|
Post by sportsman on May 13, 2020 9:46:16 GMT
That's pretty much what it is. Let me ask you this? If you got tested in two years time, do you think the test is likely to say you've had it? I'd guess the answer will be yes. Would you know you've had it, probably and hopefully not. Then we've got to hope we are then immune from getting it again, at least until there's a vaccine or drug of some sort. Do i think there is more to this than what we know? Yes i do. A hell of lot is my guess. Money and control is probably the driving factor, but I'm sure there's more to this than us puppets out there waving a union jack flag and singing somewhere over the rainbow. Matt hancock said he knew about this way back before the start of the year. I said back then and I still say now I would have shut the borders down and not let any bugger in since December. That may have knackered up the economy so I don't know. For me and i said it back at the start, every leader of countries accepted this way too easy for me. Well rather than making guesses you should be lobbying the govt for antivaral testing. If you have that you can make meaningful extrapolations of who's had it and who hasn't. If 50% have already had it and show a high level of immunity you might be on to something - if it's only 2% then staying at home might be your best bet. In the meantime you and a carphone salesman are recommending we all risk our lives based on your own fever dream of a global conspiracy. I don't know mate. I bow to your obvious better knowledge than me on all this. I'm just guessing at what we're doing, hoping is happening, and why. Oh and a lot of fingers crossed like every other country.
|
|
|
Post by foster on May 13, 2020 9:46:17 GMT
That's it thought isn't it? If you lock down too early then there won't be enough people affected to build up the immunity. Germany were on the brink of going bust before all this if I remember correctly, their R rate is now above one, they haven't locked down again, and unless it gets way out of control I don't think they will. Still spouting this shite? Have a day off. Get some schlager on mate. 'Finger weg von Sachen ohne Alkohol' sums up life quite well at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by sportsman on May 13, 2020 9:50:39 GMT
That's pretty much what it is. Let me ask you this? If you got tested in two years time, do you think the test is likely to say you've had it? I'd guess the answer will be yes. Would you know you've had it, probably and hopefully not. Then we've got to hope we are then immune from getting it again, at least until there's a vaccine or drug of some sort. Do i think there is more to this than what we know? Yes i do. A hell of lot is my guess. Money and control is probably the driving factor, but I'm sure there's more to this than us puppets out there waving a union jack flag and singing somewhere over the rainbow. Matt hancock said he knew about this way back before the start of the year. I said back then and I still say now I would have shut the borders down and not let any bugger in since December. That may have knackered up the economy so I don't know. For me and i said it back at the start, every leader of countries accepted this way too easy for me. Well rather than making guesses you should be lobbying the govt for antivaral testing. If you have that you can make meaningful extrapolations of who's had it and who hasn't. If 50% have already had it and show a high level of immunity you might be on to something - if it's only 2% then staying at home might be your best bet. In the meantime you and a carphone salesman are recommending we all risk our lives based on your own fever dream of a global conspiracy. And if I, the government and our scientists are going down this route and it is the case that a large proportion of the country have had it and are now immune for example, then we'll look back and think thank god we got off our arses when we did or the country would be in an even worse state of deaths and problems from other things from going bust? Tuff call.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on May 13, 2020 9:51:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on May 13, 2020 9:53:52 GMT
Of course the reality is that in some circumstances, more vulnerable and lower paid workers are actually being abused in furlough by unscrupulous and fraudulent employers. Yes I agree. And like I said yesterday, I hope those companies get hauled down the right channels and dealt with. If a company puts everything into place safety wise as much as possible and that employee doesn't want go back when 99% of his her colleagues have, how does he stand then? Bit like footballers being told you've got to play soon I suppose? Don't know? The best thing to do is join a union.
|
|
|
Post by sportsman on May 13, 2020 9:54:21 GMT
Would you get on one of them? It's a tough one. Do I risk losing my job or get on one of them bloody things with all then pillocks not wearing masks as well?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2020 9:54:53 GMT
Furloughed workers already being demonised in the media... ... we live in a shit country populated by and run by utter vermin. I've got to say, I'm slightly pissed off at the the media lauding those still working and "keeping the country going". Do they really think that the vast majority of those who can't work are happy with the situation and only receiving 80% of their salary? It's not just me pissed off at that then, Dave? For the first 5 weeks of lockdown I was able to work from home. The company I work for suffered a massive downturn in orders coming in, and also the numbers being invoiced out. We slowly furloughed staff to balance out what work we had remaining. I survived the first couple of rounds of furlough but eventually got furloughed on the third round, when the business scaled back to an extreme skeleton staff. Believe me, being furloughed isn't what I want. I'd go back tomorrow if I got the phone call. I'd imagine the vast majority of people on furlough are eager to get back. It's not as if it's some sort of holiday, given the current circumstances. And although 80% sounds a lot (and it is a generous offer from the goverment), the 20% hit is a significant one for our family and I'm sure it is for many others. I quickly realised that 80% of my wages covers what I roughly need for all outgoings, therefore the 20% was our surplus income which we used to "live" on. As things stand, if this continues longer term, the money coming in will just be enough to cover the bills, with nothing left beyond that. That's no way to live. In that scenario I either have to start struggling and getting by, or start taking out payment holidays on the mortgage etc. Being furloughed is shit in my opinion. And some of the stuff written about it in the media is absolute arse gravy.
