# Hancock's Half Hour



## Chris152 (15 May 2020)

Watching it now. R rate rising, and that doesn't include the effect of floods of people onto public transport and back in work since Sunday evening's message to the nation(s).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52677194
Relatively happy to be in Wales.


----------



## worn thumbs (15 May 2020)

I'm very glad not to be a London commuter,but then thats always been the case.I gave up watching the windbaggery weeks ago as the whole thing could have been condensed into five minutes.It actually reminds me more of "Are You Being Served" with the fairly patronising tone adopted when the staff get told "you've all done very well."


----------



## Trevanion (15 May 2020)

What'll be will be, you just need to take precautions for your own wellbeing.


----------



## SammyQ (15 May 2020)

I agree with wornthumbs; the talking -down-to is galling and sends out the wrong signals: humility, not hubris please.

Tony Handcock would, I am certain, have a low opinion of us reheating his working title as a satire on Matt Handj0b's unimaginative, criminally-inexactitude-ridden daily propaganda. 

Sam


----------



## Steve Maskery (15 May 2020)

Get back to work.
Hope for the best.
Stay lucky.


----------



## beech1948 (15 May 2020)

I simply ask myself What could we all do.

Could we restrict Tube carriages to say only a max of 20 people at a time instead of the insane crowding. I have stopped going into London for these reasons.

Would TfL have enough people to manage this. Maybe they travel in full PPE for a days work perhaps behind a perspex screen in a carriage.

Same with buses. Restrict to say 20 people total

Make people walk to work. 3 miles is not so difficult and should take only 45 or so minutes.

Make parts of London and indeed all other built up or city areas car free. Say a 3 mile circle from Piccadilly Sq.

Shops to have an allowance of one customer person per 250 sq ft. Restaurants/pubs etc to stay shut.

Trains again restrict the number of users per carriage.

Planes only allow internal UK flights, keep all non-UK people out. 

Use the Army/Navy/Air Force as needed to get stuff organised...its one thing they are quite good at...getting stuff done rather than fussing and farting like the politico's.

Has the benefits of helping Boris with his supposed fight against overweight people.

My brain is screaming at me to find someone who can get stuff done instead of the lackadaisical civil servants and MPs who seem unable to act at all.

No doubt you will all tell me I'm mad. I just lost an acquaintance to the virus though and another is in severe difficulties with pneumonia. Todays trip to the local village Co-oP was a joke. The Co-oP have done a lot to mark out lanes, give direction arrows, shield check-outs etc etc. What do the customers do though...they walk anywhere in any direction they like...morons.

There we go. Got it out of my system for today.....see you guys come in useful sometimes.


----------



## D_W (15 May 2020)

I don't know who Hancock is or any of the references here but in the states, other than NYC and maybe some areas like urban centers close to there, there's been no overwhelming demand. At a 525 bed hospital here (where my wife works) we generally have about 10-15 beds with covid patients on any given day (serious or ICU types). 

It seems inevitable that more people will die. It's a virus. It also seems like Sweden will be far ahead of us by staying open and building herd immunity and we may not be better off for death toll when all is said and done as I've lost contact with talk of any vaccines. 

We have a local vaccine center here who is always working on vaccines, and who already had a vaccine effort for SARS, so they quickly came up with a patch type (protein needles) vaccine that produces antibodies in mice. And we've done nothing but sit here and wait since. There are other vaccines and trials. 

As we sit here and watch the loss of life occur and now the life loss is generally migrating to nursing homes, we deal with the mind boggling logic that volunteers cannot trial vaccines and be intentionally exposed (not even 20 or 25) because it creates an ethical dilemma. And putting it off somehow doesn't. At the pace we're talking about for actual distribution of a viable vaccine (that may never come), everyone will have herd immunity, and I would be surprised if the death rates by country in the end are much different. 

As long as the exposure rate at any given time isn't greater than available beds (and at present here, it isn't - not close).


----------



## Rorschach (15 May 2020)

D_W":35bfss5a said:


> I don't know who Hancock is or any of the references here but in the states, other than NYC and maybe some areas like urban centers close to there, there's been no overwhelming demand. At a 525 bed hospital here (where my wife works) we generally have about 10-15 beds with covid patients on any given day (serious or ICU types).
> 
> It seems inevitable that more people will die. It's a virus. It also seems like Sweden will be far ahead of us by staying open and building herd immunity and we may not be better off for death toll when all is said and done as I've lost contact with talk of any vaccines.
> 
> ...



I've been saying almost exactly the same for almost 2 months now.


----------



## D_W (15 May 2020)

Well, it's an easier thing to say now. Initially, if you remember the context, we had people in italy being denied life saving measures in some areas - that creates a large number of preventable deaths. 

The same issue started at the outset here in NYC - panic and filled hospitals and exhausted staffs, but now that we aren't in that situation it seems senseless to sit here for 18 months and add 10 times the annual tax revenue (not deficit, but revenue) to the debt in that time with the absolute nonsense statement that you can't willingly expose two dozen volunteers to COVID after they've tried a vaccine. That, to me is just bonkers. It's more virtuous to allow individuals to volunteer (and none may die - in fact, if they are younger volunteers, likely none will) but sit back and watch tens of thousands of people *who may have been saved by a vaccine* die losing an average future average lifetime of 13 years. 

If the hospitals become overwhelmed, then you can shut things back down temporarily. We know how to do it now.


----------



## Andy Kev. (16 May 2020)

beech1948":26mh2vdk said:


> I simply ask myself What could we all do.
> 
> Could we restrict Tube carriages to say only a max of 20 people at a time instead of the insane crowding. I have stopped going into London for these reasons.
> 
> ...



I suspect that anybody who has ever been to London would accept the idea that the biggest guarantee of spreading any disease is the underground. Restricting the number of people per carriage would be sensible. The disabled should probably get some sort of pass enabling them to use it as getting around otherwise might be too difficult for them. I also think that the use of the underground should demand a higher level of respiratory shielding/protection than the simple masks widely in use.

I'd be inclined to go for 5 miles from Piccadilly or Charing Cross (or whatever London thinks is best). For the able bodied a few miles on foot is no trouble at all but obviously the main thing would be to get bicycle use right up. The humble bike will, if allowed, be the rescuer of the big cities. 10 miles on a bike in a flat town like London? You'd have to be a complete and utter tart to moan about doing that.


----------



## RogerS (16 May 2020)

Andy Kev.":1o1d0aco said:


> ....10 miles on a bike in a flat town like London?...



Flat ? :shock: Ever noticed the hill up from Victoria towards Hyde Park Corner ? Primrose Hill ? There's a clue there in the name. OK compared to SFO it is flat but not flat like Amsterdam. Still no reason why the fatties couldn't cycle


----------



## RogerS (16 May 2020)

Anyone picked up on the unexpected implication of bloody Brexit? ow we're going to lose that magic E111 card, it really puts the mockers on leaving the UK for a European holiday. All travel insurance that I've seen excludes Covid-19 now. So it's a lottery going away now. If it's a seven day break then perhaps not too bad unless you pick it up the first day you get there and have a fast severe reaction. How are you going to pay for your hospital care or repatriation ? Or you might already be infected before you go out but not know it.

The longer you extend your holiday, the worse the odds become.


----------



## RogerS (16 May 2020)

beech1948":2q9j12ux said:


> ..... What do the customers do though...they walk anywhere in any direction they like...morons.
> 
> ....



We really *do* need a Covid cull.


----------



## worn thumbs (16 May 2020)

RogerS":1xq70ghb said:


> Anyone picked up on the unexpected implication of bloody Brexit? ow we're going to lose that magic E111 card, it really puts the mockers on leaving the UK for a European holiday. All travel insurance that I've seen excludes Covid-19 now. So it's a lottery going away now. If it's a seven day break then perhaps not too bad unless you pick it up the first day you get there and have a fast severe reaction. How are you going to pay for your hospital care or repatriation ? Or you might already be infected before you go out but not know it.
> 
> The longer you extend your holiday, the worse the odds become.



Surely that wasn't a surprise.I well remember an elderly joiner telling me how disgusted he was about foreigners coming here and being treated by the NHS-the subtext was that he was contributing to the cost.He also believed that we wouldn't get treated in other countries,not that he had ever been to any.It gave me a good deal of pleasure to show him an E111 and explain how it worked and now I share your sadness that it won't work for very much longer.The greater worry is that the Covid virus looks like being rather hard to eradicate and will be an intrusion into our lives for a very long time,maybe forever.We need a recovery plan and a part of it will have to map out a way to keep us off crowded public transport.Maybe its time to encourage businesses to disperse themselves from London and to reinvigorate some of the more remote towns.We ought to have learned that with a decent internet connection a good deal of work can be done outside a central office.We also have plenty of communities that would benefit from some high earning jobs being created in their midst.I suppose it will need a mindset that isn't limited to doing things the way we have always done them because thats the way we have always done them.


----------



## lurker (16 May 2020)

Is there really anything super critical happening in London that requires people to travel there?

Most London workers appear to be paper shufflers. All the construction work is to either transport to or provide a place of work for said paper shufflers.


----------



## SammyQ (16 May 2020)

> We have a local vaccine center here ...who already had a vaccine effort for SARS, so they quickly came up with a patch type (protein needles) vaccine that produces antibodies in mice... we deal with the mind boggling logic that volunteers cannot trial vaccines and be intentionally exposed (not even 20 or 25) because it creates an ethical dilemma...At the pace we're talking about for actual distribution of a viable vaccine (that may never come), everyone will have herd immunity, and I would be surprised if the death rates by country in the end are much different.



David, at the risk of being super-cynical ("moi??") can you extrapolate from your comments and consider a less-than-ethical superpower, not far from your western borders, who WOULD 'accidentally' trial any given promising vaccine (on dissidents, say?)... If successful, where would that put them in terms of dominance? 

Maybe I'm just too stir-crazy, depressed and Orwellian....


----------



## Woody2Shoes (16 May 2020)

SammyQ":inkddtvh said:


> > We have a local vaccine center here ...who already had a vaccine effort for SARS, so they quickly came up with a patch type (protein needles) vaccine that produces antibodies in mice... we deal with the mind boggling logic that volunteers cannot trial vaccines and be intentionally exposed (not even 20 or 25) because it creates an ethical dilemma...At the pace we're talking about for actual distribution of a viable vaccine (that may never come), everyone will have herd immunity, and I would be surprised if the death rates by country in the end are much different.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ah yes, I can see it now, hiding candidate vaccines in perfume bottles near mediaeval tourist attractions....


----------



## Andy Kev. (16 May 2020)

RogerS":106exhvs said:


> Anyone picked up on the unexpected implication of bloody Brexit? ow we're going to lose that magic E111 card, it really puts the mockers on leaving the UK for a European holiday. All travel insurance that I've seen excludes Covid-19 now. So it's a lottery going away now. If it's a seven day break then perhaps not too bad unless you pick it up the first day you get there and have a fast severe reaction. How are you going to pay for your hospital care or repatriation ? Or you might already be infected before you go out but not know it.
> 
> The longer you extend your holiday, the worse the odds become.


To feel hard done by in terms of not taking a European holiday is the kind of moaning that only those who enjoy a luxurious lifestyle can complain about. And yes, I do mean luxurious: consider the conditions in which most of the world lives. There are loads of people who would kill to have problems like that.

In any event, it is likely that alternative arrangements will be made in place of the current card.


----------



## RogerS (16 May 2020)

Andy Kev.":1cl7fh4y said:


> RogerS":1cl7fh4y said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone picked up on the unexpected implication of bloody Brexit? ow we're going to lose that magic E111 card, it really puts the mockers on leaving the UK for a European holiday. All travel insurance that I've seen excludes Covid-19 now. So it's a lottery going away now. If it's a seven day break then perhaps not too bad unless you pick it up the first day you get there and have a fast severe reaction. How are you going to pay for your hospital care or repatriation ? Or you might already be infected before you go out but not know it.
> ...



What tosh. Spoken like a true Brexitear.


----------



## Chris152 (16 May 2020)

worn thumbs":1y9za3ze said:


> The greater worry is that the Covid virus looks like being rather hard to eradicate and will be an intrusion into our lives for a very long time,maybe forever.


Something positive here, cross everything:
'A vaccine against coronavirus appears to have provided protection against the disease Covid-19 in six rhesus macaque monkeys.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52674739


----------



## Rorschach (16 May 2020)

Don't get hung up on the EHIC card, they weren't terribly useful in the first place, just emergency cover really and you should always have proper travel insurance.

Hopefully going forward the NHS might actually charge other european countries for the healthcare we provide. 
https://fullfact.org/health/how-much-do ... -costs-eu/


----------



## Andy Kev. (16 May 2020)

RogerS":16fe4x16 said:


> What tosh. Spoken like a true Brexitear.



I'd like to see some sort of justification for describing what I posted as "tosh".

To complain about the luxurious form of self-indulgence* known as foreign holidays is strictly a first world problem and, as you can imagine or maybe you can't, such complaints are likely to attract very little sympathy indeed.

*Nothing wrong with indulging oneself: we all do it all the time but it is beneficial to be able to recognise it for what it is.


----------



## D_W (16 May 2020)

SammyQ":35xr7tre said:


> > We have a local vaccine center here ...who already had a vaccine effort for SARS, so they quickly came up with a patch type (protein needles) vaccine that produces antibodies in mice... we deal with the mind boggling logic that volunteers cannot trial vaccines and be intentionally exposed (not even 20 or 25) because it creates an ethical dilemma...At the pace we're talking about for actual distribution of a viable vaccine (that may never come), everyone will have herd immunity, and I would be surprised if the death rates by country in the end are much different.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Maybe I'm being naive about the trial of vaccines elsewhere. The same system that developed the patch vaccine here is already managing five private hospitals in China.


----------



## RogerS (16 May 2020)

Andy Kev.":1uxawers said:


> RogerS":1uxawers said:
> 
> 
> > What tosh. Spoken like a true Brexitear.
> ...



Just where shall I start ? You're conflating so many different concepts. Plus introducing virtue-signalling ...

"Indulgence" ? First world luxury ? Define 'luxury' . Is buying a season ticket to ManU a luxury ? Going to the opera ? All value-judgements that you are not entitled to make. 

Try engaging brain first. What one is actually talking about is disposable income . OK...a lot of people don't have any. That's life. Maybe you think we should all go back to using handplanes because someone, somewhere in the world cannot afford to buy a thicknesser ? 

So stop preaching.


----------



## RogerS (16 May 2020)

Rorschach":29geo01b said:


> Don't get hung up on the EHIC card, they weren't terribly useful in the first place, just emergency cover really and you should always have proper travel insurance.
> 
> Hopefully going forward the NHS might actually charge other european countries for the healthcare we provide.
> https://fullfact.org/health/how-much-do ... -costs-eu/



I took you off Ignore to see what your latest troll was. Do you actually read what anyone writes before trolling ? 

1) E111 cards "weren't terribly useful". Evidence ? Source of your sweeping statement ? Troll comment ? 

"Just emergency cover only". No sh*t, Sherlock. That's one of the key reasons that they were in place FFS and they worked extremely well. "Emergency cover" ? Oh silly me, Covid-19 "is just like flu"...your words. Yeah, right 30,000 deaths and counting. 

2) "You should have proper travel insurance". You didn't bother to read what I wrote did you before going off on a troll. I cannot find any travel insurance that will cover you for Covid related events. 

3) You have posted twice on different threads a one-liner ...'The fines are illegal anyway". No-one bit, thankfully. Another troll.

4) IIRC you also said elsewhere that "We went into lockdown too early"..."we shouldn't have gone into lockdown..blah..blah blah" when actually what you meant to say was that 'My business selling trinkets to rich people has just gone down the pan because of lockdown. ' and so lockdown shouldn't have happened.

Here's a fact for you. Greece..2700 infected cases. 150 or so deaths. Why ? They went into lockdown immediately they had a case. Do not pass Go. Do not collect £200. They didn't dither like Boris. How many deaths have we had as a result ?

Anyway, back on Ignore.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (16 May 2020)

RogerS":wo3mcfez said:


> Andy Kev.":wo3mcfez said:
> 
> 
> > RogerS":wo3mcfez said:
> ...



