Coronavirus

[ariotofmyown]

Johnson announced the Xmas rules just before putting most of the uk into indefinite lockdown. At no point was he mature enough to explain the risks or what might happen at Xmas if cases rose again. It was just all good news to bury bad.

Hope many times has he trotted out positive messages that have turned out to be totally false. The guy is desperately out his depth and surrounded by useless yes men. 

He isn't fit to run a small business, let alone a country. Perhaps that is why he's trying to drive the UK apart, easier to manage a smaller population. He did actually say "Fk business" too. What sort of dangerous radical comes out with comments like that.

[Eddie]

20 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

Johnson announced the Xmas rules just before putting most of the uk into indefinite lockdown. At no point was he mature enough to explain the risks or what might happen at Xmas if cases rose again. It was just all good news to bury bad.

Hope many times has he trotted out positive messages that have turned out to be totally false. The guy is desperately out his depth and surrounded by useless yes men. 

He isn't fit to run a small business, let alone a country. Perhaps that is why he's trying to drive the UK apart, easier to manage a smaller population. He did actually say "Fk business" too. What sort of dangerous radical comes out with comments like that.

I think that Boris will resign/be ousted by March.

"Et tu, Moggy?"

[Albert]

12 hours ago, TexasRam said:

I think we agree this had been dreadfully managed. Unfortunately it still is and rules that make no sense without scientific evidence are being used and backed up with sound bites from our politicians to scare the populous into believing them. 

 

The controls the UK have implemented make no sense, but it's part of a piecemeal strategy to kind of do what was recommended, while not annoying certain groups. Realistically, the UK needed to be harder, earlier, and if they had been, they almost certainly wouldn't be in this situation. 

The point on 'scaring people' though is ridiculous. The scientific community have been fairly conservative about the risks, discussed in the open what strategies do and do not work and why, and in general have been pretty clear overall. The issue is the waters being muddied by this fanciful notions that if you just open up, everything will be okay. It won't, jobs have been lost because of these selfish actions and demands, yet the same people pushing for that are now going on with scare tactics about controls being the cause of the economic woes. As seen elsewhere though, when countries followed the advice, when they went hard and early, things got better on all fronts. 

Case in point, after that recent cluster, we're open for Christmas, and tomorrow crowds will be heading to the Adelaide Oval to watch day 1 of Australia versus India. There's not been a new case in over 2 weeks, and there are no active cases in the whole state. All this chatter about 'but will you just have to live in fear', as expected, was complete and total nonsense. South Australia faced the worst case scenario, the virus had spread from hotel quarantine, and spread in the community for a number of days, with more than a dozen cases found once the first was identified, all of whom had been out in the community. Proper community tracing, ring fencing, and 3 days of lockdown, as well as a few weeks of slightly hardened restrictions, was enough to bring things back to normal for Christmas. 

[Norman]

16 minutes ago, Albert said:

The controls the UK have implemented make no sense, but it's part of a piecemeal strategy to kind of do what was recommended, while not annoying certain groups. Realistically, the UK needed to be harder, earlier, and if they had been, they almost certainly wouldn't be in this situation. 

The point on 'scaring people' though is ridiculous. The scientific community have been fairly conservative about the risks, discussed in the open what strategies do and do not work and why, and in general have been pretty clear overall. The issue is the waters being muddied by this fanciful notions that if you just open up, everything will be okay. It won't, jobs have been lost because of these selfish actions and demands, yet the same people pushing for that are now going on with scare tactics about controls being the cause of the economic woes. As seen elsewhere though, when countries followed the advice, when they went hard and early, things got better on all fronts. 

Case in point, after that recent cluster, we're open for Christmas, and tomorrow crowds will be heading to the Adelaide Oval to watch day 1 of Australia versus India. There's not been a new case in over 2 weeks, and there are no active cases in the whole state. All this chatter about 'but will you just have to live in fear', as expected, was complete and total nonsense. South Australia faced the worst case scenario, the virus had spread from hotel quarantine, and spread in the community for a number of days, with more than a dozen cases found once the first was identified, all of whom had been out in the community. Proper community tracing, ring fencing, and 3 days of lockdown, as well as a few weeks of slightly hardened restrictions, was enough to bring things back to normal for Christmas. 