|
|
|
Post by sportsman on May 13, 2020 9:55:41 GMT
Yes I agree. And like I said yesterday, I hope those companies get hauled down the right channels and dealt with. If a company puts everything into place safety wise as much as possible and that employee doesn't want go back when 99% of his her colleagues have, how does he stand then? Bit like footballers being told you've got to play soon I suppose? Don't know? The best thing to do is join a union. Yes I guess you're right.
|
|
|
Post by sportsman on May 13, 2020 10:01:51 GMT
I've got to say, I'm slightly pissed off at the the media lauding those still working and "keeping the country going". Do they really think that the vast majority of those who can't work are happy with the situation and only receiving 80% of their salary? It's not just me pissed off at that then, Dave? For the first 5 weeks of lockdown I was able to work from home. The company I work for suffered a massive downturn in orders coming in, and also the numbers being invoiced out. We slowly furloughed staff to balance out what work we had remaining. I survived the first couple of rounds of furlough but eventually got furloughed on the third round, when the business scaled back to an extreme skeleton staff. Believe me, being furloughed isn't what I want. I'd go back tomorrow if I got the phone call. I'd imagine the vast majority of people on furlough are eager to get back. It's not as if it's some sort of holiday, given the current circumstances. And although 80% sounds a lot (and it is a generous offer from the goverment), the 20% hit is a significant one for our family and I'm sure it is for many others. I quickly realised that 80% of my wages covers what I roughly need for all outgoings, therefore the 20% was our surplus income which we used to "live" on. As things stand, if this continues longer term, the money coming in will just be enough to cover the bills, with nothing left beyond that. That's no way to live. In that scenario I either have to start struggling and getting by, or start taking out payment holidays on the mortgage etc. Being furloughed is shit in my opinion. And some of the stuff written about it in the media is absolute arse gravy. I agree. My tongue in cheek was for the minority out there and I know some of them. Take the mortgage break mate if you have to. I'm self employed and took mine straight away and still doing so. I spoke to my mortgage company at the beginning and they offered it me as I haven't earned a penny since March. Only my wife's income as a nursing home manager but not enough for us both and Bill's etc. Mortgage company were great and said when you're earning again phone them and arrange what suits me to pay any money owed, even spreading it over the full term if I like. I'll get some money back hopefully this month as self employed payment so I'll see what that is and decide then how to pay it back.
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on May 13, 2020 10:02:43 GMT
Well rather than making guesses you should be lobbying the govt for antivaral testing. If you have that you can make meaningful extrapolations of who's had it and who hasn't. If 50% have already had it and show a high level of immunity you might be on to something - if it's only 2% then staying at home might be your best bet. In the meantime you and a carphone salesman are recommending we all risk our lives based on your own fever dream of a global conspiracy. And if I, the government and our scientists are going down this route and it is the case that a large proportion of the country have had it and are now immune for example, then we'll look back and think thank god we got off our arses when we did or the country would be in an even worse state of deaths and problems from other things from going bust? Tuff call. 'If' again. If my granny had been born will bollocks she'd might have been my grandad. The other IF is that it isn't that widespread -( and given that only 5% of test are currently positive - it rather suggests it isn't) then you're risking hundreds of thousands of deaths. As the first responsibility of any government is to keep it's citizens safe then any consideration of herd immunity without solid supporting data would be a criminal dereliction of duty. Even fucking Cummings got it that was just too big a gamble.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on May 13, 2020 10:02:51 GMT
Would you get on one of them? It's a tough one. Do I risk losing my job or get on one of them bloody things with all then pillocks not wearing masks as well? If you have no alternative, you get on a packed tube or bus or lose your job. That's the position for millions today following the Government's change in policy. A genuine part of their guidance is 'to face the other way' from the person next to you. Shapps says he wouldn't get on one but he has a Ministerial car, won't lose his job and I suggest isn't frantically searching google to see if his local foodbank is open if he can't bring himself to risk his health. It's horrific and indefensible.
