying to keep things as normal as possible for them. It remains to be seen what this whole episode has done for the development of our children.

Has anybody yet answered how we protect  the vulnerable and run the NHS at the same time, whilst everyone else gets on with their lives? 

Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive? Shielding does not have to mean locking people away indefinitely, just going above and beyond with precautions. If we are saying it is impossible to protect vulnerable people then I dont see what having another lockdown is going to achieve.

Are people still denying that there was actually only one initial response to Covid19 that led to a reduction in infections and deaths (total lockdown)?

Was certainly the best option, as long as applied early enough. Cant say I've done much research but plenty seem to say the Swedish approach has had reasonable results.

Are we generally now accepting of the fact that if behaviours within society and government continue the way they are now, we will be faced with a rapidly worsening economic situation and ever increasing death toll?

No.

For all the talk of people being selfish do we now realise that any discussion on covid-19 will lead to a selfish response? It has an impact on us all wether it be in relation to economics or for preservation of life. 

Of course everyone's natural response is going to be looking at it from their own perspective. I dont see my thoughts as selfish, I have plenty of other people in mind.

We don’t have answers for so many questions, yet we spend so much time rubbishing the true scientific evidence, for what reason? Is this a natural human reaction when faced with the daunting task of self preservation? 

What is the 'true scientific evidence'? We are in the middle of a pandemic where the situation is changing all the time. I doubt the true scientific facts will be known for about another 5 years.

I have seen so many tv interviews where people state they think they are being punished, punished for what exactly? 

The Governments failings. When people have been led to believe that doing certain things will bring the situation under control only, to find out it doesnt, sure you can understand why they see repeating the exercise as punishment.

Can we agree that however we got to the situation we face now, we are in a pretty pants place and there will be very few winners? 

Think that is something that we can all agree on!

 

[Albert]

1 hour ago, Chester40 said:

 

@jimmypasks some difficult questions that there are no easy answers to, I don't think anyone disagrees...

But the flipside is lockdown which hasn't worked other than delay the inevitable (in our country) and trash the economy too. We could ask the same awkward questions, how many businesses are ok to go to the wall, how many people are allowed to miss their cancer check ups etc. 

I'm really not sure where this 'miss their cancer check ups' taking point against lockdowns has come from. They're being prevented by the NHS being put under strain by the pandemic, the only way to bring back preventative and elective medicine is to control the virus. Only countries that have achieved this are seeing normality in medicine. 

The same can be said more broadly of businesses, the pandemic is what is doing the damage, letting it run wild will bring them down all the same. Without control of the virus, that is ultimately going to be the result unless direct financial support is given to keep them afloat until this is over. 

1 hour ago, Chester40 said:

We agree there are awful outcomes regardless.

My issue with @Albertis that he has unwavering conviction that he has every answer about every economy, country, setting, across the entire world. 

Where have I ever suggested this? My entire point is that while there is great uncertainty in many things, we do know that the virus is controllable, and it has been shown to be the only thing to save the economy, bring back elective and preventative medicine, etc. We know this because it's happening in many countries across the World that have successfully controlled the virus. 

I don't know the exact means that the UK can get there, and I've never claimed to have that answer, but what I'm arguing is this 'well, we've failed, but we must of always been destined to' position is farcical. I've also been highly critical of the 'let it rip' proposals, as they're based on fringe science at best, and people espousing them on here shy away when you put into context how many lives it sacrifices. 

1 hour ago, Chester40 said:

Personally I am naturally anti-lockdown but can look at the tiniest detail and still be unsure. As an eg, say.. gyms in the UK. The figures show they have been very low in the places where outbreaks can be traced to. Its also good for mental health and fitness which is protective against the effect of Covid. But in my heart as a gym user, I am mistrustful of the figures..instinct tells me its indoors, its full of different people every time you go, everyone is sweating /wheezing, you are sharing equipment. But maybe people are aware of that and are extra careful. Or maybe people (track n trace) find it hard to pinpoint the gym as where they got it..its a transient place whereas if you pick it up in a school it's more obvious /easy to say 'oh so and so had it'. I also saw the gym owner in Liverpool who said he would go bust so may as well open regardless and just take the fine, and part of me thought 'I don't blame you' and part thought it was the declaration of anarchy. 

So, I don't think there are easy answers we can all agree to that. Right from the beginning personally I would have had some kind of 'lockdown' for the vulnerable and allowed the majority to carry on. Not paid millions of people who could have been at work, saving their business. I could probably be totally misguided and wrong in that, but no one can say that for sure because there are just too many unknowns. 

 

There are too many unknowns, but what is known is that the current setups aren't working, and there's no way less restrictions is fixing the issues right now. Personally, I think the UK's biggest issue is no clear direction to their policies, and confusing double standards on who is being forced to do what and when. This generates distrust, which in turn undermines the restrictions in place, hampering overall effectiveness, in turn leading to harsher restrictions to compensate, and the cycles has just gotten worse with each passing week. Something has to give, as the current rate of growth is not sustainable. 

I too agree that lockdowns aren't a good long term solution, they really had to be a one and done solution, but here we are. 

[G STAR RAM]

10 minutes ago, Albert said:

I'm really not sure where this 'miss their cancer check ups' taking point against lockdowns has come from. They're being prevented by the NHS being put under strain by the pandemic, the only way to bring back preventative and elective medicine is to control the virus. Only countries that have achieved this are seeing normality in medicine. 

It does not really matter that you dont know where the story has come from, it's the reality of what is happening over here.

The NHS is not being prevented from doing anything. Even at the peak in March/April it did not come close to breaching capacity, not even accounting for the extra beds provided by the Nightingale hospitals.

The same can be said more broadly of businesses, the pandemic is what is doing the damage, letting it run wild will bring them down all the same. Without control of the virus, that is ultimately going to be the result unless direct financial support is given to keep them afloat until this is over. 

Nope it's not the pandemic hammering the economy. There are plenty of people over here ready to go about their daily lives and keep the economy ticking over as was shown after lockdown restrictions were lifted. 

 

[Albert]

12 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

It does not really matter that you dont know where the story has come from, it's the reality of what is happening over here.

I know the issue, but I don't get how anyone has managed to get into their heads that it's the restrictions causing this. The only places where such is going on as normal as the ones that have controlled the virus. Health services are not capable of doing such when they're inundated by new cases. Such medicine is usually for the vulnerable anyhow, so while the hospitals are full of the sick, it would generate higher risks in any case. 

12 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

The NHS is not being prevented from doing anything. Even at the peak in March/April it did not come close to breaching capacity, not even accounting for the extra beds provided by the Nightingale hospitals.

They didn't come close as they shut down the elective and preventative medicine in most areas to increase capacity. Bad flu seasons can push the limits of the NHS usually, and this has been a lot worse. This is a huge part of the issue behind the issue we just discussed a paragraph earlier.

12 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Nope it's not the pandemic hammering the economy. There are plenty of people over here ready to go about their daily lives and keep the economy ticking over as was shown after lockdown restrictions were lifted. 

If it's not the pandemic hammering the economy, then why are places that haven't gone with lockdowns just as impacted, if not more impacted, economically? It's all well and good to sing as a mantra to yourself that 'it's just the lockdowns', but we have the data to show it's not. 

Also, you really need to learn to quote with basic levels of competency. 

[maxjam]

We could just keep the pubs and nightclubs open instead and save ourselves £10m ?