|
Post by sheikhmomo on Aug 2, 2020 12:23:08 GMT
Insta update, 5 people that don’t live together in a hot tub. 🤦♂️ Testing their eyesight?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Aug 2, 2020 12:25:13 GMT
Insta update, 5 people that don’t live together in a hot tub. 🤦♂️ Testing their eyesight? It’s not an excuse is it? It’s seriously pissing me off seeing all these people flout it all.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 2, 2020 12:28:38 GMT
The point being, that you keep your economy open. All your shops, pubs, restaurants etc. remain open throughout and you don't end up with plenty of fit and healthy 20's, 30's and 40's on furlough sitting at home, costing the government a fortune in payments, whilst crippling businesses, which ultimately then produces less tax revenue, when none of it is actually necessary. Over 50's will only be advised (and the piece was very clear that that advice would be caveat-ed by previous health history) that they are at greater risk and should consider staying at home for their own safety and that that advice would become more stringent as a persons age increased. Yes Paul - I do get that - and I'm also aware it's not your idea that we're discussing here but something that the govt has been discussing and now seeminy distancing itself from (I do have a theory that this is how policy is made - put it out there - see what reaction you get and go with it accordingly - rather than any meaningful strategy). However by 'economy' what we mean is consumer purchases (distribution, online, manufacturing and construction pretty much carried on during full lockdown) - the govt wants to see shops, pubs, clubs, events and eyelash bars open 'as normal'- the very places that are petri dishes for this disease. Opening then as normal - but only for 'healthy' specimens still remains a dangerous game - not least because we know little about the potential long term effects of the virus even on younger people - but because it keeps the virus in circulation and prolongues the agony for millions indefinitely.Oh absolutely, that's why I said that I didn't necessarily agree with the strategy myself, we simply don't know what the result of the long term effect might be. But equally, I can see why they would consider it as an option, rather than going back into full lockdown, if they're trying to work out what might be the least worst option. Indeed they might consider that a) the virus staying in circulation amongst the fit and healthy, might actually be a good thing if it contributes to 'herd immunity' and b) the agony is going to be prolonged for millions whatever happens.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Aug 2, 2020 12:44:27 GMT
Yet more dumbfuckery.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Aug 2, 2020 12:45:09 GMT
Yes Paul - I do get that - and I'm also aware it's not your idea that we're discussing here but something that the govt has been discussing and now seeminy distancing itself from (I do have a theory that this is how policy is made - put it out there - see what reaction you get and go with it accordingly - rather than any meaningful strategy). However by 'economy' what we mean is consumer purchases (distribution, online, manufacturing and construction pretty much carried on during full lockdown) - the govt wants to see shops, pubs, clubs, events and eyelash bars open 'as normal'- the very places that are petri dishes for this disease. Opening then as normal - but only for 'healthy' specimens still remains a dangerous game - not least because we know little about the potential long term effects of the virus even on younger people - but because it keeps the virus in circulation and prolongues the agony for millions indefinitely.Oh absolutely, that's why I said that I didn't necessarily agree with the strategy myself, we simply don't know what the result of the long term effect might be. But equally, I can see why they would consider it as an option, rather than going back into full lockdown, if they're trying to work out what might be the least worst option. Indeed they might consider that a) the virus staying in circulation amongst the fit and healthy, might actually be a good thing if it contributes to 'herd immunity' and b) the agony is going to be prolonged for millions whatever happens. But isn't that what they're doing by default anyway? Pubs are open, social distancing is being ignored town centres of an evening are the stomping ground of younger people. As a consequence infections are rising over half of which are amongst the under 25's. Now I don't need the government to tell me the best thing I can do for myself is stay out of the way. So Johnson is already getting the result that this policy would bring about and yet he's still shitting himself.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Aug 2, 2020 12:45:52 GMT
It’s not an excuse is it? It’s seriously pissing me off seeing all these people flout it all. The messaging is wank and there is no leadership. That boat sailed a long time ago. The latest nonsense of telling people who can easily work from home to go back the office is pure lunacy. Once people think you messaging and advice are a joke you're done for and once they see 'do as we say, not as we do', you're truly fucked.