Not that I care, but why is it important for UK taxpayers to subsidize your holiday insurance? The people without disposable income may be interested to know.


----------



## RogerS (16 May 2020)

Trainee neophyte":36r14wkc said:


> RogerS":36r14wkc said:
> 
> 
> > Andy Kev.":36r14wkc said:
> ...



TN...how on earth have you come to that conclusion ? Where did I say that ? Bizarre-world, TN, you live in.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (16 May 2020)

RogerS":30p1vxbn said:


> Not that I care, but why is it important for UK taxpayers to subsidize your holiday insurance? The people without disposable income may be interested to know.



TN...how on earth have you come to that conclusion ? Where did I say that ? Bizarre-world, TN, you live in.[/quote]

You said:


> Anyone picked up on the unexpected implication of bloody Brexit? ow we're going to lose that magic E111 card, it really puts the mockers on leaving the UK for a European holiday. All travel insurance that I've seen excludes Covid-19 now. So it's a lottery going away now. If it's a seven day break then perhaps not too bad unless you pick it up the first day you get there and have a fast severe reaction. How are you going to pay for your hospital care or repatriation ? Or you might already be infected before you go out but not know it.



Is that not a direct reference to the UK paying for your health care in Europe? Did I miss something in translation?


----------



## RogerS (16 May 2020)

Trainee neophyte":6lau8ciw said:


> RogerS":6lau8ciw said:
> 
> 
> > Not that I care, but why is it important for UK taxpayers to subsidize your holiday insurance? The people without disposable income may be interested to know.
> ...



You said:


> Anyone picked up on the unexpected implication of bloody Brexit? ow we're going to lose that magic E111 card, it really puts the mockers on leaving the UK for a European holiday. All travel insurance that I've seen excludes Covid-19 now. So it's a lottery going away now. If it's a seven day break then perhaps not too bad unless you pick it up the first day you get there and have a fast severe reaction. How are you going to pay for your hospital care or repatriation ? Or you might already be infected before you go out but not know it.



Is that not a direct reference to the UK paying for your health care in Europe? Did I miss something in translation?[/quote]

Yes. The E111 card was a reciprocal arrangement. Google it.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (16 May 2020)

RogerS":2kh0dafh said:


> Yes. The E111 card was a reciprocal arrangement. Google it.



You are bemoaning the fact that Brexit will stop you having freebie health provision, via the NHS, on your hols in Europe, and suggesting that there is no longer any point going on holiday, because you will need to pay your own way. Reciprocity seems irrelevant. 

Again: why should UK taxpayers find your holiday health expenses? There must be a good reason, and I would love to hear it. Not anything I feel a need to fight about, but I am interested to know why you should be entitled to free healthcare when you are making discretionary spending choices, entirely for your own selfish pleasure, outside of the UK.


----------



## Andy Kev. (17 May 2020)

RogerS":3bm8ig92 said:


> Just where shall I start ? You're conflating so many different concepts. Plus introducing virtue-signalling ...
> 
> "Indulgence" ? First world luxury ? Define 'luxury' . Is buying a season ticket to ManU a luxury ? Going to the opera ? All value-judgements that you are not entitled to make.
> 
> ...



I'm virtue signalling? It would appear that you have latched on to this modern term and not quite understood it. You will be defeated in any attempt to find me claiming any sort of virtues for myself for the simple reason that I haven't.

As I've already pointed out, luxury is a relative concept. You, me and everyone else on here enjoy a lifestyle which from the viewpoint of much of the world's population, indeed from the viewpoint of most of our (late) grandparents, is a luxurious thing from getting up in the morning until going to bed at night. The fact that most of us still find something to whinge about is inevitable although it does indicate a certain lack of self-awareness while simultaneously being an indicator of self-centredness.

A foreign holiday - something which I quite happily enjoy - is one of the cherries on the icing of our luxurious cakes. I don't feel remotely guilty about wallowing in relative luxury nor enjoying the cherries (so much for virtue signalling). You, however, appear to massively lack self-awareness in your moan about the health form (easily remedied by forking out for a bit of health insurance as somebody has pointed out and affordable for anybody who can afford a foreign holiday).

Now if you choose to parade your self-centredness and lack of self-awareness and in a rather public place (your Tim Berners-Lee given right which I'm sure we'll all defend until our dying breath), don't be surprised if your stance attracts criticism. You've shown often enough in the past that you find it difficult to take criticism, not that it particularly matters with regard to this particular issue. 

My exercising of my right to criticise your stance is not by any stretch of the imagination an exercise in virtue signalling (I repeat: do be careful in bandying about terms which you do not fully understand or lack the ability to apply sensibly). It could be seen as a bit preachy, I suppose but then again if you can't take the heat etc.

A possible moral of the story? Think twice before airing first world non-problems in public: it tends to look petulant. We all have those non-problems and indeed enjoy a good whinge about them but for the sake of our dignity, it is often sensible to keep them to ourselves.


----------



## Rorschach (17 May 2020)

I wouldn't pay too much attention to RogerS's trolling, he doesn't even know that the E111 form has been called an EHIC for 15 years :lol:


----------



## woodhutt (17 May 2020)

If I might be allowed my two penn'orth, I am bewildered by the whinge in an earlier post on this thread that it is impossible to get travel insurance coverage for CV19. 
First; should you be travelling at all during this pandemic? Ignoring the argument of 'privilege' for those that can afford travel. is it not a selfish act to put others at risk by your possible transmission of the disease? (Someone's willingness to do this precludes me from worrying about they themselves contracting the disease.) 
Second; by having reciprocal health cover such as EHIC (only valid in EU countries anyway as I understand it) are you not simply transferring any negative health outcome resulting from your travel from one country's, probably overstretched, health system to another? Isn't this a little too similar to the argument used against 'health migrants' entering the UK, for example?

I was also gobsmacked to watch the recent televised address by Boris to the nation (only some 2 - 3 days ago) in which he announced that, henceforth, people entering the country would have to go into voluntary isolation for fourteen days.
*What!!?* Who are these people entering the country and why wasn't this stopped two months ago? It further astonished me to listen to him sell this as the next logical step in the process. *Wrong!! * It was the FIRST logical step in the process and now the UK is playing catch-up with those countries who implemented this from day one and are now moving back to some semblance of normality. 

And yes. I know that NZ and Australia are fortunate in being island nations as was pointed out some time ago by a BBC presenter who obviously needs to look at a map of the UK.

Keep well everyone.
Pete


----------



## Trevanion (17 May 2020)

woodhutt":ivkogyi7 said:


> And yes. I know that NZ and Australia are fortunate in being island nations as was pointed out some time ago by a BBC presenter who obviously needs to look at a map of the UK.



Yes, we're technically an island nation but the main difference is that everything that goes into NZ or AU is either by boat or plane, we have droves of freight coming in from the continent and Ireland by ferry and train every day that *needs* to come in.


----------



## woodhutt (17 May 2020)

I am not talking about freight (which NZ and Oz also *needs*) but people. The only difference I can see in your argument is that we don't have trains bringing in our freight. 
Pete


----------



## Trevanion (17 May 2020)

woodhutt":2h7k4y5w said:


> The only difference I can see in your argument is that we don't have trains bringing in our freight.



Channel Tunnel.


----------



## woodhutt (17 May 2020)

[/quote]Channel Tunnel.[/quote]

Thanks. I had figured that one out after discounting amphibious rolling stock :wink: 
I'd be interested to know how much freight is brought in by train as opposed to sea and air though. Just to satisfy my curiosity.

Still doesn't negate my rant about unrestricted people travel in and out to date.

Cheers,
Pete


----------



## Trevanion (17 May 2020)

woodhutt":12f2domp said:


> I'd be interested to know how much freight is brought in by train as opposed to sea and air though. Just to satisfy my curiosity.



I would have no idea what the actual numbers are for comparative tonnes of freight but doing a quick lookup says that about 1.6M lorries use the Tunnel each year.



woodhutt":12f2domp said:


> Still doesn't negate my rant about unrestricted people travel in and out to date.



To be fair, if you managed to get a flight in or out of the country during this you are doing very well. It's practically been restricted the whole time without officially being restricted.


----------



## woodhutt (17 May 2020)

Trevanion":2t071wmk said:


> To be fair, if you managed to get a flight in or out of the country during this you are doing very well. It's practically been restricted the whole time without officially being restricted.



Watching events in the UK on TV there still seems to have been an inordinate amount of people travel in and out of the UK (ferries? Eurostar?) as well as unnecessary travel within the country. If this were not so, there would be no need to now announce an isolation regime for new arrivals and tout it as the next logical step (which is what really grates). 
Relatives in the UK have also indicated that the 'lock-down' regulations have been poorly managed with often conflicting/confusing guidelines.
I'm sorry if this sounds 'smug', given our improved situation here in NZ but, as an ex-pat with a fondness for the country in which I was born and raised, it annoys me to see how (IMHO) this issue has been so badly handled. 
Pete


----------



## Droogs (17 May 2020)

It has been pathetically handled and the current people in charge should be investigated under criminal negligence charges. The has been no testing - even temp checks of people arriving in the UK since this stated at any port/airport as part of official policy. People i know who were able to get back to the UK last week after being in lockdown in the far east just walked through Edinburgh airportarrivals got their luggage and got in a taxi.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (17 May 2020)

Temperature testing has been dismissed as a triumph of presentation over substance - the probability of carrying a temperature as you go through immigration being very low.

One option is quarantine. There is a reasonable debate over length but it means only essential travel is undertaken - probably a good outcome at the moment.

Another would be to apply quarantine measures to people coming from countries, airports, and on airlines which don't have adequate controls in place.

We should also note that some may be coming from countries which have a lower incidence of disease, and better controls than the UK. They would (in theory) actually reduce the threat in the UK population.


----------



## Rorschach (17 May 2020)

Temperature testing, purely a placebo, you might get a few % of cases if you are lucky. Quarantine, how you gonna manage that? Where are you going to put them all?


----------



## D_W (17 May 2020)

Droogs":15pkw3ye said:


> It has been pathetically handled and the current people in charge should be investigated under criminal negligence charges. The has been no testing - even temp checks of people arriving in the UK since this stated at any port/airport as part of official policy. People i know who were able to get back to the UK last week after being in lockdown in the far east just walked through Edinburgh airportarrivals got their luggage and got in a taxi.



Do you suppose that it's something like this?
* limited availability to do the testing
* if you tried to allocate resources by likelihood, virtue signaling would ensue?


----------



## D_W (17 May 2020)

Rorschach":l3v4fcsw said:


> Temperature testing, purely a placebo, you might get a few % of cases if you are lucky. Quarantine, how you gonna manage that? Where are you going to put them all?



It's nearly this generation's duck and cover. The hand washing is probably not that preventive, either - mass transmission seems to be happening to people in a confined area or where there's still air.


----------



## Rorschach (17 May 2020)

D_W":1fk7jfp7 said:


> Rorschach":1fk7jfp7 said:
> 
> 
> > Temperature testing, purely a placebo, you might get a few % of cases if you are lucky. Quarantine, how you gonna manage that? Where are you going to put them all?
> ...



Yes almost. Hand washing likely does help though as we touch lots of surfaces and an infected person is likely to cough into their hands. Even if hand washing isn't effective at stopping transmission it's cheap, easy and really we should be washing our hands regularly anyway. Temp checking, quarantining etc though are much more expensive and intrusive for little benefit.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (17 May 2020)

A couple of points: Portugal seems to agree with Roger, in that they are proposing to cover UK holiday makers, in the same way that they are currently covered. Paella and chips, and a hospital bed. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... hcare-ehic

Not sure if the rest of the PIGS are planning to follow suit. Given that there is a significant flow of funds from UK to the EEA because of Brits abroad getting healthcare, it could make for a boost to tourism, especially if there are long term affects due to the evil virus. https://fullfact.org/health/how-much-do ... -costs-eu/


> Other countries claim for more from the NHS than the UK claims back
> In 2015, EEA countries and Switzerland claimed against the NHS for over £674 million of costs of treating people from the UK overseas. In the same year, the NHS claimed for £50 million of equivalent costs for treating EEA and Swiss citizens in the UK.



Secondly, the vast, overwhelming majority of people have nothing to fear from Covid19. Expecting the entire world population to shelter in place for the rest of days, just in case, is not feasible. The nice man from the ministry said this:


> he great majority of people will not die from this and I’ll just repeat something I said right at the beginning because I think it’s worth reinforcing:
> 
> Most people, a significant proportion of people, will not get this virus at all, at any point of the epidemic which is going to go on for a long period of time.
> 
> ...


https://youtu.be/adj8MCsZKlg


----------



## doctor Bob (17 May 2020)

Trainee neophyte":r7ee1rcw said:


> Secondly, the vast, overwhelming majority of people have nothing to fear from Covid19. Expecting the entire world population to shelter in place for the rest of days, just in case, is not feasible.



Whilst getting 80% wage a lot of people will keep up appearances of being fearful................. controversial I know but seriously if I was on 80% of my wage to sit at home in the summer I wouldn'd be rushing back.
Note: I'm aware a lot of furloughed people are on less than 80% of their wage and struggling, as a result they are probably keener to return. I think furlough should have been 80% but reducing by 10% every 2 months.


----------



## Rorschach (17 May 2020)

doctor Bob":28d3n00b said:


> Trainee neophyte":28d3n00b said:
> 
> 
> > Secondly, the vast, overwhelming majority of people have nothing to fear from Covid19. Expecting the entire world population to shelter in place for the rest of days, just in case, is not feasible.
> ...



Not controversial with me, I suspected it would happen because I know if I was at home being paid 80% (or even 100% in some cases) to do nothing I would be loving it, lockdown or not.
Teachers are the latest to try and avoid going to work. I have teacher friends, they proudly boast how they clap for key workers until they were asked to go back to work, suddenly it isn't safe and teachers aren't key workers.

I know I slagged off the Police here before, and they have not redeemed themselves in the past few weeks but to their credit all the Police in the family have worked their full shifts with no complaints and from what I have heard in their stories they have acted impeccably. Mostly they have been bored, training cancelled, special ops cancelled, more officers on shift than ever before and little work to do, maybe that explains the good behaviour?


----------



## Setch (17 May 2020)

I have teacher friends. Teachers are already working from home, and on rotas in schools to teach the kids of keyworkers. In some cases, they're also trying to home school or mind their own kids as well. 

There is also zero contradiction between applauding those who risk their lives or health for something, and not wanting to do the same unnecessarily.


----------



## RogerS (22 May 2020)

Piece in the paper today about the whistleblowing hotline receiving a lot of calls from workers who have been furloughed but being still asked to work by their bosses/company owners using all sorts of scams, fraud etc. Hopefully anyone defrauding the furlough system will be prosecuted.

I am apprehensive though that a lot of people won't be going back to work as some companies will take this as an 'opportunity' to shed staff.

On another note, did anyone else catch the excellent BBC More or Less programme the other day that explained why the German death toll was so low (c. 8000+)? To precis it..

mid-Feb, the Germans identified the virus in people returning from skiing holidays in N. Italy and Austria. Widespread testing was recommended by the German disease control organisation.

Anyone testing positive, had all their contacts followed up as much as possible - sometimes between 80 and 100 per person - and these people were also tested. Anyone testing positive was isolated for 14 days. They were carrying out 50,000 a DAY while the UK was struggling to do 50,000 a week ! By March 23, Germany had detected and isolated 27,000 people with Covid. The UK - only 9000 and it's not rocket-science to realise that the UK was missing many infected people.

The German testing regime slowed the spread but there were still deaths. So they implemented their lockdown. Same day as us. Only in terms of the virus lifecycle, they were a week earlier. They implemented lockdown after 86 deaths. At the same point in time, we had 359 deaths. Exponential. Go figure. The genie was out of the bottle in the UK. We locked down too late.

We know how it all turned out.


----------



## Rorschach (22 May 2020)

A lot of countries have done better than us.....so far. But how will these countries open up again?