Yet Germany who locked down earlier and tougher with a world beating track and trace system have also not managed to get it down to manageable numbers. 

Presumably due to the same facts that @maxjamhas given you over and over again. 

[Anag Ram]

Easy to blame the government. It’s human behaviour which leads to disaster.

Most European countries are struggling again. People are suffering from being restrained. They need a break before we go again. Kids have been messed about at school and at home. They’ve not been on holiday or to the cinema or been free to play like normal.

With all of that going on, there’s a lot of pressure for a few days of normality.

Boris should be able to say get together but be careful and in the year we’ve had, everyone in this country should heed his warning, not get wrecked, and not mix with loads of others.

The risk should be constrained but selfish behaviour and COVID denial will lead to an upsurge.

 

[Rev]

5 minutes ago, Anag Ram said:

Easy to blame the government. It’s human behaviour which leads to disaster.

Most European countries are struggling again. People are suffering from being restrained. They need a break before we go again. Kids have been messed about at school and at home. They’ve not been on holiday or to the cinema or been free to play like normal.

With all of that going on, there’s a lot of pressure for a few days of normality.

Boris should be able to say get together but be careful and in the year we’ve had, everyone in this country should heed his warning, not get wrecked, and not mix with loads of others.

The risk should be constrained but selfish behaviour and COVID denial will lead to an upsurge.

 

We need a government minister to come out and be explicit.

'Yes you can mix for 5 days, but if at all possible you shouldn't'.

It shouldn't be necessary, but sadly it is, people hear what they want to and have lost the ability to read between the lines.

 

[alexxxxx]

Some people seem to lack sense...

I met with someone today (thankfully kept 2m+ distance and outside) who after a while said that they had been in contact with someone positive only a few days a go. ?

[Albert]

2 hours ago, Norman said:

Yet Germany who locked down earlier and tougher with a world beating track and trace system have also not managed to get it down to manageable numbers. 

Presumably due to the same facts that @maxjamhas given you over and over again. 

Who, outside of Europe, ever really praised Germany's response? They've slowed things, but that's just about it. They never had the virus under control properly. The biggest risk factor for things ballooning is acceptable that some cases is normal. Places that have gone for eradication are the ones that have saved themselves from the fate that we're seeing in Europe. 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Albert said:

The controls the UK have implemented make no sense, but it's part of a piecemeal strategy to kind of do what was recommended, while not annoying certain groups. Realistically, the UK needed to be harder, earlier, and if they had been, they almost certainly wouldn't be in this situation. 

The point on 'scaring people' though is ridiculous. The scientific community have been fairly conservative about the risks, discussed in the open what strategies do and do not work and why, and in general have been pretty clear overall. The issue is the waters being muddied by this fanciful notions that if you just open up, everything will be okay. It won't, jobs have been lost because of these selfish actions and demands, yet the same people pushing for that are now going on with scare tactics about controls being the cause of the economic woes. As seen elsewhere though, when countries followed the advice, when they went hard and early, things got better on all fronts. 

Case in point, after that recent cluster, we're open for Christmas, and tomorrow crowds will be heading to the Adelaide Oval to watch day 1 of Australia versus India. There's not been a new case in over 2 weeks, and there are no active cases in the whole state. All this chatter about 'but will you just have to live in fear', as expected, was complete and total nonsense. South Australia faced the worst case scenario, the virus had spread from hotel quarantine, and spread in the community for a number of days, with more than a dozen cases found once the first was identified, all of whom had been out in the community. Proper community tracing, ring fencing, and 3 days of lockdown, as well as a few weeks of slightly hardened restrictions, was enough to bring things back to normal for Christmas. 

Rubbish. 

A few countries in Europe had very harsh lockdowns for months and cases are on the rise across the continent again.

At some point in time you are going to have to consider that having a continent the size of Europe with open borders makes it near on impossible to get numbers low enough to control, without closing the economies down for so long that everyone will be living in poverty and not even care about the virus anymore.

[Albert]

14 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Rubbish. 

A few countries in Europe had very harsh lockdowns for months and cases are on the rise across the continent again.

...because they never actually got the situation under control. They got it to a level they felt comfortable, then opened up, and have since faced the consequences for those choices. 'Lockdown fatigue' has also played a role in all of this, but ultimately, this is exactly what the concern was. As we've seen, lockdowns work, but to maintain 'manageable', you have to lockdown pretty quickly as cases begin to spike again. The only long term management strategy that have worked has been getting the cases to zero and maintaining that.