|
|
|
Post by GrahamHyde on Aug 2, 2020 12:48:09 GMT
We won't have a true picture of how that looks until at least April 2021, and it will depend on how the economy looks in Sweden relative to similar countries who took stricter approaches. Another point is whether that same approach would have worked over here, or whether it would have strained our NHS to beyond tipping point. I guess it comes down to the moral question of: how many thousands of deaths have to occur to justify a million livelihoods lost? It's a difficult and uneviable task to have to strike that balance. However whilst I know many people who have lost their jobs and have found other employment I've yet to meet anyone who's come back from the dead. That's why reduction of deaths should always be paramount as a metric, but equally there has to be a trade off somewhere. If there's not then the best approach would basically be absolute house arrest indefinitely. As I said before, how many thousands of deaths would justify a million livelihoods lost?
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Aug 2, 2020 12:49:36 GMT
It’s not an excuse is it? It’s seriously pissing me off seeing all these people flout it all. The messaging is wank and there is no leadership. That boat sailed a long time ago. The latest nonsense of telling people who can easily work from home to go back the office is pure lunacy. Once people think you messaging and advice are a joke you're done for and once they see 'do as we say, not as we do', you're truly fucked. It is but nothing says “share a hot tub with 5 people you don’t live”. There’s absolutely no excuse for what I’m seeing. If the government had balls they’d shut the pubs now.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 2, 2020 12:56:28 GMT
Oh absolutely, that's why I said that I didn't necessarily agree with the strategy myself, we simply don't know what the result of the long term effect might be. But equally, I can see why they would consider it as an option, rather than going back into full lockdown, if they're trying to work out what might be the least worst option. Indeed they might consider that a) the virus staying in circulation amongst the fit and healthy, might actually be a good thing if it contributes to 'herd immunity' and b) the agony is going to be prolonged for millions whatever happens. But isn't that what they're doing by default anyway? Pubs are open, social distancing is being ignored town centres of an evening are the stomping ground of younger people. As a consequence infections are rising over half of which are amongst the under 25's. Now I don't need the government to tell me the best thing I can do for myself is stay out of the way.So Johnson is already getting the result that this policy would bring about and yet he's still shitting himself. Which kind of goes back to the question I asked at the beginning ... are cases rising but deaths still decreasing because the vulnerable and the elderly are 'keeping out of the way' now? If the death rate starts to increase, leading to a possible second lockdown, then that will almost certainly be because those people who are at risk from the virus aren't 'keeping out of the way', hence Johnson considering telling them to keep out of the way, rather than shutting the entire country down again, if the need arises.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Aug 2, 2020 13:05:41 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Aug 2, 2020 13:13:44 GMT
But isn't that what they're doing by default anyway? Pubs are open, social distancing is being ignored town centres of an evening are the stomping ground of younger people. As a consequence infections are rising over half of which are amongst the under 25's. Now I don't need the government to tell me the best thing I can do for myself is stay out of the way.So Johnson is already getting the result that this policy would bring about and yet he's still shitting himself. Which kind of goes back to the question I asked at the beginning ... are cases rising but deaths still decreasing because the vulnerable and the elderly are 'keeping out of the way' now? If the death rate starts to increase, leading to a possible second lockdown, then that will almost certainly be because those people who are at risk from the virus aren't 'keeping out of the way', hence Johnson considering telling them to keep out of the way, rather than shutting the entire country down again, if the need arises. If cases continue to rise then they will inevitably spill over into 'at risk' groups whether you tell them to stay out of the way or not. The only way to avoid a second full lockdown imho is to keep infection low.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Aug 2, 2020 13:55:36 GMT