New Zealand is widely touted as having done well, I agree they did, but they also started from a far better position than we did and they have managed to contain the virus incredibly well. But what now? How does New Zealand open up again? As soon as they do they will get new infections and start the process all over again, they are effectively a quarantined country.

Italy suffered very badly, worse than us as not only do they have a high per million death rate but also their health system was almost completely overwhelmed in some places, almost certainly increasing the death toll higher than necessary. In just over a week though they open their borders and are encouraging tourists. How can they do this, because they have quite likely broken the back of the infection for their country, they are well on their way to herd immunity.


----------



## RogerS (22 May 2020)

Wishful , ostrich thinking ....again.

"Despite the large number of deaths (more than 28,000 as of 1st May), the current proportion of people who contracted COVID-19 does not provide herd immunity—where most of a population is immune, providing indirect protection for those who are not immune. In Italy, Lombardy has the highest proportion of infections in the population. *However, none of the Italian regions—including Lombardy—currently have herd-immunity.*"

source: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-05- ... ovid-.html


----------



## Rorschach (22 May 2020)

Please put me back on ignore Roger, thanks.


----------



## Just4Fun (22 May 2020)

Rorschach":26xxd77y said:


> New Zealand is widely touted as having done well, I agree they did, but *they also started from a far better position than we did* ...


In what way? A few months ago all countries were the same: no cases. We all started from the same position, surely?


----------



## Rorschach (22 May 2020)

Just4Fun":2vjvn8qv said:


> Rorschach":2vjvn8qv said:
> 
> 
> > New Zealand is widely touted as having done well, I agree they did, but *they also started from a far better position than we did* ...
> ...



No, massive difference:

Smaller country
Lower population density
Much less movement of people for tourism/business etc
Virtually everyone arrives by plane, freight comes by boat or plane

By contrast while we are an island nation we have a massive movement of people, much higher population density, we have the worlds busiest airport complex attached directly to one of the worlds mega cities, lots of our freight comes on lorries through the channel tunnel as well as lots of people using that CT and ferries etc. C19 was moving through the country long before we knew what a threat it was.

We may have all started from zero, but our starting dates were not the same and our lifestyle, business etc much different.


----------



## lurker (22 May 2020)

I noticed in the paper today that lord fox (never heard of him!!) furloughed himself from his one man business, but carried on drawing his £169 House of Lords daily allowance.
Now he has been caught out, he is paying back the money.
He needs stripping of honours and chucking out.
I bet there are loads of them at it!

Edit: sorry I seem to have libelled him, it was £162 per day


----------



## RogerS (22 May 2020)

Rorschach":5p3fpcjv said:


> Please put me back on ignore Roger, thanks.



Why? Just because I'm highlighting the flaws and weaknesses in your posts ?


----------



## Rorschach (22 May 2020)

RogerS":s8hz7ilp said:


> Rorschach":s8hz7ilp said:
> 
> 
> > Please put me back on ignore Roger, thanks.
> ...



You didn't even read my post properly and I haven't got time for your nasty little posts.


----------



## Andy Kev. (22 May 2020)

Rorschach":1te0anex said:


> No, massive difference:
> 
> Smaller country
> Lower population density
> ...



There's much talk at the moment about getting the lockdown in London lifted soon. On the face of it that seems quite reasonable as there are very few, if any, new cases. However, for the reasons you describe there I reckon that London is doomed to another outbreak come what may. In purely theoretical terms, the city shouldn't be opened until there is a vaccination available. In real terms it has to be opened and then the inevitable happens. That said, if folk stick to using their masks and avoid public transport as much as possible, I reckon there is a chance of keeping the size of the next outbreak down.


----------



## Rorschach (22 May 2020)

Andy Kev.":3qmdrmms said:


> There's much talk at the moment about getting the lockdown in London lifted soon. On the face of it that seems quite reasonable as there are very few, if any, new cases. However, for the reasons you describe there I reckon that London is doomed to another outbreak come what may. In purely theoretical terms, the city shouldn't be opened until there is a vaccination available. In real terms it has to be opened and then the inevitable happens. That said, if folk stick to using their masks and avoid public transport as much as possible, I reckon there is a chance of keeping the size of the next outbreak down.



It's a bit of a false narrative going round the media talking about another outbreak or the worst one, a second wave. This was always going to happen, it's unavoidable and those who hark on about it are the same people that can't seem to grasp that the lockdown wasn't to stop people getting C19 or dying, it was just to slow it down enough that the we didn't see overwhelmed hospitals as they did in Italy. 
There will be more infections and more deaths, the key is keeping the R rate as close to 1 as possible so we can manage. If deaths can be kept to the low hundreds per day then that's completely manageable in the long term, in fact we know at the peak of about 1200 deaths per day the NHS was coping perfectly well, indeed the hospitals in large areas of the country were basically empty and the emergency hospitals were not needed at all. 

They key in my mind to getting things running as normally as possible is to socially distance where possible and where it doesn't work, do the best you can but accept that it will spread.


----------



## RogerS (22 May 2020)

Rorschach":jctxl44y said:


> RogerS":jctxl44y said:
> 
> 
> > Rorschach":jctxl44y said:
> ...



Oh but I did read your post properly. You just don't like being taken to task for posting stuff that simply has no basis in reality. The thing is that you post exactly like Jacob. You throw out statements, without any backup references, as if you were Moses with his tablets of stone. Yet whenever anyone challenges your statement and produces relevant sources, you duck the issue and throw in a red herring and go off on another tangent.

You know..you're right. I'm putting you in lockdown. Please don't reply to any of my posts and we'll get along just fine.


----------



## Rorschach (22 May 2020)

I think you are the only nasty person I have come across on this forum.


----------



## lurker (22 May 2020)

Chaps,
Neither of you is coming out of this looking well

“E ain’t worf it “


----------



## Trainee neophyte (22 May 2020)

I thought it had all gone very quiet on the virus front. 

I don't know if anyone saw the BMJ article? https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1931



> Only a third of the excess deaths seen in the community in England and Wales can be explained by covid-19, new data have shown.
> 
> The Office for National Statistics (ONS) data,1 which cover deaths in hospitals, care homes, private homes, hospices, and elsewhere, show that 6035 people died as a result of suspected or confirmed covid-19 infection in England and Wales in the week ending 1 May 2020 (where deaths were registered up to 9 May), a decline of 2202 from the previous week.
> 
> ...


 The article suggests that most of the deaths (two thirds) at due to people being flung out of hospital to make room for the huge influx of coronavirus victims that the "scientific experts" had predicted. Oops.

The conspiracy theorists seem to think that the pattern is going to be one month of freedom, followed by two months of lockdown, and repeat - for the next two years. Whether this is what happens or not remains to be seen, but quite how people are going to be able to eat on that regime also remains to be seen. Government are taking on new powers and more control; money is being created out of thin air (six trillion from the USA, with more to come, supposedly), and lockdown and travel restrictions are guarantee to gut the world economy for a decade. The stock markets, however, seem to be doing rather well, given the dire economic outlook. I saw something today which suggests that billionaires as a class have gained an additional half-trillion dollars in new wealth over the last month. Is that from the outstanding future earnings expected n the "new normal" economy, or just a trickle-down effect of throwing six billion newly minted dollars at the banking system?

(I'm feeling peevish today, as UK government has basically forbidden any overseas holidays this year - thanks for that. Cornish holiday cottages are going to be expensive this year.)


----------



## Rorschach (23 May 2020)

That doesn't surprise me, I said long ago that more people will die because of our reaction to C19 than actually from C19.


----------



## RogerS (23 May 2020)

Trainee neophyte":375iwkw6 said:


> I thought it had all gone very quiet on the virus front.
> 
> I don't know if anyone saw the BMJ article? https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1931
> 
> ...



But other articles elsewhere in the BMJ suggest that the figures for deaths due to Covid are under-reported. In fact, you omitted a paragraph in the article that you linked to that raised questions in the differences that deaths are accounted for in England and Scotland.

Fact is...we will never know for sure. The only fact that we do know is that had we locked down a week earlier then there would be a lot more people still alive.


----------



## Rorschach (23 May 2020)

RogerS":zvdy609z said:


> The only fact that we do know is that had we locked down a week earlier then there would be a lot more people still alive.



Ummm, no, that's not a fact.


----------



## doctor Bob (23 May 2020)

Trainee neophyte":26hjiiqz said:


> ...................... and lockdown and travel restrictions are guarantee to gut the world economy for a decade.




I think you have seriously under estimated the impact of this recession, the worlds governments have seriously made a monumental balls up of all this. The youth of today will face long term economic devastation. Furloughed employees are generally loving it yet one in 4 is effectively unemployed. 
Universities are being destroyed, as are airlines, restraunts, pubs, cinemas, theatres, shops, hospitality etc etc.
People are generally very slow to see a recession, I have spoken to plenty of people who say "it's not affecting me"..... of course it isn't you wally, give it a year.
Guys working from home refusing to come back into the office because WFH is going well and it suits them, they don't understand that now is the time to be sucking up to the boss as he has serious decisions to make. 
I don't know of any bosses (reasonable size) who aren't looking to get rid of people and cut costs.
I've started to impliment changes, I reckon I can save £30,000 a year with little impact on my business, trucks have been returned as they were just for vanity, employment costs are being looked at big time, etc.
If you're sitting at home furloughed and loving it, good for you, enjoy the moment.
The fact the chancellor said you are going to see a recession like never before may give you a clue, normally it's said in a gentle manner "there maybe a slight downturn" he didn't pussy cat foot around.
If it lasts a decade I reckon we will have done alright.
As you can see from the above I think the cure has been worse than the disease, my opinion is mine and probably a load of dung and I hope i'm wrong.


----------



## Chris152 (23 May 2020)

doctor Bob":35e8ckdm said:


> The fact the chancellor said you are going to see a recession like never before may give you a clue, normally it's said in a gentle manner "there maybe a slight downturn" he didn't pussy cat cat foot around.
> If it lasts a decade I reckon we will have done alright.


In my simple world view it depends if/ how quickly the boffs can find a vaccine or at least therapeutic drugs. If quick, it might not be so terrible, but i can see it comparing to the Great Depression. (If they can't, well...)

So, trying to think positively, what would people's advice be to a capable youngster whose career choices are still wide open? For eg, is engineering still a good way to go? Presumably avoid the tourist industry for a while. Serious question, trying to get my head around all this...


----------



## Rorschach (23 May 2020)

Chris152":h7yx9gli said:


> In my simple world view it depends if/ how quickly the boffs can find a vaccine or at least therapeutic drugs. If quick, it might not be so terrible, but i can see it comparing to the Great Depression. (If they can't, well...)



Too late for that, damage is already done, indeed the damage is only just beginning, every day it gets worse.


----------



## Chris152 (23 May 2020)

But could clearly get much worse again if there's no vaccine and humans can't sustain immunity for any real length of time.


----------



## Rorschach (23 May 2020)

Bob I hate to say it but I don't think you will be proved wrong, I hope you are, in fact I desperately hope I am wrong about a lot of things I have said. Quite of a lot of what I said has been wrong, sadly for the worse, I was optimistic, I am not anymore.


----------



## Rorschach (23 May 2020)

Chris152":1s4rubxa said:


> But could clearly get much worse again if there's no vaccine and humans can't sustain immunity for any real length of time.



Then that becomes the "new normal" and we go back to how life was for previous generations when we weren't so shielded from death and disease. 

It won't continue forever, eventually enough vulnerable people will have died that it becomes a background disease like flu and we will just get on with life again.


----------



## doctor Bob (23 May 2020)

Chris152":2be31s80 said:


> So, trying to think positively, what would people's advice be to a capable youngster whose career choices are still wide open? For eg, is engineering still a good way to go? Presumably avoid the tourist industry for a while. Serious question, trying to get my head around all this...



If pre university age, don't go. Universities will have to slash staff levels very quickly, they reckon numbers of students will be down 40% next year, no way they can survive without reducing staff levels, and social life will be rubbish. I wouldn't want to be leaving uni after 3 years of poor tuition with £60k of debt and the worry that you will have the possibility of awarded covid degrees, like the current O and A levels, are they "tarred" O and A levels who knows, maybe?
I'd be pushing for something in construction, America built itself out of the great depression maybe governments will have to do the same. Keeping employment up is the key.
My son is a scaffolder (19, apprentice) he's back at work and I hope i'm right, the thought of him being unemployed for 10 or more years would break my heart. I'm 54, I could get through living like a pauper. This is about the kids not us.


----------



## Rorschach (23 May 2020)

Good advice from Bob, avoid University, too expensive and probably not useful. If the career choice must have a degree, do it through the open university, might as well pay a lower fee when you will be at home anyway.

As for trades, not sure any of the trades are going to be in great demand if the economy is stuffed. There are probably already plenty of electricians and plumbers to cover the kind of essential work that people will need for maintenance.


----------



## Chris152 (23 May 2020)

I read an article last week about how the big tech firms are already building on the demand for online activity and work. Maybe that'll be our equivalent to the 'restorative' construction work undertaken in the 30s Bob.


----------



## Rorschach (23 May 2020)

I think a lot more people will be working from home in the future, not just for social distancing which I hope will only be temporary, but because it will be cheaper. Bad time to be in the commercial property business right now.

Furniture makers will be able to a good trade in convertible bespoke office furniture like desks and storage. I have had to cobble together a desk for the missus which is working well but isn't really practical in the long term. She is itching to get back to the office but the Civil Service are looking at keeping everyone home for several months yet if possible. Now that shops are opening again soon including Ikea next week I am going to be putting serious consideration into how to make a better solution for her.


----------



## Andy Kev. (23 May 2020)

Chris152":1e6peg4x said:


> In my simple world view it depends if/ how quickly the boffs can find a vaccine or at least therapeutic drugs. If quick, it might not be so terrible, but i can see it comparing to the Great Depression. (If they can't, well...)
> 
> So, trying to think positively, what would people's advice be to a capable youngster whose career choices are still wide open? For eg, is engineering still a good way to go? Presumably avoid the tourist industry for a while. Serious question, trying to get my head around all this...


Your "simple" view is IMO correct. Every measure is a temporary one until we get either an effective vaccine or treatment medicine.

As for careers advice, I would offer the following: do about six years in the armed forces (ideally the Army or RM) and then make a decision for life. If he's good at military life, he's already got a quality job for life. If he decides after six years that he's had enough, then will be the time to retrade or go to university. He will make a better job of either than if he had started at 18 because forces life will have improved his way of going about things to a higher level than 90%+ of civilians manage.

Disclaimer: I'm ex-Army so am biased. I also got it the wrong way round: uni then Army. Hindsight is a wonderful thing and is always 20:20.


----------



## Rorschach (23 May 2020)

Military is a good choice as long as he is careful about which branch. When I was doing officer training I spoke to some in the Artillery, they had a bleak outlook on civvy life as one said "there isn't much on civvy street call for a man who can put a shell into a small space from 10 miles away"


----------



## doctor Bob (23 May 2020)

Hertz filing for chapter 11.
$18 billion of debt.

They will be putting a lot of second hand cars into the USA market, 20000 a month. Everything knocks on.


----------



## woodhutt (23 May 2020)

Rorschach":tacng8g1 said:


> A lot of countries have done better than us.....so far. But how will these countries open up again?
> 
> New Zealand is widely touted as having done well, I agree they did, but they also started from a far better position than we did and they have managed to contain the virus incredibly well. But what now? How does New Zealand open up again? As soon as they do they will get new infections and start the process all over again, they are effectively a quarantined country.