Quote

At some point in time you are going to have to consider that having a continent the size of Europe with open borders makes it near on impossible to get numbers low enough to control, without closing the economies down for so long that everyone will be living in poverty and not even care about the virus anymore.

The borders never had to remain open, and Europe's size was never the issue. 

There was no need to lockdown so long as to be in poverty, the curve for controlling the virus is dependent on number of cases, not on the size of the countries in question. Epidemiologically, if you split your continent/country into separate regions anyhow, and restrict travel to those regions, that is effectively making the 'countries smaller' too. The issue was never needing to be locked down forever though, it was that the lockdowns that they did do weren't used effectively. Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, etc, all have locked down for less time than European countries, yet have had far better outcomes. The virus can't spread if it's not even there. 

[Bob The Badger]

19 hours ago, TexasRam said:

Depends which science. You can have a meal with the same amount of people you can’t have a drink with in the same establishment. You have to leave and establish at 10pm but can be in there from 9am to 10pm. You can go to the ballet in doors with 2000 people but can’t go to a sports event Outdoor with the same amount of people. You can go and watch the darts but can’t wear fancy dress. You can’t play football at the weekend with your mates  but can go to school/college in a classroom with 30 other people for 6 hours a day....and so on and so on. Following that science, it’s blind panic. 

None of what you are saying is following the science.

It's a bunch of people encountering a situation for the first time trying to figure out what to do, most of whom are not scientists and have their own agenda/problems/self interests to deal with.

The science says wear a mask.

The science socially distance.

And the science say that the first vaccine will be 95% effective.

If you have any actual science that you can tell me is blind panic to follow I'll be all ears.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said:

None of what you are saying is following the science.

It's a bunch of people encountering a situation for the first time trying to figure out what to do, most of whom are not scientists and have their own agenda/problems/self interests to deal with.

The science says wear a mask.

The science socially distance.

And the science say that the first vaccine will be 95% effective.

If you have any actual science that you can tell me is blind panic to follow I'll be all ears.

Haven't we hammered the hospitality sector because the scientists said that is where the virus is spreading?

One would imagine that it is based on this science that the nonsensical rules, such as only being allowed to drink with a substantial meal, are based upon.

[Gone]

24 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said:

None of what you are saying is following the science.

It's a bunch of people encountering a situation for the first time trying to figure out what to do, most of whom are not scientists and have their own agenda/problems/self interests to deal with.

The science says wear a mask.

The science socially distance.

And the science say that the first vaccine will be 95% effective.

If you have any actual science that you can tell me is blind panic to follow I'll be all ears.

I hope you have big ears because all I mentioned was advised by the Governmental scientists.

If it was just wearing masks, keeping our distance and a vaccine I’d more than agree with that strategy. It hasn’t been and isn’t now it’s the idiotic rules/restrictions above delivered by scientists based on apparent science. 

Just look at Wales, firebreak didn’t work, now open for Christmas and now lockdown afterwards. It’s not working but we’re blindly with panic following the Science advised by scientists. I’m not sure what you don’t get from this Bob, maybe it’s just I’m stupid. 

[Marriot Ram99]

Personally I'm disgusted with the governments pathetic response to Coronavirus. There's no flu deaths this season is there? Wonder why? No accountability or transparency all a bunch of bull poo spouting snakey career politicians talking out their backsides and giving people false hope and having no rationality in anything. It's not the scientists fault, it's just the government shouldn't base their decisions solely on Science when taking away peoples rights and distorting societal outcomes and people's opportunities is not a decision a mad science like person can make it takes altruism, logic, Science and opportunity cost analysis to make decisions not just science. 

[Marriot Ram99]

Personally would have done a hard lockdown for 1 month then nothing after that no matter how many cases they are because the opportunity costs and externalities of the decisions are too big and its not in the governments right to take peoples rights away. People can make their own decisions and if the wider population after a few months in a certain constituency were desperate for a lockdown then its up to that areas MP to give people that option. Government cack handedly imposing rules people aren't willing to follow for understandable reasons doesn't make sense. Give everyone their own ducking choices. 