We won't have a true picture of how that looks until at least April 2021, and it will depend on how the economy looks in Sweden relative to similar countries who took stricter approaches. Another point is whether that same approach would have worked over here, or whether it would have strained our NHS to beyond tipping point. I guess it comes down to the moral question of: how many thousands of deaths have to occur to justify a million livelihoods lost? For what it's worth I think it's the correct approach to take. You stratify population by risk and then those who are higher risk have to be naturally more cautious. This will also include anyone who is frequently in contact with such people. Those that aren't, which will be the majority of the population and the vast majority of the working population - which is key, then have fewer restrictions imposed. I'm not sure it is the majority - if you add up all the over 50's the fatties, the BAME, the 2m that were already shielding and the smokers then even allowing for double counting you're well over half. Plus a lot of people in the 50-70 age group remain economically active. This is about opening those parts of the economy that will inevitably lead to a rise in infections (hospitality entertainment) and trying to ensure that those infections don't turn into fatalities. Even ignoring non fatal impications of infection then the 'at risk' and the 'healthy' group simply don't operate in parallel worlds. Many fiftysomethings I know have twentysomething offsprimg living at home - the workplace operates with people of all ages and types - so does that mean some nigtclubbing 2Osomething can no longer work with his 60 year old colleague? - or does he have to stay in to keep his job? Who adjudicates? It might have looked good on a flipchart in a Downing Street 'brainstormer' but it doesn't work for me. Allow infections to rise and it will soon be out of control again.
|
|
|
Post by starkiller on Aug 2, 2020 13:57:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Aug 2, 2020 14:15:35 GMT
Absolutely correct mate. I thought this would would happen all along. The young and fit will party away infecting each other with nothing much worse than the odd sniffle, whilst we oldies cower behind closed doors in fear of our lives. House arrest based on age. By the way how old is Dominic Cummings? 47. Boris Johnson is 55 going on 12. Be careful, 12 year olds will take offence.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 2, 2020 14:29:33 GMT
Which kind of goes back to the question I asked at the beginning ... are cases rising but deaths still decreasing because the vulnerable and the elderly are 'keeping out of the way' now? If the death rate starts to increase, leading to a possible second lockdown, then that will almost certainly be because those people who are at risk from the virus aren't 'keeping out of the way', hence Johnson considering telling them to keep out of the way, rather than shutting the entire country down again, if the need arises. If cases continue to rise then they will inevitably spill over into 'at risk' groups whether you tell them to stay out of the way or not. The only way to avoid a second full lockdown imho is to keep infection low.By using what strategy?
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Aug 2, 2020 14:47:46 GMT
If cases continue to rise then they will inevitably spill over into 'at risk' groups whether you tell them to stay out of the way or not. The only way to avoid a second full lockdown imho is to keep infection low.By using what strategy? Effective social distancing, effective mass TTI, and effective border control with the emphasis on the effective. Local lockdown as a back-up. We currently have bits of all of that but not co-ordinated, policed or operated effectively. Target zero or near zero Covid and you can start opening up the remaining parts of the economy safely.
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on Aug 2, 2020 15:03:10 GMT
Effective social distancing, effective mass TTI, and effective border control with the emphasis on the effective. Local lockdown as a back-up. We currently have bits of all of that but not co-ordinated, policed or operated effectively. Target zero or near zero Covid and you can start opening up the remaining parts of the economy safely. Yeah I'm sure Boris would like that to happen too but the conversation we were having was, what will his strategy be, if that isn't sufficient and infection rates have risen to a level, where a second lockdown might be an option and as alternative to that, at that point, he might ask the over 50's to shield instead, wasn't it?