We did start from a better position - because we started early. At the beginning of March we were already in a Level 1 (lowest) regime which included such things as self-isolation for overseas arrivals, no unnecessary travel, work from home where possible, social distancing etc. The lock-down levels incrementally increased as it became clear that the virus had gained a foothold when we then moved into the highest Level 4 (total lock-down) on March 25th. The lock-down regime requirements were clearly laid out in a circular to every household describing the four levels of restrictions which was also backed up by a clear media campaign. Our biggest advantage however seems to have been the near 100% support from the population which has led our PM to thank the nation and refer to "Team New Zealand".
NZ has now moved back into a Level 2 situation which means that businesses can re-open (including pubs/restaurants etc.) provided that social distancing and sanitizing measures are observed. 
Take my local club for example. Your temperature is checked as you arrive at reception, tables and seating are arranged to observe the required distancing and service is by staff designated to a group of tables. Contact tracing, should it be necessary, is simple as everyone swipes their membership card on arrival and so the date and time of their visit is logged.
As of today, we have had no further cases and it has been more than two weeks since we had a death from the virus (21 so far). Admittedly, we are only in day 3 of the eased restrictions so it is too early to predict the outcome.
NZ's decision to "go hard and go fast" coupled with its clear and concise instructions at all levels and the co-operation of the public seems to have paid dividends. 
Sadly, the confusion and indecision displayed by other countries has cost them dearly.
Pete


----------



## Rorschach (23 May 2020)

Yep you have done well in NZ Pete, and an early start with very few cases to begin certainly helped, it was too late in the UK before we even knew what was happening really.
I am glad that you have seen very few deaths, but the question remains, what now? How will NZ survive long term? You are an isolated country with little chance of re-opening. 20% of your economy is tourism and you can't let anyone into the country.
Things might look good now but you are staring down the barrel of a serious recession and I am absolutely certain you will see more deaths, probably thousands more in the next few years.


----------



## Droogs (23 May 2020)

i think youngsters should be looking at jobs based in energy and electricery based industries. Like BEV but also for all the infrastructure needs that will go along with the change in logistics transport to come. I have seen reports of people when asked about getting a new vehicle once finances have recovered enough and most appear to be saying it will not be ICE cars they get and motive appears to be the cleaner air since lockdown. All hearsay but sounds logical. After all the creaping rumor is that BEV production costs are going to breack below the $100 per KwH by next year and that means electric will be cheaper to produce than ICE. so the me the future of secure work appears to be based in infrustructure based on these technologies.


----------



## doctor Bob (23 May 2020)

I wonder how far the economic damage has to go before enough people whose long term health was never threatened by the virus, start to realise that their lifestyles and homes are now seriously threatened, if life doesn't return to some sort of normal soon. 

If we ever get normal back I sincerely hope we ditch cheek kissing and man hugs, gives me the heebygeebies everytime I'm expected to do this ............... hello or a handshake for me, however I suspect handshakes are a thing of the past.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (23 May 2020)

doctor Bob":58lcxoqp said:


> I think you have seriously under estimated the impact of this recession, the worlds governments have seriously made a monumental balls up of all this. The youth of today will face long term economic devastation. Furloughed employees are generally loving it yet one in 4 is effectively unemployed.



I agree with everything you said, except that _I_ am underestimating it. This isn't a recession - we had started that before Christmas - this is going to be a ten year depression. First comes the asset deflation, bankruptcy, loan default etc, and then comes the galloping inflation when our masters panic and print to infinity. If we are really, really lucky, we will get stagflation, where everyone's income goes down, but everything you buy goes up. 



Chris152":58lcxoqp said:


> So, trying to think positively, what would people's advice be to a capable youngster whose career choices are still wide open?



I would humbly suggest that he forges his own path. University is mostly just buying the right to an occupation - currently far too expensive for the projected (if any) returns. I would also suggest that you think about the likely future before signing him up to the forces - the best way out of a depression is by having a massive capital destruction event, also known as "a war". China is pretty confident that they will be attacked soon: "Peace behind me, war ahead". Interesting that only The Sun, of all the mainstream media ran with it, that I can see: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6988385/c ... -conflict/ 

If china won't play, there is the perennial Russian war opportunity. USA is withdrawing from yet more nuclear non-proliferation deals, and threatening everyone and his dog around the world. I, personally, wouldn't sign up for anything military at the moment. Far too likely to be used as a human tripwire to create a conflict out of nothing.

So job wise, do something that people MUST have. Food, shelter, (not clothing!), healthcare. Or become self-sufficient, so you don't rely on the system. A good piece of advice I once heard is to become a farmer: you will learn mechanics, plumbing, building, electrics, and how to break machinery by looking at it.


----------



## Rorschach (23 May 2020)

doctor Bob":xrb6of79 said:


> I wonder how far the economic damage has to go before enough people whose long term health was never threatened by the virus, start to realise that their lifestyles and homes are now seriously threatened, if life doesn't return to some sort of normal soon.



I worry it will start a new class and age war as the young working class realise that the middle class metropolitan elite whipped up the panic in order to keep the oiks in check and the older ones "safe". 

Once the young realise that they aren't to look too favourably on how they have been treated. 

The pensioners that survive this might find their comfy perks and triple lock going away pretty quick once a political party realises they have a new group to appeal to.


----------



## RogerS (23 May 2020)

doctor Bob":x9gtuny8 said:


> Trainee neophyte":x9gtuny8 said:
> 
> 
> > ...................... and lockdown and travel restrictions are guarantee to gut the world economy for a decade.
> ...



I'm curious, Bob. If you had been PM what would you have done differently ?


----------



## RogerS (23 May 2020)

woodhutt":15t53zv9 said:


> ....
> Sadly, the confusion and indecision displayed by other countries has cost them dearly.
> Pete



Thank you Pete for confirming what I've been saying all along. We dithered and have been riding the whirlwind as a result.

As for the future ? Anyone suggesting that Covid is 'just like the flu' is talking out of their rear. 
For starters, mortality for Covid-19 3-4%. For seasonal flu 0.1%...source: WHO


----------



## Rorschach (23 May 2020)

RogerS":3iwcpm3b said:


> As for the future ? Anyone suggesting that Covid is 'just like the flu' is talking out of their rear.
> For starters, mortality for Covid-19 3-4%. For seasonal flu 0.1%...source: WHO



You didn't read it properly again :roll: :lol:


----------



## doctor Bob (23 May 2020)

RogerS":3siiduay said:


> doctor Bob":3siiduay said:
> 
> 
> > Trainee neophyte":3siiduay said:
> ...



In hindsight, sacrificed lives now to save the UK economy, worldwide economic poverty, vast foodbank queues, a whole generation of mass unemployment and as a consequence save more lives later.
USA is already seeing it, furlough is hiding it from us at present.
Of course I may be talking rubbish Roger and the greatest depression ever witnessed may not happen, I sincerely hope so.


----------



## doctor Bob (23 May 2020)

RogerS":20sx4uty said:


> Anyone suggesting that Covid is 'just like the flu' is talking out of their rear. |



Indeed, who is saying that?


----------



## Rorschach (23 May 2020)

doctor Bob":699vs46z said:


> RogerS":699vs46z said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone suggesting that Covid is 'just like the flu' is talking out of their rear. |
> ...



He thinks I said that, I didn't.

It will be interesting to see Rogers response to your last post, I agree with you, but if I had said he would have gone ballistic. I bet you won't get the same treatment.


----------



## doctor Bob (23 May 2020)

Rorschach":2xmj41cw said:


> doctor Bob":2xmj41cw said:
> 
> 
> > RogerS":2xmj41cw said:
> ...



It's a forum, he can say what he wants ........... I'm a big boy.


----------



## doctor Bob (23 May 2020)

3-4 years time it will be interesting to speak to people who are unemployed and have lost their homes to see if they still think the lockdown was a success. Difficult balancing act.
I don't know the answer, or whether that will be me (unemployed and homeless).
My real hope is my son has a bright and happy future ahead of him, each day of lockdown makes this less and less likely. As I said difficult choices, whose lives are more valuable, generally older people dieing sooner than normal or a generation of young ones living a life of economic poverty. Very difficult decisions.


----------



## Rorschach (23 May 2020)

It will, I have friends who run a country pub and B&B, they are looking at a very real possibility of not only losing their business but their home as well. They rely on visitors to the village who come for local events, all those events have been cancelled and they have had to close the B&B side until at least the end of this year. No idea when the pub will be able to re-open, it might never. The pub is the only full time business in the village.


----------



## doctor Bob (23 May 2020)

Rorschach":3d0u2vum said:


> No idea when the pub will be able to re-open, it might never. The pub is the only full time business in the village.



Exactly the same situation in my village, really sad it was bought by youngsters 2 years ago who spent a lot of money improving it, must be devastating.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (23 May 2020)

doctor Bob":so1j911e said:


> Rorschach":so1j911e said:
> 
> 
> > No idea when the pub will be able to re-open, it might never. The pub is the only full time business in the village.
> ...



Could it be a planned demolition? All those productive assets being seized by a tiny minority as they foreclose on nearly _everything_; the banks will hoover up all the bankrupt businesses, and sell off the assets to their chums for pennies in the pound, because only people with access to the magic money tree will have ready cash to actually buy distressed assets. It happens on a regular cycle anyway - the central banks cause a bubble and then pull the rug, causing an unnecessarily harsh downturn, while all the time claiming "no one could have seen it coming!". This time, however will be something to behold.

Don't forget that some businesses are lobbying hard to keep the lockdown going: nothing like a good disaster to wipe away the competition and leave you in a monopoly position.


----------



## Rorschach (23 May 2020)

doctor Bob":32cas2qo said:


> Rorschach":32cas2qo said:
> 
> 
> > No idea when the pub will be able to re-open, it might never. The pub is the only full time business in the village.
> ...



That must be awful for them as I expect they had planned out a whole life there, a village pub is a hard life but so rewarding to be centre of the community.

The pub in my case is owned by a family, mother and father are the landlords, they own the property outright as a freehouse and all their children work there, the intention being to retire in a few years and the children take over the whole thing. I think they must have had it over 30 years, I am pretty sure one of the kids was born there. CAMRA pub of the year in the past and regular winner of local awards.

We have (extended) family in the pub trade as well, parents run 4 pubs with their children being landlord/manager of one pub each, they are rented premises from breweries as is normal, but I reckon the situation will be fairly dire for them too, must ask them how they are doing, I'll admit I kind of forgot about them as they don't live nearby.


----------



## doctor Bob (23 May 2020)

Trainee neophyte":2mzghhr5 said:


> doctor Bob":2mzghhr5 said:
> 
> 
> > Rorschach":2mzghhr5 said:
> ...



oh dear oh dear............ no idea what to say to that.


----------



## Chippyjoe (23 May 2020)

Trainee neophyte":388adfck said:


> doctor Bob":388adfck said:
> 
> 
> > Rorschach":388adfck said:
> ...




Oh dear oh dear, what a thing to say.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (23 May 2020)

Chippyjoe":27g3idco said:


> [
> Oh dear oh dear, what a thing to say.



So no one could have seen any of this coming, and it is a complete suprise to everyone? Or should we just not mention anything, because it would be unseemly to make a fuss?


----------



## RogerS (23 May 2020)

doctor Bob":35amfyl7 said:


> RogerS":35amfyl7 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm curious, Bob. If you had been PM what would you have done differently ?
> ...


No at all, Bob. No-one could accuse you of that.

You raise an interesting moral dilemma. One that has been going on for decades or centuries. What value/price is a human life? Following your 'sacrificed lives' concept...where would you draw the line ? 100,000 dead ? 250,000 ? A million ? But it's not as simple as that. Your mum ? Dad? Wife? Son? Is that a price you're willing to pay for the good of us all. ?

You start scaling things up and you get ramifications beyond the 'simple' death. Large numbers of NHS staff in that number maybe? Surgeons ? Patients in the queue...in pain waiting for that hip operation..on morphine..an operation now delayed ten years hence?

You mention the UK economy and then mention worldwide economic poverty in the same sentence ? That doesn't make sense. How does x hundred thousand dead UK citizens affect one way or the other, the economy of the world ?

Or are you suggesting (as Rorschach seems to imply albeit veiled in his posts) simply letting the old and enfeebled die? I think the Nazis had something going along those lines (incidentally I know you well enough to know that you're not suggesting that but if one didn't know you better, then that would be the logical extension of your line of reasoning).


----------



## RogerS (23 May 2020)

Trainee neophyte":gi2tffje said:


> ....
> Don't forget that some businesses are lobbying hard to keep the lockdown going: ..



Name one.


----------



## Lons (23 May 2020)

TN
The more of your posts I read the more I'm convinced you're really Marvin the Martian.


----------



## doctor Bob (23 May 2020)

RogerS":27bpojw8 said:


> Or are you suggesting (as Rorschach seems to imply albeit veiled in his posts) simply letting the old and enfeebled die? I think the Nazis had something going along those lines (incidentally I know you well enough to know that you're not suggesting that but if one didn't know you better, then that would be the logical extension of your line of reasoning).



No that's not what I'm suggesting.
Strange line to take that one and don't know why you got that idea in your head. You mention a line of reasoning, I assure you that is your line of reasoning in your attached quoted post, nothing to do with me at all, strange how people like to bring up Nazi's in these sorts of threads, very very odd.


----------



## RogerS (23 May 2020)

doctor Bob":1s0r0gcq said:


> RogerS":1s0r0gcq said:
> 
> 
> > Or are you suggesting (as Rorschach seems to imply albeit veiled in his posts) simply letting the old and enfeebled die? I think the Nazis had something going along those lines (incidentally I know you well enough to know that you're not suggesting that but if one didn't know you better, then that would be the logical extension of your line of reasoning).
> ...



Bit of an over-reaction, there, Robert. I never said that you did..or did you forget to read the last part of the sentence ?

How about the first part of my reply ? Any comments there ?


----------



## doctor Bob (23 May 2020)

RogerS":26xqff0t said:


> How about the first part of my reply ? Any comments there ?



To be honest Roger, you seem to pick fights with people and I don't want a fight or to look like an internet nutter (see pages 4, 5 and 6 of this thread). So no, no comments. I'm very stressed at present working hard on business survival and the last thing I need is an internet forum arguement.


----------



## Blackswanwood (23 May 2020)

I personally feel we need to concentrate on getting as many people as possible back to work safely and as quickly possible. There will be different views on safely and common sense has to play a part.

I was interviewed by one of the firms advising the Government on the safe working guidelines as although I moved over 3,000 employees to work from home (the firm have moved over 15,000) within a week of lockdown I have still had all my sites open with a similar number continuing to come into work. We have created a safe working environment - employees and unions are happy - we get the odd issue but managers just sort them quickly. It struck me when being interviewed how difficult it is to cover every eventuality with rules and they wouldn't take "use some common sense" as an answer but that's what we need to do.

To be clear, there are those who need to be shielded and they should continue to stay at home and get the assistance they need. The rest of us can get on with getting things to the new normal while taking sensible precautions though.

Oh - TN - it's not a conspiracy and there isn't a magic money tree!


----------



## Trainee neophyte (23 May 2020)

RogerS":3cdxzput said:


> Trainee neophyte":3cdxzput said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



I thought you might like this: http://www.fakingnews.com/india/fearing ... -ncr-31653

More seriously, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... curve.html and https://www.moneyweb.co.za/news/compani ... -lockdown/
https://dailypost.ng/2020/04/24/bill-ga ... -lockdown/

And Bill, being a diamond geezer, doesn't have problems making "gifts", even if it is in nigeria.: https://dailypost.ng/2020/05/04/bill-ga ... p-alleges/

But no, there isn't a press release saying "We, the Dr Evil corporation, are lobbying to keep lockdown in place in order to destroy our competitors and create a limited monopolising position for our Dr Evil™ action figure range. May all the old people DIE!! We demand....one million dollars!" I wonder why not?


----------



## Trainee neophyte (23 May 2020)

Blackswanwood":16haenu4 said:


> Oh - TN - it's not a conspiracy and there isn't a magic money tree!



Phew! That's such a relief. About the magic money tree - if I want to borrow a screwdriver from my next door neighbour, he actually has to have a screwdriver. If I am the US government and I want to borrow six trillion dollars, not only does the money not need to exist, but it actually can not exist, by definition, until it is borrowed into existence. That isn't magic? It's more like the miracle of transubstantiation, to my mind.


----------



## doctor Bob (23 May 2020)

Trainee neophyte":1hkme4bl said:


> - if I want to borrow a screwdriver from my next door neighbour, he actually has to have a screwdriver.



or your neighbour could borrow one from someone else to lend to you, with the promise that you return the screwdriver and an additional £1 back to the neighbour and in due course he returns the screwdriver back to the otherperson along with 50p. You win because you don't have to buy a screwdriver, he wins because he gets 50p and the other person also gets 50p and his screwdriver back.