|
|
|
Post by Timmypotter on May 13, 2020 10:07:41 GMT
I think the key phrase there is βin a controlled way if possibleβ - I cant see how it can be controlled in any way. View AttachmentI think if this is the controlled way, we are going to have a generation who will grow up with mental health problems. This is a tricky one for any Government no doubt, needs really thorough thinking through That's not right is it? As you say, if those kids are forced to do that for any length of time it will damage them. Also, factor in that the risk to kids is vanishingly small. I'm aware they can be a vector but that should surely managed in a way that doesn't involve causing lots of kids mental health problems.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on May 13, 2020 10:09:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2020 10:15:57 GMT
Quick question, now we're allowed to meet up with one other person from a different household, I assume I am ok to meet a friend and go for a run together, whilst maintaining social distancing?
The stuff I can find online just keeps mentioning "meeting in parks".
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on May 13, 2020 10:18:16 GMT
8.7% hardly flocking back are they
|
|
jnb14
Youth Player
Posts: 270
|
Post by jnb14 on May 13, 2020 10:18:35 GMT
To reply to Wagastokie:
This goes back to a post on page 709. I am actually working from home, so I haven't time to trawl through so many pages!
I suspect, Waga, (if I may call you that!) that we will agree on very little. The exception being our mutual love of our club - who knows we may even sit next to each other. BUT, you are spot on about the bloated NHS.
I'll bow to no one in my support for a free at the point of delivery service. However, the NHS needs to move with the times and new developments- in fact as a society we need to move away from what is called "hospitalism". More care needs to be in the community, directly in peoples' homes alongside side a massive shift to prevention rather than cure. the irony of that would be more "nanny statism"- reducing sugar, fewer take aways, fewer enormously fat kids in the schools I have taught in.
Why has the NHS become so "bloated"? Due to accountability and micro management driven by "reform" from central government in what I will generously term well meaning attempts to make things "better", but in reality are merely inventive ways for governments to control outputs and thereby "prove" that they have met manifesto commitments and are "driving" improvements.
I started working in the NHS in 1984, it was just going through a reform. How many reforms has it gone through since? I left in 1993 and a colleague said THEN that the last thing the NHS needed was further reform. Undoubtedly the worst were the Lansley reforms of 2012 after the promises of the 2010 election that there would be no more "top down" reforms.
You say that the service should be run by the professionals. In 1984 I was told by a senior nurse, that the clinicians in their meetings, could never agree on a way forward as they were looking after their own vested interests. The reform at that stage was to bring in non specialists (they were mainly accountants) to actually make a decision, which of course would over rule most of those vested interests. Now I'm certain the NHS wasn't perfect at that point, but the real bloating began then.
If you want to run the different parts of the NHS as businesses and then to charge each other for their services, if you want to track the costs of each different treatment, each stay, each appointment, each prescription, each theatre, each procedure, then you need more and more people who are not directly involved in patient care.
The NHS spends public money- it should be accountable- but should it be accountable in this way?? In the UK there are more accountants per head of population than there are medical doctors.
Something very similar has happened in education. We've gone from a situation where the Education secretary had almost no power, to dictating exactly what should be taught in history. From a situation where most schools had a Head and two deputies to SLT teams of seven or eight- but that's a whole other story!
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on May 13, 2020 10:19:34 GMT
Quick question, now we're allowed to meet up with one other person from a different household, I assume I am ok to meet a friend and go for a run together, whilst maintaining social distancing? The stuff I can find online just keeps mentioning "meeting in parks". Quick answer. If it was me , if I think that I could do it within the basic guidelines of safety ( distance/ hand washing etc) in light of the fact that there is a deadly virulent virus about , and I wanted to do it, then I'd take the risk and do it. If I felt more comfortable reducing the risk , I would not do it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2020 10:21:37 GMT
Quick question, now we're allowed to meet up with one other person from a different household, I assume I am ok to meet a friend and go for a run together, whilst maintaining social distancing? The stuff I can find online just keeps mentioning "meeting in parks". Quick answer. If it was me , if I think that I could do it within the basic guidelines of safety ( distance/ hand washing etc) in light of the fact that there is a deadly virulent virus about , and I wanted to do it, then I'd take the risk and do it. If I felt more comfortable reducing the risk , I would not do it. I'd feel fine doing it. We'd keep more than a 2m gap at all times, so I'm not concerned of any risk.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on May 13, 2020 10:23:50 GMT
8.7% hardly flocking back are they The rail one is a big increase imo.