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Aug 2, 2020 15:18:40 GMT
Effective social distancing, effective mass TTI, and effective border control with the emphasis on the effective. Local lockdown as a back-up. We currently have bits of all of that but not co-ordinated, policed or operated effectively. Target zero or near zero Covid and you can start opening up the remaining parts of the economy safely. Yeah I'm sure Boris would like that to happen too but the conversation we were having was, what will his strategy be, if that isn't sufficient and infection rates have risen to a level, where a second lockdown might be an option and as alternative to that, at that point, he might ask the over 50's to shield instead, wasn't it? Over 50s? Over 70s ok. Over 65 possibly. Over 60 surely too low. Over 50 - ridiculous. Edit 90% deaths aged 65 and over.
|
|
|
Post by steve66 on Aug 2, 2020 15:29:14 GMT
I’m 65 😂, go gym 3/4 times a week & worked all through pandemic as work in care, please lock me down!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Aug 2, 2020 15:33:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Aug 2, 2020 15:34:53 GMT
Well his workplace is doing the right thing in the duty of care for employees, being inside a pub and not 2 metres away isn't on really so it shouldn't be open. Mate there are thousands of pubs all over the country that are full and people aren't remotely considering social distancing ... that stuff is over. Indeed, young people couldn't give a shit about any if it from what I've seen in the pubs I've been in these last few weeks.
|
|
teflondel
Youth Player
Plumbing services
Posts: 318
|
Post by teflondel on Aug 2, 2020 15:36:03 GMT
Simple way to stop all the fucktardary
Increase the fine to £300 for the illegal raves etc and give the police 50% of all the fines given out. They would soon stop monitoring the situation and do something about it.
Give landlords £5000 fine and enforced closure of pub for 14 days for allowing too many people in.
£150 fine for not wearing a mask in any indoor location/ public transport. Same rules as speeding, up to the person caught to prove they are exempt from wearing one.
Not exactly rocket science.
|
|
|
Post by Goonie on Aug 2, 2020 15:39:01 GMT
www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/news/behind-the-headlines/coronavirus/coronavirus-and-bame-patientsInteresting argument here around why Covid 19 effects more BAME people However when you look at NHS staff dying their is a disproportionate number from the BAME community. For me this challenges the idea of social deprivation as the main cause of this disparity in numbers as everyone regardless of ethnicity receives the same income per banding. Genetics is also unlikely to be a major factor in immunity though Vitamin D may prove to be involved but no one knows why yet. Genetic disposition to diabetes and heart disease may be a factor as might social over-crowding but I'm sure NHS doctors dont live in slums so there may also be cultural factors at play around living in large familial groups I have her the 'institutional rascism' card played to describe why it effects more BAME people but this seems an over-simplisric answer and potentially a reprehensible use of racial victimhood to explain a highly complex situation
|
|
|
Post by Gary Hackett on Aug 2, 2020 15:39:28 GMT
Simple way to stop all the fucktardary Increase the fine to £300 for the illegal raves etc and give the police 50% of all the fines given out. They would soon stop monitoring the situation and do something about it. Give landlords £5000 fine and enforced closure of pub for 14 days for allowing too many people in. £150 fine for not wearing a mask in any indoor location/ public transport. Same rules as speeding, up to the person caught to prove they are exempt from wearing one. Not exactly rocket science. Yeah the fines definitely need to be increased as a deterrent
|
|
|
Post by chad on Aug 2, 2020 15:56:21 GMT
Mate there are thousands of pubs all over the country that are full and people aren't remotely considering social distancing ... that stuff is over. Indeed, young people couldn't give a shit about any if it from what I've seen in the pubs I've been in these last few weeks. This in a nutshell. Anybody under 40 doesn’t seem to give two fucks
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Aug 2, 2020 16:29:00 GMT