----------



## Blackswanwood (23 May 2020)

Trainee neophyte":3pu03571 said:


> But no, there isn't a press release saying "We, the Dr Evil corporation, are lobbying to keep lockdown in place in order to destroy our competitors and create a limited monopolising position for our Dr Evil™ action figure range. May all the old people DIE!! We demand....one million dollars!" I wonder why not?



Probably because it's not happening.


----------



## Jake (24 May 2020)

doctor Bob":w97xzlc4 said:


> I think you have seriously under estimated the impact of this recession, the worlds governments have seriously made a monumental balls up of all this. The youth of today will face long term economic devastation. Furloughed employees are generally loving it yet one in 4 is effectively unemployed.
> Universities are being destroyed, as are airlines, restraunts, pubs, cinemas, theatres, shops, hospitality etc etc.
> People are generally very slow to see a recession, I have spoken to plenty of people who say "it's not affecting me"..... of course it isn't you wally, give it a year.
> Guys working from home refusing to come back into the office because WFH is going well and it suits them, they don't understand that now is the time to be sucking up to the boss as he has serious decisions to make.
> ...



Trouble with your logic Bob is you are assuming it would have been better had we ploughed on, which you just don't actually know, though you might understandably like to think so.

The US provides a really interesting (if rather dated) case study from the Spanish Flu, as the degree of economic lockdown varied widely at city level. That was slightly different because the waves were definitely seasonal (no real evidence of that as yet for this), but the data shows that the cities that locked down less, opened earlier, and generally tried to ride it out with more concern for economy and everyday life actually did worse economically as well as in terms of deaths because they got hit so hard as a result. And they are currently re-running the same experiment again over there.


----------



## doctor Bob (24 May 2020)

Jake":36b1ka8i said:


> Dr Bob":36b1ka8i said:
> 
> 
> > As you can see from the above I think the cure has been worse than the disease, my opinion is mine and probably a load of dung and I hope i'm wrong.
> ...



Well I think I said my thoughts could be a pile of poo and I hope they are, and of course I don't know, it will all come out in the wash eventually. However hindsight is a great thing and we are where we are.


----------



## RogerS (24 May 2020)

doctor Bob":1jl6l32c said:


> RogerS":1jl6l32c said:
> 
> 
> > How about the first part of my reply ? Any comments there ?
> ...



Bob, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you. I was curious and asked you what would you have done if you had been PM. You replied "sacrificed lives now to save the UK economy". That concept opens up a whole can of worms as I postulated in my reply which sought where you would draw the line in terms of number of deaths vs saving the economy. But you got fixated on the last sentence for some reason and didn't look at that sentence in light of the overall context. 

If you have the time, I'm still interested to know where you would draw the line re deaths vs economy.


----------



## RogerS (24 May 2020)

Trainee neophyte":1e72atkv said:


> .....
> 
> But no, there isn't a press release saying "We, the Dr Evil corporation, are lobbying to keep lockdown in place in order to destroy our competitors and create a limited monopolising position for our Dr Evil™ action figure range. May all the old people DIE!! We demand....one million dollars!" I wonder why not?



Then why do you continue to post such rubbish ?

By the way, I looked at those links you supplied. Ignoring your specious link, none of them had anything that supported your claim that businesses are lobbying hard to maintain the lockdown. Just more BS from you.

No problem...stick you back in lockdown.


----------



## doctor Bob (24 May 2020)

RogerS":2wa5upz4 said:


> Bob, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you.



Trouble is Roger it always ends that way, and I don't want to go down that road thank you.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (24 May 2020)

> The US provides a really interesting (if rather dated) case study from the Spanish Flu, as the degree of economic lockdown varied widely at city level. That was slightly different because the waves were definitely seasonal (no real evidence of that as yet for this), but the data shows that the cities that locked down less, opened earlier, and generally tried to ride it out with more concern for economy and everyday life actually did worse economically as well as in terms of deaths because they got hit so hard as a result. And they are currently re-running the same experiment again over there.



Fundamental difference between Covid and Spanish flu - courtesy of Wikipedia:

"The pandemic mostly killed young adults. In 1918–1919, 99% of pandemic influenza deaths in the U.S. occurred in people under 65, and nearly half of deaths were in young adults 20 to 40 years old".

In 1918 the epidemic impacted mainly the productive - this one impacts mainly the retired. No particular axe to grind - merely an observation!


----------



## Rorschach (24 May 2020)

Not to mention Spanish flu occurred after a world war in which million of young men had already died and in a world with a comparatively archaic medical system.


----------



## Woody2Shoes (24 May 2020)

Terry - Somerset":v03ilfjl said:


> > The US provides a really interesting (if rather dated) case study from the Spanish Flu, as the degree of economic lockdown varied widely at city level. That was slightly different because the waves were definitely seasonal (no real evidence of that as yet for this), but the data shows that the cities that locked down less, opened earlier, and generally tried to ride it out with more concern for economy and everyday life actually did worse economically as well as in terms of deaths because they got hit so hard as a result. And they are currently re-running the same experiment again over there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Of course it was a different virus and a different century but there are lessons that can be drawn when you look at the different approaches taken by different parts of the USA e.g. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/hist ... ronavirus/


----------



## Trainee neophyte (24 May 2020)

RogerS":3jk0v6hh said:


> Trainee neophyte":3jk0v6hh said:
> 
> 
> > .....
> ...



So I had best apologise - mistakes were made, lessons have been learned etc. My fault for getting re-embroiled in all of this. I really must do better at avoiding contentious stuff.

Before I go, here's something from the Russian Tass news people (you are at liberty to believe it or otherwise, depending on your level of paranoia). https://tass.com/society/1156907



> One half of coronavirus patients in Russia have no symptoms, the proportion of asymptomatic cases in Moscow is about 60%, Veronika Skvortsova noted. "The proportion of asymptomatic cases is very high: in Moscow it accounts for 60% and in the country in general — almost one half, every second case," she said



And this may be an interesting addendum: https://www.statista.com/statistics/110 ... worldwide/


----------



## RogerS (24 May 2020)

Woody2Shoes":nsf463gm said:


> ....
> ......
> 
> Of course it was a different virus and a different century but there are lessons that can be drawn when you look at the different approaches taken by different parts of the USA e.g. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/hist ... ronavirus/



Fascinating graphs, Woody and looking at the contrasting approaches between some of the cities mirrors the different approaches today between the UK and Germany. And the same increased loss of life. Indeed, stupidity never stops . Philadelphia - rally 200,000 people attended. UK - Cheltenham Gold Cup 2020 250,000 people attended. Idiotic to let it go ahead and possibly explains the early spike in Carlisle and Cumbria since a very large contingent always goes down there for the Gold Cup.


----------



## selectortone (24 May 2020)

Trainee neophyte":2oxdsjec said:


> I really must do better at avoiding contentious stuff.
> 
> Before I go, here's something from the Russian Tass news people (you are at liberty to believe it or otherwise, depending on your level of paranoia). https://tass.com/society/1156907



=D>


----------



## woodhutt (24 May 2020)

Reminds me of the old Russian joke about their newspapers, Pravda (meaning 'Truth') and Izsvestia (meaning 'News').
Apparently the two papers had an agreement. Pravda didn't print the news and Izsvestia didn't print the truth.
Pete


----------



## Jake (25 May 2020)

Terry - Somerset":2tvvrjye said:


> In 1918 the epidemic impacted mainly the productive - this one impacts mainly the retired. No particular axe to grind - merely an observation!



That depends quite a lot on keeping health service demands within capacity - it gets much more indiscriminate if not. Anyway, do we value life or productive capacity, as if it is the latter there are quicker ways than disease.


----------



## Jake (25 May 2020)

Rorschach":1m07wk51 said:


> Not to mention Spanish flu occurred after a world war in which million of young men had already died and in a world with a comparatively archaic medical system.



That's very true, so many people draw inaccurate parallels with Spanish Flu IFR given the radical differences in our ability to support the body beyond its normal immune system capacity at least in more advanced societies.


----------



## Jake (25 May 2020)

RogerS":60hnkvp4 said:


> . UK - Cheltenham Gold Cup 2020 250,000 people attended. Idiotic to let it go ahead and possibly explains the early spike in Carlisle and Cumbria since a very large contingent always goes down there for the Gold Cup.



Also Liverpool - Atletico Madrid. Noting the *very* narrow time window of analysis: "Edge Health, which analyses data for Britain's National Health Service, estimated the match was "linked to 41 additional deaths" at nearby hospitals between 25 and 35 days later, compared with similar hospital trusts that were used as a control." 

It's a bit finger in the air because we don't do track and trace, still, more than 6 months after this disease started.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/li ... r-BB14xlmz


----------



## beech1948 (25 May 2020)

worn thumbs":2zhmawmo said:


> I'm very glad not to be a London commuter,but then thats always been the case.I gave up watching the windbaggery weeks ago as the whole thing could have been condensed into five minutes.It actually reminds me more of "Are You Being Served" with the fairly patronising tone adopted when the staff get told "you've all done very well."



What is becoming obvious is that the Government is comprised of people who lack common sense and drive to get stuff done. I feel most of them should be encouraged into other employment.

The Civil Service is just incompetent and so cowardly that they are unable to act in anyone's best interests. One might ask:-

Why are 8000 or more people a day still coming through Heathrow with no checks
Where is the testing regime we need to get back to work
Why are all illegal aliens from France not returned the same day
Why are trains, buses and planes not already equipped with barriers around seats, seat volumes reduced to 50% or less of normal and if needed prices can rise.
Why are masks not compulsory
Why are are the elderly ( me ) being imprisoned under house arrest
Why are certain hospitals not designated as Covid-19 specialists and others used to attend to the needs of the population...the NHS was nowhere close to being overwhelmed.
Why have the Nightingale hospitals not been used instead of keeping all patients in normal hositals
Why we still not using the full capability of the UK to make PPE equipment
Why have we bought so much Chinese PPE which is substandard
Why are we not backing Australia against China NOW !..why wait for the liars to continue
Why is the UK Government incapable of acting against a nation of dishonest untruthful people.
Why can schools not go back
Why can we not call the unions bluff and enforce return to work/education by removing the furlough scheme by July
Why are companies cheating by using the furlough scheme and making employees work a full shift not being challenged by our millions of civil servants and legally challenged.

I'll stop there as its getting late.

The Civil service is unfit for purpose. It is made up of do nothing fairly useless people who in the past 50 years have relied on the EU for everything and now know nothing. I would fire at least 40% of them and not hire new people. Utter waste of money and time.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (25 May 2020)

woodhutt":1glcfegp said:


> Reminds me of the old Russian joke about their newspapers, Pravda (meaning 'Truth') and Izsvestia (meaning 'News').
> Apparently the two papers had an agreement. Pravda didn't print the news and Izsvestia didn't print the truth.
> Pete


  I was told that at school 50+ years ago.


----------



## woodhutt (25 May 2020)

Phil Pascoe":1z8fnc7q said:


> woodhutt":1z8fnc7q said:
> 
> 
> > Reminds me of the old Russian joke about their newspapers, Pravda (meaning 'Truth') and Izsvestia (meaning 'News').
> ...



You went to school in _Russia_, Phil?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (25 May 2020)

Felt like it sometimes.


----------



## Marineboy (25 May 2020)

beech1948":3q9mglj2 said:


> worn thumbs":3q9mglj2 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm very glad not to be a London commuter,but then thats always been the case.I gave up watching the windbaggery weeks ago as the whole thing could have been condensed into five minutes.It actually reminds me more of "Are You Being Served" with the fairly patronising tone adopted when the staff get told "you've all done very well."
> ...



Your rant attacks the wrong target. Civil servants take instruction from politicians. The policies you don’t like emanate from politicians, civil servants just try to put them into practice - not always easy when these policies are impractical and wrong-headed.


----------



## Droogs (25 May 2020)

@Beech Teachers have not been on furlough they have been working online teaching during this entire episode not sat on their buttocks doing nothing. I fully back the stance that schools should not be reopened. Why - simple 
If children especially sub 7 yrs are unable able to be infectious with this Covid - 19 then it will be the first such disease in history that can not be passed on by a member of a sub group of a species to the rest of that species. They might not get symptoms but sure as hell, when some snotty year 1 comes to the teacher for a hug 'cos they hurt themselves the disease will spread. Just for your info just under 1/5 of UK teaachers have a shielded family member in their household info from the unions. 

So do not try to demonize teachers they are working and working a busload harder than ever from home, many having to buy equipment to enable them to teach online at their own expense. Remember using the the wazicks ie mean PMs rules their by logic can only be around 10 pupils in a class. where are all the extra teachers coming from and are they trained.?


----------



## Blackswanwood (25 May 2020)

Droogs":25pa0ul4 said:


> So do not try to demonize teachers they are working and working a busload harder than ever from home, many having to buy equipment to enable them to teach online at their own expense. Remember using the the wazicks ie mean PMs rules their by logic can only be around 10 pupils in a class. where are all the extra teachers coming from and are they trained.?



I agree with you Droogs that teachers (or any profession) should not be demonised etc. 

What do you think needs to have happened before schools should go back? My feeling is that we need to start to take some steps to reopen and within the parameters of how many teachers don’t have family members who are shielding and a safe class size (which will vary by school and age of children) we can probably do something more now?


----------



## Droogs (25 May 2020)

i would say the biggest problem is real estate. The physical limitations of our schools and classes mean a limit of around 10, the average class size in urban areas for Scotland at least is 28 that is 3 new classes that have to be catered for. Sort that out first, then mandatory masking and ppe especially gloves lots of gloves in kids sizes. Remember these kids will not be able to share equipment books toys etc, so what to do about that. 
To open up schools safely - for the rest of society not to get hit by a massive new wave is not something we can do just now even with a 2 or 3 day school week or alternate days etc as each class would need to be deep cleaned before each of the different classes take occupancy.

Also don't forget about inclusivity and all the special needs students who have to be catered for as well, how do we do that with social distancing


----------



## RogerS (25 May 2020)

Marineboy":3asxxba2 said:


> beech1948":3asxxba2 said:
> 
> 
> > worn thumbs":3asxxba2 said:
> ...



Not strictly true looking at that list. Take testing, for example. Testing could have been increased greatly if PHE hadn't insisted in the early days about using only their labs. Of course, they could and should have been told to get their finger out by Hancock....ah....I see where you are coming from :wink: As you were.

Sack Hancock. Now.


----------



## Chris152 (25 May 2020)

This morning, from University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust:
'Weston General Hospital is temporarily stopping accepting new patients, including into its A&E department, as of 8am today (Monday 25 May 2020). This is a precautionary measure in order to maintain the safety of staff and patients in response to the high number of patients with Coronavirus in the hospital...'
https://www.uhbw.nhs.uk/p/latest-news/t ... IG98H72Pbw
Give it another week or two since the PM's green light speech and we'll be seeing this all over the place. 
No doubt the herd will be out spreading the virus in numbers today, sunshine, blue skies, what could possibly etc...


----------



## Chris152 (25 May 2020)

Trainee neophyte":1ktxydn6 said:


> So job wise, do something that people MUST have. Food, shelter, (not clothing!), healthcare. Or become self-sufficient, so you don't rely on the system. A good piece of advice I once heard is to become a farmer: you will learn mechanics, plumbing, building, electrics, and how to break machinery by looking at it.


Yea, but doesn't farming involve getting out of bed before midday? Quite out of the question I'd imagine. :roll:


----------



## RogerS (25 May 2020)

Chris152":j83r2zof said:


> This morning, from University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust:
> 'Weston General Hospital is temporarily stopping accepting new patients, including into its A&E department, as of 8am today (Monday 25 May 2020). This is a precautionary measure in order to maintain the safety of staff and patients in response to the high number of patients with Coronavirus in the hospital...'
> https://www.uhbw.nhs.uk/p/latest-news/t ... IG98H72Pbw
> Give it another week or two since the PM's green light speech and we'll be seeing this all over the place.
> No doubt the herd will be out spreading the virus in numbers today, sunshine, blue skies, what could possibly etc...