|
|
|
Post by sportsman on May 13, 2020 10:27:10 GMT
And if I, the government and our scientists are going down this route and it is the case that a large proportion of the country have had it and are now immune for example, then we'll look back and think thank god we got off our arses when we did or the country would be in an even worse state of deaths and problems from other things from going bust? Tuff call. 'If' again. If my granny had been born will bollocks she'd might have been my grandad. The other IF is that it isn't that widespread -( and given that only 5% of test are currently positive - it rather suggests it isn't) then you're risking hundreds of thousands of deaths. As the first responsibility of any government is to keep it's citizens safe then any consideration of herd immunity without solid supporting data would be a criminal dereliction of duty. Even fucking Cummings got it that was just too big a gamble. So are you saying our scientists are criminals?
|
|
|
Post by Pugsley on May 13, 2020 10:29:03 GMT
8.7% hardly flocking back are they Berk.
|
|
jnb14
Youth Player
Posts: 270
|
Post by jnb14 on May 13, 2020 10:30:17 GMT
Sportsman50,
1996 Act says workers cannot be forced to work in an unsafe place - fine if you have a union.
|
|
|
Post by sportsman on May 13, 2020 10:31:37 GMT
Quick question, now we're allowed to meet up with one other person from a different household, I assume I am ok to meet a friend and go for a run together, whilst maintaining social distancing? The stuff I can find online just keeps mentioning "meeting in parks". Quick answer. If it was me , if I think that I could do it within the basic guidelines of safety ( distance/ hand washing etc) in light of the fact that there is a deadly virulent virus about , and I wanted to do it, then I'd take the risk and do it. If I felt more comfortable reducing the risk , I would not do it. Yes. My look at it at the moment is if I can keep two metres apart, face mask a bonus? Then yes. Also they say outdoors the virus is less nasty for want of a better word π
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on May 13, 2020 10:32:35 GMT
8.7% hardly flocking back are they Berk. But right
|
|
|
Post by Paul Spencer on May 13, 2020 10:38:31 GMT
Testing We need to get this really firing don't we? Still only testing 60k actual people per day and that counts these rather flaky tests in the post. We must believe there is now very little Covid in our towns and cities or we would not be sending people back to work. So this is the moment to get on the front foot and hunt down the fucker. But beyond the regional hospital admissions numbers we don't seem to have much of a clue where it really remains. But we need to be hunting it down at town, street and even home level. But how do we do that with so little data? Some will say this blasted App on the Isle of Wight but somehow you just know it won't work! This is exactly why many people are suggesting that we're coming out of lockdown two weeks too early. Whilst the virus has been reduced, we need to get our test, track and trace protocols in place so we can take advantage of the low number and then keep a lid on it. But if we come out of lockdown before we are able to do that, then cases will rise BEFORE we're ready with the new protocols and we'll end up being straight back where we started, rendering the first lockdown totally pointless. That's the theory anyway.
|
|
|
Post by sportsman on May 13, 2020 10:39:09 GMT
Quick answer. If it was me , if I think that I could do it within the basic guidelines of safety ( distance/ hand washing etc) in light of the fact that there is a deadly virulent virus about , and I wanted to do it, then I'd take the risk and do it. If I felt more comfortable reducing the risk , I would not do it. I'd feel fine doing it. We'd keep more than a 2m gap at all times, so I'm not concerned of any risk. You mean your mate is faster than you and you'll be lagging behind anyway π
|
|
|
Post by Timmypotter on May 13, 2020 10:41:48 GMT
Quick answer. If it was me , if I think that I could do it within the basic guidelines of safety ( distance/ hand washing etc) in light of the fact that there is a deadly virulent virus about , and I wanted to do it, then I'd take the risk and do it. If I felt more comfortable reducing the risk , I would not do it. I'd feel fine doing it. We'd keep more than a 2m gap at all times, so I'm not concerned of any risk. I think it's fine now. I'll keep an eye out for you on the BVW.
|
|
|
Post by sportsman on May 13, 2020 10:42:36 GMT
8.7% hardly flocking back are they Berk. It isn't though is it? Is that not an easing of lockdown rather than everyone back stampede?
|
|
|
Post by roylandstoke on May 13, 2020 10:43:39 GMT
Thatβs communism/ dictatorship for you π Yes it is. I saw on tv last night that we're probably one of the few European country to record the death figures as accurately as possible. I wonder how many countries world wide can actually say the same? Must be true if you saw it on TV. I wonder if anyone else knows about this source of infallible truth?
|
|
|
Post by sportsman on May 13, 2020 10:43:55 GMT
Sportsman50, 1996 Act says workers cannot be forced to work in an unsafe place - fine if you have a union. That's good then π
|
|