Effective social distancing, effective mass TTI, and effective border control with the emphasis on the effective. Local lockdown as a back-up. We currently have bits of all of that but not co-ordinated, policed or operated effectively. Target zero or near zero Covid and you can start opening up the remaining parts of the economy safely. Yeah I'm sure Boris would like that to happen too but the conversation we were having was, what will his strategy be, if that isn't sufficient and infection rates have risen to a level, where a second lockdown might be an option and as alternative to that, at that point, he might ask the over 50's to shield instead, wasn't it? But he's not actively looking for it to happen - making the comsideration of a second lockdown all the more self fulfilling. Way I see it Plan A was herd immunity - abandoned once Imperial College numbers came out. Plan B was try and minimise damage to the economy while not oberwhelming the NHS. That meany we shut down too late and opened too eary - result one of the highest death rates in the world, worst economic performance in europe and NHS closed to all but covid. What is being proposed now is just Plan B by dealing the cards a bit differently - nowt like building on failure. We've never at any point given priority to life, health and disease elimination(if the NHS had twice the capacity we'd have been planning for twice as many to die) - so why not actuly give that a go and the economy will follow.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Aug 2, 2020 16:38:02 GMT
Yeah I'm sure Boris would like that to happen too but the conversation we were having was, what will his strategy be, if that isn't sufficient and infection rates have risen to a level, where a second lockdown might be an option and as alternative to that, at that point, he might ask the over 50's to shield instead, wasn't it? Over 50s? Over 70s ok. Over 65 possibly. Over 60 surely too low. Over 50 - ridiculous. Edit 90% deaths aged 65 and over. The older contingent also spend quite a bit - so whilst letting the 20 somthings rampage might be good for 'Spoons and Miley Cyrus concerts- a lot of high end restaurants and theatres will still go tits up if the over 50's are locked up. Economically I'm sure it would be a double edged sword.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Aug 2, 2020 17:09:41 GMT
Effective social distancing, effective mass TTI, and effective border control with the emphasis on the effective. Local lockdown as a back-up. We currently have bits of all of that but not co-ordinated, policed or operated effectively. Target zero or near zero Covid and you can start opening up the remaining parts of the economy safely. Yeah I'm sure Boris would like that to happen too but the conversation we were having was, what will his strategy be, if that isn't sufficient and infection rates have risen to a level, where a second lockdown might be an option and as alternative to that, at that point, he might ask the over 50's to shield instead, wasn't it? A second lockdown isn't even remotely plausable - I know you're not suggesting it is btw Paul. Another national lockdown would be the biggest massacre in British history. They are already talking about 230k excess deaths in the next 12 months as a result of the first lockdown. The national lockdown has already proven an absolute catastrophe for the country in every single way and we are set to announce the deepest recession in the country's modern day history at the end of the quarter. I find it bizarre, disturbing and utterly pathetic that certain people are almost willing on more covid chaos, more lockdown, more staying at home etc. Why can't these sick individuals see the damage that the lockdown has done, and is doing?
|
|
|
Post by OldStokie on Aug 2, 2020 17:35:40 GMT
Mate there are thousands of pubs all over the country that are full and people aren't remotely considering social distancing ... that stuff is over. Indeed, young people couldn't give a shit about any if it from what I've seen in the pubs I've been in these last few weeks. Young people? Maybe on a Saturday night but from what I've seen (and I live about 50 yards from a pub that I can see clearly), they're filled with the normal pub users - workers knocking off and then mostly men and women aged between 25 and 60. The daft young buggers might be responsible for their raves and stuff but no way can they be classed as 'normal pub users'. OS. Age descriptions are relative. To me, anybody under 60 is a 'nipper'.
|
|
|
Post by BraveSirRobin on Aug 2, 2020 17:59:21 GMT
Indeed, young people couldn't give a shit about any if it from what I've seen in the pubs I've been in these last few weeks. Young people? Maybe on a Saturday night but from what I've seen (and I live about 50 yards from a pub that I can see clearly), they're filled with the normal pub users - workers knocking off and then mostly men and women aged between 25 and 60. The daft young buggers might be responsible for their raves and stuff but no way can they be classed as 'normal pub users'. OS. Age descriptions are relative. To me, anybody under 60 is a 'nipper'. Park Inn or princess?
|
|