"You've got Covid. Where did you say you were yesterday ? On the beach? Right...there's the door, now B... off"


----------



## Rorschach (25 May 2020)

Good, get it spread out a bit more, especially amongst the young. Not that it does spread well outside at all of course if you listen to the scientific advice.


----------



## woodhutt (25 May 2020)

RogerS":2pu0m1f5 said:


> "You've got Covid. Where did you say you were yesterday ? On the beach? Right...there's the door, now B... off"



That's what puzzles me about the reaction to Dominic Cummings' transgression and the mob baying for his sacking. Yes, he was wrong so issue him with an infringement and prosecute him.
Either that or call for the sacking of all the other selfish b*****s who were out on the beaches, illegally camping etc. over the weekend. After all, there is only one law for all. Isn't there...?


----------



## RogerS (25 May 2020)

woodhutt":36qkouw5 said:


> RogerS":36qkouw5 said:
> 
> 
> > "You've got Covid. Where did you say you were yesterday ? On the beach? Right...there's the door, now B... off"
> ...



+1


----------



## Rorschach (25 May 2020)

Cummings didn't break the law though unless a judge decides that. If he feels it was a reasonable excuse to be travelling then it's up to a judge to decide if that is the case. Key workers were given plenty of leeway, would he not be classed as a key worker?

Of course it is a moot point, it's all politically motivated, all the attacks on people who flouted guidelines are politically motivated, snobbery, elitism, all sorts really. Depending on your view of things will depend on who you attack and who you support.

I think he was pretty stupid to get caught and should have been more sensible about what he was doing.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (25 May 2020)

It would have simplified matters if from day one they told us what was advisory and what was actually (to be) law. The police would know where they stand if nothing else.

......................................

... the other selfish b*****s who were out on the beaches, illegally camping etc. over the weekend ...

aren't in the government telling the rest of us not to do it.


----------



## Chris152 (25 May 2020)

It's a big ethical problem, i think. If the argument's 'it's better in the long run to let everyone get it, many die but in the long run more lives are saved' we're in trouble. Hard to argue against of course, utterly pragmatic and logical. But if we explicitly applied that argument more generally, our society would look very grim. Allow those who exhaust our resources to simply die as the resources saved would save more lives. It's been tried historically, even pro-active destruction of those that apparently threaten the well-being of the majority (not that that's what _anybody_ here's suggesting obviously). And to some extent we do that already, but once it becomes explicit policy we've got a problem.

The problem is that we lose something fundamental of our humanity, i think. As a principle, it can lead to truly terrible things. There's no easy answer, but Jonathan Swift captured the problem well in his parody of pragmatism in his _A Modest Proposal_ where he 'suggests that the impoverished Irish might ease their economic troubles by selling their children as food to rich gentlemen and ladies' (lifted from wiki). Over-population and hunger sorted at a stroke. 

I don't know the answer but i know for sure I don't like seeing people being misled, which is what I think's happening right now in England.


----------



## Rorschach (25 May 2020)

Phil Pascoe":v09t66bw said:


> It would have simplified matters if from day one they told us what was advisory and what was actually (to be) law. The police would know where they stand if nothing else.



By doing that though there wasn't the ambiguity that made many people voluntarily stay home. When you actually look at how this was handled we have been one of if not the "freeist" lockdowns anywhere in the world. Most people have stayed home not because of a legal compulsion but because they thought they should. 

Personally I think that's great, I don't want the government seizing more power and I certainly don't want them giving even more power to the police. Our civil liberties have been mostly preserved unlike countries such as France where they jumped back to the 1940's!

Putting something into law also invoke the scrutiny of MP's and by the time that lot had finished arguing over silly little points this would have all been over. On balance I think they did the right thing, the finger wagging nosey old farts in this country helped them an awful lot.


----------



## Woody2Shoes (25 May 2020)

woodhutt":2xac6j8f said:


> RogerS":2xac6j8f said:
> 
> 
> > "You've got Covid. Where did you say you were yesterday ? On the beach? Right...there's the door, now B... off"
> ...



The thing about cummings-n-goings that winds me up beyond belief is the systematic cynical lying about it - and Boris's complete complicity in that. Doing it was probably wrong, certainly arrogant and stupid, but its the institutionalised dishonesty surrounding the thing that sticks in my craw.


----------



## woodhutt (25 May 2020)

Phil Pascoe":jkbcy7zu said:


> ......................................
> 
> ... the other selfish b*****s who were out on the beaches, illegally camping etc. over the weekend ...
> 
> aren't in the government telling the rest of us not to do it.



Philski.  
Is Cummings contributing to the government's Covid 19 response? I understand he is an adviser holding no parliamentary position and his main focus is the Brexit deal and economics in general but I am open to correction. Not sure if he has had any input to, or expressed any views on, the containment measures so poorly implemented in the UK. From what I have read, he _may_ have been guilty of transporting his immediate family 'bubble' to join with another family 'bubble' (parents) without involving other members of the public. This is not the case with the hordes who flocked to the coast and other beauty spots. So my question stands. Why should he be treated any more severely?
Pete


----------



## Chris152 (25 May 2020)

woodhutt":o2arcl7m said:


> Phil Pascoe":o2arcl7m said:
> 
> 
> > ......................................
> ...


Apparently so, Cummings invented the slogans - Steve Baker on that very issue:
https://www.facebook.com/BBCPolitics/vi ... 1215676912


----------



## Marineboy (25 May 2020)

The issue with Cummings is simple. At the time, everyone in government was ramming home the message ‘Stay home, Save lives’ etc. Cummings didn’t stay home. All this guff about protecting his son is irrelevant. If he needed help his sister in law lives round the corner. This is enough in itself to damn him, quite apart from the fact (it must be fact since at least one minister has not denied it) that he went on a 30 mile trip when the message was that people could only exercise locally. Who knows what else will turn up when the police start looking at CCTV, ANPR etc. 

He is part of the government and other such people associated with the policy who have transgressed have resigned. For Johnson to defend him is disgraceful. Cummings must have something on him.


----------



## woodhutt (25 May 2020)

Chris. Sorry but I am not on the Book of Face (won't have it in the house). Can you precis it for me?
Pete


----------



## beech1948 (25 May 2020)

The Civil service is unfit for purpose. It is made up of do nothing fairly useless people who in the past 50 years have relied on the EU for everything and now know nothing. I would fire at least 40% of them and not hire new people. Utter waste of money and time.[/quote]

Your rant attacks the wrong target. Civil servants take instruction from politicians. The policies you don’t like emanate from politicians, civil servants just try to put them into practice - not always easy when these policies are impractical and wrong-headed.[/quote]

Not strictly true looking at that list. Take testing, for example. Testing could have been increased greatly if PHE hadn't insisted in the early days about using only their labs. Of course, they could and should have been told to get their finger out by Hancock....ah....I see where you are coming from :wink: As you were.

Sack Hancock. Now.[/quote]

Your both somewhat wrong. The Civil service is almost a separate part of government from the politicians. IN THEORY the politicos tell the CS what to achieve. IN PRACTICE the CS does many things because it thinks it can get away with it or because thate the way they always did it.

It is naively simplistic to say "Civil servants take instruction from politicians". No politico is smart enough to give a specification of what he/she wants to the CS as they lack experience and knowledge. The CS use this gap in knowledge and experience to channel the ministers responses to suit the CS. It is so blatant and moronic that statements like "Civil servants take instruction from politicians" are taken seriously by an uncritical and mostly unthinking public.

My discussion points were on target and were not a rant. The CS has become stupid and lazy after 50 years of being told what to do by the EU. 80% of all legislation came from the EU and Parliament just had to rubber stamp it with little to no CS intervention. 

Its like the current vilification of Mr Cummings by a press set upon calling down the government at every step of the way in howling masses of childlike bullsh**t.


----------



## Chris152 (25 May 2020)

woodhutt":1hyilh4r said:


> Chris. Sorry but I am not on the Book of Face (won't have it in the house). Can you precis it for me?
> Pete


Very wise, Pete.
Here's a shorter interview with someone else so less interesting i think, but has the connection (Cummings breaks own slogans):
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/vi ... o-go-video


----------



## Woody2Shoes (25 May 2020)

Marineboy":164duoyt said:


> Cummings must have something on him.



I'm sure he knows where several skeletons are buried.

Another point... catching covid is not unlike being hit by a steamroller, unless you're lucky enough to have mild/no symptoms which wasn't the case here, we're given to understand, was he really fit to undertake one or more long road journeys and was he possibly putting other road users at greater risk? The truth is so well obfuscated we may never know.


----------



## Marineboy (25 May 2020)

beech1948":1hgxbeqk said:


> The Civil service is unfit for purpose. It is made up of do nothing fairly useless people who in the past 50 years have relied on the EU for everything and now know nothing. I would fire at least 40% of them and not hire new people. Utter waste of money and time.



Your rant attacks the wrong target. Civil servants take instruction from politicians. The policies you don’t like emanate from politicians, civil servants just try to put them into practice - not always easy when these policies are impractical and wrong-headed.[/quote]

Not strictly true looking at that list. Take testing, for example. Testing could have been increased greatly if PHE hadn't insisted in the early days about using only their labs. Of course, they could and should have been told to get their finger out by Hancock....ah....I see where you are coming from :wink: As you were.

Sack Hancock. Now.[/quote]

Your both somewhat wrong. The Civil service is almost a separate part of government from the politicians. IN THEORY the politicos tell the CS what to achieve. IN PRACTICE the CS does many things because it thinks it can get away with it or because thate the way they always did it.

It is naively simplistic to say "Civil servants take instruction from politicians". No politico is smart enough to give a specification of what he/she wants to the CS as they lack experience and knowledge. The CS use this gap in knowledge and experience to channel the ministers responses to suit the CS. It is so blatant and moronic that statements like "Civil servants take instruction from politicians" are taken seriously by an uncritical and mostly unthinking public.

My discussion points were on target and were not a rant. The CS has become stupid and lazy after 50 years of being told what to do by the EU. 80% of all legislation came from the EU and Parliament just had to rubber stamp it with little to no CS intervention. 

Its like the current vilification of Mr Cummings by a press set upon calling down the government at every step of the way in howling masses of childlike bullsh**t.[/quote]

So I’m moronic, unthinking and uncritical. Ok. You are clearly a Brexit obsessed little Englander with no evidence to back up your wild conspiracy theories.


----------



## beech1948 (25 May 2020)

So I’m moronic, unthinking and uncritical. Ok. You are clearly a Brexit obsessed little Englander with no evidence to back up your wild conspiracy theories.[/quote]

Thanks for putting words in my mouth that I did not use. Your insults are typical of those who have nothing to say. Go back over the last 4 months and look at what I wrote and there isn't a wild conspiracy theory there at all. Still if the cap fits.


----------



## Chris152 (25 May 2020)

beech1948":3o0r4n05 said:


> Its like the current vilification of Mr Cummings by a press set upon calling down the government at every step of the way in howling masses of childlike bullsh**t.


Thing is, the press isn't struggling to find important criticisms of both Cummings and the PM in this case. I listened to lunchtime news, apart from the opposition, bishops up and down the country have been very explicit in their criticism of the PM's account yesterday, at least one scientist advising govt has seriously challenged C's actions and Tory backbenchers are becoming very critical. 
The knock-on effect is a further loss of trust in government, which at a time like this is a very bad thing.


----------



## Marineboy (25 May 2020)

.[/quote]Thanks for putting words in my mouth that I did not use. Your insults are typical of those who have nothing to say. Go back over the last 4 months and look at what I wrote and there isn't a wild conspiracy theory there at all. Still if the cap fits.[/quote]

Read your post mate, you put those words in your mouth, not me.


----------



## AJB Temple (25 May 2020)

In my view the media, who love conflict, have largely whipped up a storm in a tea cup. DC's partner got Covid and in short order he came down with it too. We do not know his family circumstances and I for one will not criticise a man who did his best to keep his young family safe. All this holier than thou stuff from the media and politicians on a bandwagon is so pointless: surely we expect our politicians to focus on stuff that really matters, for example the absolutely massive economic mess we are in.


----------



## RogerS (25 May 2020)

AJB Temple":iar2dpei said:


> In my view the media, who love conflict, have largely whipped up a storm in a tea cup. DC's partner got Covid and in short order he came down with it too. We do not know his family circumstances and I for one will not criticise a man who did his best to keep his young family safe. All this holier than thou stuff from the media and politicians on a bandwagon is so pointless: surely we expect our politicians to focus on stuff that really matters, for example the absolutely massive economic mess we are in.



You're ignoring how this has been perceived by Joe Public. If they see that it is one rule for 'them' and another rule for 'us' then it makes a mockery of whatever measures are put in place to try and get us safely through this.


----------



## AJB Temple (25 May 2020)

Actually Roger, the media and some politicos are fond of telling us what the public think, but generally I think this can be taken with two grains of salt as unless there is a wide ranging and unbiased survey, media prejudice and wishful thinking leads the editorials. 

I suspect a large proportion of the British public don't know the facts, probably don't know who DC is and probably don't care either.


----------



## RogerS (25 May 2020)

AJB Temple":2fd9y827 said:


> Actually Roger, the media and some politicos are fond of telling us what the public think, but generally I think this can be taken with two grains of salt as unless there is a wide ranging and unbiased survey, media prejudice and wishful thinking leads the editorials.
> 
> I suspect a large proportion of the British public don't know the facts, probably don't know who DC is and probably don't care either.



It depends on your definition of a large proportion. BBC News has an audience (according to a survey in 2019) of a quarter of adults. BBc One for news is 58% and ITV 38%. Third most used news service is Facebook.

So, actually I think that a lot more people that you might think know who he is, and will have formed a view. There will also be a huge amount of social media chatter.

EDIT: the top two trending on Twitter at the moment are, indeed, Cummings.

This made me smile


----------



## Andy Kev. (25 May 2020)

I agree with AJB Temple on this. It seems to me that it is a confected storm in a Westminster teacup. Meanwhile the rest of the country will see that Cummings was trying to make the best arrangements for the welfare of his child in the case of him and his wife falling ill.

Much has been made of the distance he travelled (216 miles) but it seems to me that it doesn't matter if you go 216 or 0.216 - you've got the windows up so you are not posing a danger to anyone else. And given that he was trying to sort out his kid's welfare, what else could he have done? Compare his case to the two who had to resign; the Scottish doc who broke the rules because she fancied it and Prof Ferguson and his bird who broke the rules because they wanted to get their leg over. Two trivial cases vs. one serious one.

Cummings has got a lot of enemies, ranging from the BBC to the loony left. Hence all the fuss but if Boris sticks to his guns, it will all die down and I reckon that most fair minded people will have a degree of understanding for Cummings' actions.


----------



## Garno (25 May 2020)

So the call is for Dominic Cummins to be sacked for breaking the lockdown, He is an advisor and not an MP, if he were an MP I think I would join in the cry for his dismissal and say one rule for one and another rule for others.

Tahir Ali .. Labour MP for Birminham Green attended a funeral with 100 other mourners, not a single person on here has said he should step down or be sacked.

Stephen Kinnock .. Labour MP for Aberavon South Wales travelled from Wales to London to visit his parents, not a single person on here has said he should step down or be sacked.

Robert Jenrick Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government .. Conservative travelled 150 miles to deliver food to his parents (He says) Press and media had a field day calling for him to resign.

Keven Jones .. Labour MP for Durham attended a birthday party, not a single person on here has said he should step down or be sacked.

So there does seem to be one law for one and another law for everyone else or perhaps it is just sour grapes.


----------



## Chris152 (25 May 2020)

AJB Temple":2us4aqyd said:


> In my view the media, who love conflict, have largely whipped up a storm in a tea cup. DC's partner got Covid and in short order he came down with it too. We do not know his family circumstances and I for one will not criticise a man who did his best to keep his young family safe. All this holier than thou stuff from the media and politicians on a bandwagon is so pointless: surely we expect our politicians to focus on stuff that really matters, for example the absolutely massive economic mess we are in.