[Bob The Badger]

41 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

I hope you have big ears because all I mentioned was advised by the Governmental scientists.

If it was just wearing masks, keeping our distance and a vaccine I’d more than agree with that strategy. It hasn’t been and isn’t now it’s the idiotic rules/restrictions above delivered by scientists based on apparent science. 

Just look at Wales, firebreak didn’t work, now open for Christmas and now lockdown afterwards. It’s not working but we’re blindly with panic following the Science advised by scientists. I’m not sure what you don’t get from this Bob, maybe it’s just I’m stupid. 

It's not science.

A scientist can give as much advice as he or she wants it, that doesn't make that advice, science, it's a here's what we know and here's what we are guessing maybe the solution.

It's just a simple and common misconception of what science is.

And any credible scientist would tell you that. They tend to be the least dogmatic people on the planet.

It's why if two scientists disagree on how to interpret data people like your goodself presume it's the science that cannot be relied upon.

I don't know how many articles I have read here and back in the US saying politicians wouldn't listen to the scientists, but it's become wearisome.

At the end of the day it's politicians making the decisions.

Dr Fauci explained using science how masks can help as can social distancing because of how the virus spreads.

Trump disagreed and is notoriously anti-science and infected almost everybody in his vicinity. 

I've no clue what the right approach is, and neither does anybody, so I'm not arguing for anything in terms of going to pubs, football matches etc. 

But science tells us unequivocally, that if we'd all worn masks from the get-go and stopped being dicks about it, a few hundred thousand people would still be alive.

[Gone]

7 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said:

It's not science.

A scientist can give as much advice as he or she wants it, that doesn't make that advice, science, it's a here's what we know and here's what we are guessing maybe the solution.

It's just a simple and common misconception of what science is.

And any credible scientist would tell you that. They tend to be the least dogmatic people on the planet.

It's why if two scientists disagree on how to interpret data people like your goodself presume it's the science that cannot be relied upon.

I don't know how many articles I have read here and back in the US saying politicians wouldn't listen to the scientists, but it's become wearisome.

At the end of the day it's politicians making the decisions.

Dr Fauci explained using science how masks can help as can social distancing because of how the virus spreads.

Trump disagreed and is notoriously anti-science and infected almost everybody in his vicinity. 

I've no clue what the right approach is, and neither does anybody, so I'm not arguing for anything in terms of going to pubs, football matches etc. 

But science tells us unequivocally, that if we'd all worn masks from the get-go and stopped being dicks about it, a few hundred thousand people would still be alive.

Fair post, maybe our scientists need to stop trying to be politicians and our politicians need to stop trying to be scientists then

[ariotofmyown]

2 hours ago, Marriott Ram99 said:

Personally would have done a hard lockdown for 1 month then nothing after that no matter how many cases they are because the opportunity costs and externalities of the decisions are too big and its not in the governments right to take peoples rights away. People can make their own decisions and if the wider population after a few months in a certain constituency were desperate for a lockdown then its up to that areas MP to give people that option. Government cack handedly imposing rules people aren't willing to follow for understandable reasons doesn't make sense. Give everyone their own ducking choices. 

Yeah, we should have gone for the approach Sweden has taken, which has been regularly advocated by freedom lovers everywhere.

Even though the Swedish government has just come out and apologised for the much higher death rate in Sweden vs other countries in Scandinavia, I'm sure we can invent some reason as to why Sweden is totally different to Norway, Denmark and Finland.

[Bob The Badger]

1 hour ago, TexasRam said:

Fair post, maybe our scientists need to stop trying to be politicians and our politicians need to stop trying to be scientists then

I completely agree.

But remember the politicians are asking the scientists for their advice because they see them as experts on a topic that they are not.

No epidemiologist sat down and drew up the scenarios you spoke about, that was done by politicians.

Dr Fauci and Dr Burke in the US were the epitome of restraint and never wavered from the basic facts.

I keep mentioning the US because I only moved back here 6 weeks ago and I just realized have no clue if you're @TexasRam because you're from Texas or you just like dressing up in leather chaps and a cowboy hat.

 

[Gone]

3 minutes ago, Bob The Badger said:

have no clue if you're @TexasRam because you're from Texas or you just like dressing up in leather chaps and a cowboy hat

The latter ? haha and I was living there for a few years when I set up this account.