Plenty of people who know cummings's personal circumstances well enough, and on the same 'team', are being highly critical of him and are offering their opinions to the media. The emotive (and apparently 'instinctive') 'keeping his young family safe' is all well and good, but the idea was that we stayed home to keep everyone else safe too. No 'holier than thou stuff', real anger from great swathes of the population who've abided by the spirit of the lock down. Pretending the economy's a separate and greater matter than public perception of measures to stop the virus spreading is a reflection of your priorities.


----------



## Blockplane (25 May 2020)

Garno":3b4403ou said:


> So the call is for Dominic Cummins to be sacked for breaking the lockdown, He is an advisor and not an MP, if he were an MP I think I would join in the cry for his dismissal and say one rule for one and another rule for others.
> 
> Tahir Ali .. Labour MP for Birminham Green attended a funeral with 100 other mourners, not a single person on here has said he should step down or be sacked.
> 
> ...


 OK - I'll say it - all of the above should stand down or be sacked.


----------



## Andy Kev. (25 May 2020)

Chris152":10i6vou6 said:


> AJB Temple":10i6vou6 said:
> 
> 
> > In my view the media, who love conflict, have largely whipped up a storm in a tea cup. DC's partner got Covid and in short order he came down with it too. We do not know his family circumstances and I for one will not criticise a man who did his best to keep his young family safe. All this holier than thou stuff from the media and politicians on a bandwagon is so pointless: surely we expect our politicians to focus on stuff that really matters, for example the absolutely massive economic mess we are in.
> ...


I've just been watching a chunk of his press conference. His justification is that both he and his wife were coming down with symptoms and his wife was not sure that she would be well enough to be able to look after the child. He was concerned that he might become seriously ill as well and on the next day that was the case although his wife's condition did not deteriorate further.

He had an offer from family members of an isolated house and his 17 year old niece offered to help out with the child. To take up the offer he drove north on a full tank of petrol without stopping. This all seems reasonable enough.

One of the journalists at the press conference asked (ridiculously in my view) if it was right of him to take advantage of the offer of an isolated house when other people who had the disease did not have such things at their disposal. He showed more restraint than I would have done by not pointing out the absurdity of the question. Anybody who has a potentially life threatening disease and who has children will use all the resources at their disposal to make the best of the situation.

He pointed out that had he stayed in London and had both he and his wife become incapable, then other people would have had to become exposed to the disease by entering their house to look after the child. 

It looks increasingly as if the criticism of him is petulant and overwhelmingly politically motivated.

BTW I don't think that Kinnock's son did anything wrong in visiting his dad as he also drove to see him and then maintained social distancing while sitting with him out of doors. Compare that to Prof Ferguson.


----------



## Chris152 (25 May 2020)

Andy Kev.":1cbgkd5q said:


> Chris152":1cbgkd5q said:
> 
> 
> > AJB Temple":1cbgkd5q said:
> ...


Govt advice was if any member of your family gets the virus you stay in isolation 14 days. He decided to take to the road for several hours instead. We can all find little loopholes that might let us get away with things. Maybe I could call this essential travel? 
I could probably get away with surfing now here in Wales, the beaches we go to are 'local'. But I'm not because it's clearly against the spirit of the lockdown. It's driving me nuts but I'm sticking to it and so's my boy, who's struggling because i won't take him for what's hitherto been an essential, healthy part of his life. 
We're not looking for loopholes. The man that wrote the rules we've been following did.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (25 May 2020)

Whether he was right or wrong is largely indifferent. He helped write the rules that we, the proles are supposed to obey. He is a (the?) government advisor - what advice would he have given to a member of government proposing to do as he did? I'll tell you - don't do it, you cretin, if you wish to retain any credibility whatsoever.


----------



## Andy Kev. (25 May 2020)

Chris152":241q6b37 said:


> [
> Govt advice was if any member of your family gets the virus you stay in isolation 14 days. He decided to take to the road for several hours instead. We can all find little loopholes that might let us get away with things. Maybe I could call this essential travel?
> I could probably get away with surfing now here in Wales, the beaches we go to are 'local'. But I'm not because it's clearly against the spirit of the lockdown. It's driving me nuts but I'm sticking to it and so's my boy, who's struggling because i won't take him for what's hitherto been an essential, healthy part of his life.
> We're not looking for loopholes. The man that wrote the rules we've been following did.


Fair enough but we all know that guidelines from big bureaucracies rarely manage to cover all eventualities. I personally couldn't imagine breaking any guidelines or laws for frivolous or purely selfish purposes. However, I certainly would (and have often enough in the past) when I with a 100% clear conscience believe that I know better. I'm not suggesting of course that I actually do know better but one has to go along with one's judgement.

He seems to have taken a similar line and his justifications seem reasonable. However, nobody who is politically opposed to him will entertain the tiniest possibility of his reasonableness. This cheap politics is why I tend to dismiss the fuss currently being made. Were somebody able to point out that his actions had posed a danger to others, I would be inclined to agree but that wasn't the case and he seems to me to have come up with a neat and tidy solution to a dilemma which ensured that nobody was endangered and of course that his child was optimally cared for.


----------



## Garno (25 May 2020)

Phil Pascoe":110k1at8 said:


> Whether he was right or wrong is largely indifferent. He helped write the rules that we, the proles are supposed to obey. He is a (the?) government advisor - what advice would he have given to a member of government proposing to do as he did? I'll tell you - don't do it, you cretin, if you wish to retain any credibility whatsoever.



I am struggling a little to see if you think he was wrong for what he did or if he was wrong for what he did because of the position of advisor that he holds. He claims to of been in contact with no one else on the journey, whilst that does not make what he did right it cetainly lessons the risk than if he had been in contact with others.

On the other hand Tahir Ali was with 100 other people many of whom were not known to him, Keven Jones celebrating VE rememberance by attending a party, again with strangers. For some reason people think that Dominic Cummins has potentially put more people at risk than the other two. What he did was foolish what the other two did was criminal.


----------



## Chris152 (25 May 2020)

Andy Kev.":3qar6cbc said:


> Chris152":3qar6cbc said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


Sorry A-K, I'm struggling to read your post, something might be up with my eyesight. I'm just gonna pop out for an umpteen mile drive to a popular tourist destination to test my eyes to see if they're ok. Back later...


----------



## woodhutt (25 May 2020)

Chris152":3uh8k2k8 said:


> Here's a shorter interview with someone else so less interesting i think, but has the connection (Cummings breaks own slogans):
> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/vi ... o-go-video



Thanks for the link Chris.
So, as I understand it from that short clip, Cummings came up with an ad campaign regarding the pandemic restrictions. He didn't devise the policy, he simply articulated it on behalf of the government. By extension, every advertising executive has to believe that Rinso really _does_ get your wash whiter.  
I still can't see that he did anything heinous. Our (successful) lock down regime here permitted contact between 'bubbles' e.g. family groups. The important factor being the ability to contact trace.
If I have grasped the facts correctly, Cummings and frau were concerned they were infected and wanted to get their children to the grandparents. Presumably the grandparents were prepared to accept the risk of contact - it's what most grandparents would do. This did not appear to involve contact with any other members of the public.
Now we have those who defied the guidelines (actually, to hell with the confusing guidelines - they displayed no common sense and a complete disregard for others health) and flocked to the beaches, parks etc. not observing social distancing, not wearing masks to protect others and so on. A totally selfish act.
Then there are Cummings' detractors and those calling for his sacking. How many of them are driven by the desire for payback? (I'm sure DC has trodden on many toes during his career). Joe Public's call for his sacking is more understandable as a reaction to what they've had to endure (and are continuing to endure) as a result of the pandemic. They want blood and the higher profile blood, the better.
So, as I said in an earlier post, issue DC with an infringement, prosecute the case and if found guilty, fine him. Whatever your politics are, if you keep sacking capable people you'll end up with idiots running the show.
Pete


----------



## Rorschach (25 May 2020)

Blockplane":3stlqn8x said:


> OK - I'll say it - all of the above should stand down or be sacked.



The problem is it is not you that needs to say, it's the media and the twitterati. They harp on about "one rule for them..." when they are total hypocrites when it suits them and ignore those they support.

I don't think any of them should be sacked, I think they should own their mistakes as human beings, apologise and not do it again, but it doesn't warrant losing their jobs.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (25 May 2020)

Rorschach":26a8rjtl said:


> Blockplane":26a8rjtl said:
> 
> 
> > OK - I'll say it - all of the above should stand down or be sacked.
> ...



I did happen to catch the scrum around his car yesterday with the media baying for blood. Were they all socially distancing? Were they all behaving with impeccable moral uprightness? They have put themselves up as arbiters of the public safety, and yet...

This is a different moment, but much the same. It's hard to take "journalists" seriously.

[youtube]Miz_7XPV74U[/youtube]


----------



## woodhutt (25 May 2020)

Just an aside.
In my last post and one previous I have attempted to use the word 'f locked'.
The algorithm seems to have seen this as a naughty word and changed it to 'messed' (I would have thought 'massed'would have been a better choice).
I hate to think what it would do if I ever used the expression 'f lock of sheep'.
I'd probably end up with a visit from the SPCA and accused of unnatural practices.  
Pete


----------



## Chris152 (25 May 2020)

woodhutt":2i0hxy9g said:


> Whatever your politics are, if you keep sacking capable people you'll end up with idiots running the show.


Thought we already had that.


----------



## Andy Kev. (25 May 2020)

Chris152":78jpsgib said:


> Sorry A-K, I'm struggling to read your post, something might be up with my eyesight. I'm just gonna pop out for an umpteen mile drive to a popular tourist destination to test my eyes to see if they're ok. Back later...


Unfortunately that's very typical of what passes for "debate" on the internet these days.

Now while I wouldn't be surprised to get that sort of thing from a 19 y.o. sociology undergraduate, I've seen enough of your thoughts on here to know that you can do an awful lot better than that.

I strongly suspect that he is for you above all a political target and such a juicy target as to be irresistible. We're all capable of being susceptible to that kind of temptation of course but the trick is not to let it lead us to dispensing with our sense of fair judgement. For instance, I hold much of what Kinnock Jr. stands for in contempt but I can't see much wrong with him visiting his dad in the manner he did.

OTH the MP who attended a birthday party (I don't know what his politics are) was clearly acting irresponsibly. I don't think that anyone can lay the charge of being irresponsible at Cummings' door.


----------



## Chris152 (25 May 2020)

Andy Kev.":g7ghv7vh said:


> Chris152":g7ghv7vh said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry A-K, I'm struggling to read your post, something might be up with my eyesight. I'm just gonna pop out for an umpteen mile drive to a popular tourist destination to test my eyes to see if they're ok. Back later...
> ...


Humour A-k. And no i have no interest whatsoever in the petty politics of all this. Once again you want to reduce discussion to that level but I'm just not interested. Sorry.


----------



## RogerS (25 May 2020)

Listened to Cummings. A complete fabrication from start to finish. Driving to Barnards Castle to see if I was OK to drive. That's BS. He thinks he's above the rest of us and the rules don't apply to him. He should go.


----------



## rafezetter (25 May 2020)

worn thumbs":1ffpm42y said:


> RogerS":1ffpm42y said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone picked up on the unexpected implication of bloody Brexit? ow we're going to lose that magic E111 card, it really puts the mockers on leaving the UK for a European holiday. All travel insurance that I've seen excludes Covid-19 now. So it's a lottery going away now. If it's a seven day break then perhaps not too bad unless you pick it up the first day you get there and have a fast severe reaction. How are you going to pay for your hospital care or repatriation ? Or you might already be infected before you go out but not know it.
> ...



I personally feel right or wrong that the E111 will continue to work as before, because it applies to ALL OF THEM as well, or has that slipped your mind that we have millions of europeans working here, that retain thier eurozone nationalities?

I'm sure even the most spiteful of eurozone MEP will understand "cut your nose off to spite your face" isn't a great career move.

Some will argue moreUK holidaymakers go to the eurozone each year than the other direction, but a hella lot come here to work, and more to visit london and other places - to abolish the "tit for tat" of the E111 would be very foolish on both sides.

Will it affect our travel insurance? Probably - any excuse to put the premiums up - but will it mean a USA style "you have to pay £100,000 for your care and repatriation"? 

Absolutely not - for a dozen "knock on" effect reasons if that happened.

It's scaremongering for the gullible.


----------



## Lons (25 May 2020)

Cummins did himself no favours today and his explanations smacked very strongly of b/s however if what he said about no contact with others including his parents and that the woods were private property is true I for one can identify with his actions if faced ( probably ) with a wife in a blind panic over her child's welfare and I might well have done the same if it came to a choice between rules and my family. 
I don't know, all I'm saying is that decisions made under stress can often look stupid later.

That press farce today was another huge error as the guy is clearly arrogant and came across as such however the reporters were hell bent on blood and the way some of the questions were posed was reprehensible and also shows the calibre of the media just as does the video posted by TN where they are all over him, one actually pushed him in the back, they refused to back away and wouldn't even allow him to close the car door. I would suggest perhaps the police should be looking at those reporters involved in that episode as I view people shouting in your face at very close range as assault in today's climate.


----------



## Jake (25 May 2020)

RogerS":2xrxso0t said:


> Listened to Cummings. A complete fabrication from start to finish. Driving to Barnards Castle to see if I was OK to drive. That's BS. He thinks he's above the rest of us and the rules don't apply to him. He should go.



The biggest giveaway for me as to the extent of the fabrication was that moment when he was asked a question, got confused about the dates, and started trying to work out what date he did something by the day count number since the trigger date for his isolation requirement (on his story). That's just not how honest people recall things, it's how a carefully constructed untruth is rolled out and then the slip-up gives it away.


----------



## RogerS (25 May 2020)

rafezetter":2x1n507b said:


> worn thumbs":2x1n507b said:
> 
> 
> > RogerS":2x1n507b said:
> ...



I hope that some equivalent to the E111 is put in place, Rafe, because at the moment, you can't get travel insurance that will cover Covid (well, all the usual companies..I'm sure that if you pay a six-figure premium one can get cover !). So going abroad is a gamble.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (25 May 2020)

I read far, far too many cases of the EHIC not being accepted when it should have been to have had any faith it, and I'd take a gamble that in the future if we still had it it wouldn't be honoured for covid.


----------



## RogerS (25 May 2020)

Phil Pascoe":2pkhpopx said:


> I read far, far too many cases of the EHIC not being accepted when it should have been to have had any faith it, and I'd take a gamble that in the future if we still had it it wouldn't be honoured for covid.



Well, Phil, I Googled for a bit and couldn't find anyone raging that their card was not accepted. It's always worked for me.


----------



## Blackswanwood (25 May 2020)

There is quite a bit of misunderstanding about what an E111 EHIC provides.

It doesn’t provide for free health care - it provides healthcare on the same basis as those living in the country enjoy. Several EU countries require payment for treatments that are free under the NHS.

It also does not provide for repatriation costs.

As such it definitely isn’t an alternative to travel insurance.


----------



## rafezetter (26 May 2020)

RogerS":2nxdm9oc said:


> I hope that some equivalent to the E111 is put in place, Rafe, because at the moment, you can't get travel insurance that will cover Covid (well, all the usual companies..I'm sure that if you pay a six-figure premium one can get cover !). So going abroad is a gamble.



Right now - absolutely no idea - I was just referring to the larger concern that the E111 will be scrapped and that UK citizens will get screwed for travelling either by not having any insurance or via significantly higher premiums.

For the covid situation immediately after the international flights get resumed, I hope that pressure is put on the insurance industry to provide cover without extortionate premiums, otherwise how does the tourist industry re-start? Millions of people and towns and cities worldwide rely on it for thier livelihoods, and until there is a PROVEN vaccine against it I think (hope) the insurance companies will be forced to give cover INCLUDING covid - or a few companies will see that they can "corner the market" so to speak, look at the actuary tables and decide NOT providing cover in that period would be detrimental to the companies financial health.

Let's not forget travel insurance is given WITHOUT a medical in most cases - and while I'm absolutely not downplaying the severity and threat of covid - the actuary tables of insurance companies might well say the percentage death rate from covid is LESS when all other possibilities are taken into account.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (26 May 2020)

rafezetter":3mij4tnx said:


> Let's not forget travel insurance is given WITHOUT a medical in most cases - and while I'm absolutely not downplaying the severity and threat of covid - the actuary tables of insurance companies might well say the percentage death rate from covid is LESS when all other possibilities are taken into account.



I mentioned earlier that Portugal, for one, is considering unilaterally providing UK subjects with equivalent EHIC cover, which will almost certainly mean the other southern Mediterranean countries will follow suit, and will probably infuriate Brussels, as it detracts from their Brexit negotiating advantage (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... hcare-ehic)

Latest from the CDC suggests an overall mortality rate of 0.004%. They also suggest an asymptomatic rate of 35% - not quite as high as the evil Russians, but still pretty high. Influenza apparently has a 0.1% fatality rate, on average, from what I could find (Wikipedia  ) 

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nc ... arios.html

Column 5 is the "current best estimate", based on actual figures. Does this really mean that overall mortality is way lower than we have been led to believe? I obviously don't understand something - perhaps a clever person could point out what I'm not getting.


----------



## Rorschach (26 May 2020)

Blackswanwood":3r1tkasd said:


> There is quite a bit of misunderstanding about what an E111 EHIC provides.
> 
> It doesn’t provide for free health care - it provides healthcare on the same basis as those living in the country enjoy. Several EU countries require payment for treatments that are free under the NHS.
> 
> ...



Yes there is, the fact it is misunderstood by people who didn't even know the name had changed is rather telling. :lol: 
EHIC is very limiting and you still need travel insurance, as you do when you travel anywhere else in the world. EHIC brings the cost of travel insurance down a little and means you don't have to pay up front for certain services when travelling in the EU but that's basically it.


----------



## Blackswanwood (26 May 2020)

Rorschach":30p0hk36 said:


> Blackswanwood":30p0hk36 said:
> 
> 
> > There is quite a bit of misunderstanding about what an E111 EHIC provides.
> ...



Not sure that there is any correlation between some people continuing to refer to it as E111, EHIC or the full title of E111 EHIC and the level of understanding of what benefit it provides. There are plenty of examples around of things being referenced by versions of their names which have changed over time.


----------



## RogerS (26 May 2020)

Trainee neophyte":xk5ilxwv said:


> .....
> Latest from the CDC suggests an overall mortality rate of 0.004%. ...



I can't be bothered to wade through this document to point out where you have made a mistake but that figure is so out of whack with every single other metric from other studies around the world.

1-2% is generally regarded as the figure.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (26 May 2020)

From today's Times.


----------



## MikeG. (26 May 2020)

Trainee neophyte":17gg8tc8 said:


> ......Latest from the CDC suggests an overall mortality rate of 0.004%..........



No it doesn't. It gives various ranges, but always they are decimals, not percentages. 0.004 is the same as 0.4%. You stuck a "%" sign on the end of their figures, and thereby changed the figure by 100-fold.


----------



## Chris152 (26 May 2020)

MikeG.":hrir5klu said:


> Trainee neophyte":hrir5klu said:
> 
> 
> > ......Latest from the CDC suggests an overall mortality rate of 0.004%..........
> ...


Ah, so it's a ratio of .004 to 1? I was feeling quite happy with Tn's summary! :-(


----------



## Lons (26 May 2020)

Chris152":1cyqcy06 said:


> I was feeling quite happy with Tn's summary! :-(



Really? 
Have you read many of TN's posts? :wink:


----------



## Blackswanwood (26 May 2020)

For those who enjoy piecing together the data this may be of interest:

https://www.oliverwyman.com/content/dam ... gator1.pdf

The summary of the impact on economies is interesting (and scary)

Exhibit 5 - Track and Trace also jumped out for me.

The final comment that the skills we learn in this current phase of the response may well be useful in dealing with future pandemics is a bit chilling.


----------



## Rorschach (26 May 2020)

Chris152":3otb5id1 said:


> MikeG.":3otb5id1 said:
> 
> 
> > Trainee neophyte":3otb5id1 said:
> ...



Bear in mind the mortality rate is dropping nearly every day and is almost certain to keep dropping. Mortality is based on deaths from confirmed cases. At the moment there are two factors making it higher, we do not have enough data to show how many cases there are currently or have been, deaths are recorded as "with" C19 not "from" C19. That means the death rate is almost certainly lower than the figures show and the infection rate is absolutely certainly higher than official figures show. 

We won't have anything like accurate figures though until we have widespread antibody testing, and even then since autopsies are not being carried out the mortality rate will still be higher than the figures show.

Oh and using worldometer data, worldwide mortality rate is around 6%.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (26 May 2020)

MikeG.":1do7ro13 said:


> Trainee neophyte":1do7ro13 said:
> 
> 
> > ......Latest from the CDC suggests an overall mortality rate of 0.004%..........
> ...



Which explains my confusion. Thank you. It was pretty obvious _something_ was awry, and it makes sense to assume it was me, not the data. 

Pig butchering day today - I'm up to my elbows in gore and unpleasantness, so not in the best position to concentrate on epidemiology data. On the other hand I do have a vast amount of prime, pasture fed pork to put in the freezer. This afternoon is sausage time!


----------



## Droogs (26 May 2020)

jealous TN very jealous


----------



## Garno (26 May 2020)

Droogs":14b78k3n said:


> jealous TN very jealous



I'm with you on that one, I absolutely love pork and bacon


----------



## Rorschach (26 May 2020)

Definitely worth a watch, a very measured and sensible approach from the doctor here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk2YZfnsOPg


----------



## Lons (26 May 2020)

Trainee neophyte":z2cqv29d said:


> This afternoon is sausage time!



Mmmmm.. barbecue pork sausages. =P~


----------



## ScaredyCat (26 May 2020)

Andy Kev.":1sx2u1u6 said:


> I've just been watching a chunk of his press conference. His justification is that both he and his wife were coming down with symptoms and his wife was not sure that she would be well enough to be able to look after the child. He was concerned that he might become seriously ill as well and on the next day that was the case although his wife's condition did not deteriorate further.
> 
> He had an offer from family members of an isolated house and his 17 year old niece offered to help out with the child. To take up the offer he drove north on a full tank of petrol without stopping. This all seems reasonable enough.
> 
> ...









.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (26 May 2020)

Garno":pb00rwr2 said:


> Droogs":pb00rwr2 said:
> 
> 
> > jealous TN very jealous
> ...



Running behind - cut 40kg of mince this afternoon, but sausages and bacon will wait until tomorrow. And burgers. And meatballs. Did have chops for lunch - madness not to, as we had 300 available to choose from. Life is a constant struggle, I admit.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (26 May 2020)

The squeal. What have you done with the squeal?


----------



## rafezetter (26 May 2020)

Blackswanwood":cbzbfgnj said:


> For those who enjoy piecing together the data this may be of interest:
> 
> https://www.oliverwyman.com/content/dam ... gator1.pdf
> 
> ...



Not really, they had been saying we were overdue for quite a while when globalisation and travel to parts of the world that were mostly previously inaccessible for the average person, and just how many people regularly travel internationally is taken into account.

I just hope that this is indeed taken as a learning experience and measures put in place.


----------



## CHJ (26 May 2020)

Phil Pascoe":3piewohb said:


> The squeal. What have you done with the squeal?


The memories of killing a pig before the days of a freezer.

Being chastised by the local slaughterer for not catching the squeal.
The burning off the bristles with boltons of straw, and scrubbing off the ash.

Several days of eating all the offal up to save wasting it, (days on farm with no electricity and just a cold dairy slab and evaporating water to keep it cool).

A day (it seemed like anyway) working the yard pump washing out Chitterlings, several days of the smell of rendering fat as it was turned into pure white 'rosemary' Lard.
Mixing the Blood, pearl barley, chunks of fat etc. to make the black puddings.

Being allowed to put the cooked head meat into basins and covered with a saucer and spare weights to make the Brawn.

Making sure the cats and dogs were kept out of dairy room where the sides and hams were being dry salted, wondering where salt Peter came from that was rubbed around the ham bones.

Oh, and playing football with the inflated bladder.


----------



## woodhutt (27 May 2020)

Aah, Chas! The good old days. When beer was tuppence a loaf. :lol:


----------



## Trainee neophyte (27 May 2020)

CHJ":38e2rc2p said:


> Phil Pascoe":38e2rc2p said:
> 
> 
> > The squeal. What have you done with the squeal?
> ...


 Did you hoist your pig into the air by its back legs and only then kill it? That always struck me as an exciting way to get badly hurt. And very, very loud.


> The burning off the bristles with boltons of straw, and scrubbing off the ash.


 We use boiling water and the edge of a metal horn to scrape the hide - same result.


> Several days of eating all the offal up to save wasting it, (days on farm with no electricity and just a cold dairy slab and evaporating water to keep it cool).


 Ours is all boiled up, and in the freezer in 1 litre pots for dog food. Amazing how profligate that feels, but dogs need to eat too.


> A day (it seemed like anyway) working the yard pump washing out Chitterlings, several days of the smell of rendering fat as it was turned into pure white 'rosemary' Lard.
> Mixing the Blood, pearl barley, chunks of fat etc. to make the black puddings.
> 
> Being allowed to put the cooked head meat into basins and covered with a saucer and spare weights to make the Brawn.


 Again - dogs. There is no need to pretend that you "enjoy" brawn. We put all the head meat into sausages, but locally you cut the head in half and roast in the oven, and then everyone fights over the best, most interesting parts. Eyeballs are considered a prize.


> Making sure the cats and dogs were kept out of dairy room where the sides and hams were being dry salted, wondering where salt Peter came from that was rubbed around the ham bones.


 We only make hams at Christmas, because it is just _too_ good. Three pigs would hardly last a month if we turned it all into ham.


> Oh, and playing football with the inflated bladder.


Ahh, yes - that new-fangled "making your own entertainment". Very modern.

Is it me, or did we just get very off topic? Apologies.


----------



## Chris152 (27 May 2020)

Now the pm seems to have made lock down rules a matter of personal interpretation, what happens when the virus next gets out of control and govt tries to reimpose lock down measures? 
Meanwhile I see in South Korea a fella's been imprisoned for four months for twice breaking the self-isolation rule.


----------



## RogerS (27 May 2020)

CHJ":3iu48cyt said:


> Phil Pascoe":3iu48cyt said:
> 
> 
> > The squeal. What have you done with the squeal?
> ...



You DO realise you've just sent all our vegans and vegetarians off screaming to the Vomitorium


----------



## RogerS (27 May 2020)

Chris152":2o5w1p5w said:


> Now the pm seems to have made lock down rules a matter of personal interpretation, what happens when the virus next gets out of control and govt tries to reimpose lock down measures?
> ....



It will fail. Badly. I see in the press the media suggesting that many, if not all, those fined for breaking lockdown will appeal. Between them Johnson and Cummings have rendered lockdown null and void. Johnson needs to grow a pair.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (27 May 2020)

CHJ - did you find out where salt Peter came from?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (27 May 2020)

RogerS":3odt9h20 said:


> Chris152":3odt9h20 said:
> 
> 
> > Now the pm seems to have made lock down rules a matter of personal interpretation, what happens when the virus next gets out of control and govt tries to reimpose lock down measures?
> ...



Whether DC's trip to Durham was necessary is moot, but no one in their right mind can believe he drove a thirty mile trip to a beauty spot on his wife's birthday to "test his eyesight". How bloody stupid does he think people are? As a friend said on Sunday - I'll do as I wish, now - if they don't prosecute DC they won't dare prosecute anyone else.


----------



## Rorschach (27 May 2020)

This is 2 weeks old, I don't think many of the fines or prosecutions will stand up, as I said a long time ago. DC hasn't had any effect up till now but will only make it easier which in my mind is a good thing.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/h ... 16566.html


----------



## RogerS (27 May 2020)

"The CPS review found that 175 out of 187 charges under the regulations were correct."


----------



## Chris152 (27 May 2020)

Also, I see the UK govt seems to be going ahead with its plans to reopen schools and now shops imminently. In the pm's green light speech on easing of lockdown measures, he said these steps were contingent on the R rate staying low enough to do so. 
Ok. But in the absence of widespread testing in the UK, how do we know what the R rate is now or next week? I took a look at the bbc website and it says this:

'How is R calculated?
You cannot capture the moment people are infected; instead scientists work backwards.
Using data - such as the number of people dying, admitted to hospital or testing positive for the virus - allows you to estimate how easily the virus is spreading.
Generally this gives a picture of what the R number was two to three weeks ago. Regular testing of households should soon give a more timely estimate'.

So we'll find out 2 or 3 weeks after kids go back into school etc how rapidly the virus was spreading at that time? Hmmm


----------



## Rorschach (27 May 2020)

RogerS":2riicxa3 said:


> "The CPS review found that 175 out of 187 charges under the regulations were correct."



You're meant to be ignoring me. :roll:


----------



## Rorschach (27 May 2020)

Another fascinating video that is definitely worth watching.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKh6kJ-RSMI


----------



## Lons (27 May 2020)

RogerS":2npzqoyj said:


> You DO realise you've just sent all our vegans and vegetarians off screaming to the Vomitorium



I'm a long way from ever becoming vegetarian but it still made me feel sick. I am however squeamish at the sight of blood, especially if it's my own. :wink:


----------



## RogerS (27 May 2020)

Chris152":1m6stgim said:


> ....
> 'How is R calculated?....



A spokesman for Public Health England said that...

"We first look at the horoscope charts to see if Venus is rising or not. Then we throw the runes onto a witches grave and read the signs there. Next we take a look at CCTV across the country to see how many idiots are not maintaining any sort of social distancing. We check Cummings location history to see where else he's been wriggling to.

Finally we ask Hancock for his well-proven insight"


----------



## Rorschach (27 May 2020)

Chris152":3mteothi said:


> Also, I see the UK govt seems to be going ahead with its plans to reopen schools and now shops imminently. In the pm's green light speech on easing of lockdown measures, he said these steps were contingent on the R rate staying low enough to do so.
> Ok. But in the absence of widespread testing in the UK, how do we know what the R rate is now or next week? I took a look at the bbc website and it says this:
> 
> 'How is R calculated?
> ...



Watch the video I just posted, this might give you a better insight as to why the government is lifting lockdown in this manner.


----------



## Chris152 (27 May 2020)

Rorschach":1z5soya1 said:


> Another fascinating video that is definitely worth watching.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKh6kJ-RSMI


I only got 12 mins in coz I'm lazy, but wonder why, if the virus was spreading so widely for a month before people hitherto understood, it waited so long to suddenly start killing people so rapidly - surely an indication that fits Ferguson's model better? 
I guess the theory sounds possible but if its wrong and we acted accordingly there'd be many more deaths?


----------



## Lons (27 May 2020)

Phil Pascoe":214o71qu said:


> Whether DC's trip to Durham was necessary is moot, but no one in their right mind can believe he drove a thirty mile trip to a beauty spot on his wife's birthday to "test his eyesight". How bloody stupid does he think people are? As a friend said on Sunday - I'll do as I wish, now - if they don't prosecute DC they won't dare prosecute anyone else.


I doubt any reasonable person would see that trip as necessary and he was a di*ckhead trying that feeble excuse when he should had said _it was his wife's birthday, they fancied a run out but while they didn't come in to contact with anyone it was the wrong thing to do so *sorry*!_
The trip to Durham is however a different matter and people with young children will know that when the possible welfare of their young child is at risk the paternal instinct in most normal people kicks in and overrides other logical feelings, mothers especially who can get pretty hysterical and as I said before given similar circumstances I might well have driven 250 miles and sod the consequences I just wouldn't have excused it later. Remember if facts are correct he put no-one else at risk!

Your friend is the stupid one Phil as he's risking himself and others on that basis especially when if Cummins will be prosecuted hasn't been decided yet as the police are investigating. I suggest you show him that video that TN posted and ask what he thinks about the media deliberately breaking the law while harassing the guy. 

If you look at the fines issued you'll see that the vast majority were issued for unreasonable behaviour such as group gatherings, refusal to accept advice to go home and many repeat offenders in other words deliberate very risky events exacerbated by sunny weather and linked to that it's interesting to note that more than 2/3rds were issued to under 34 year olds.

There's a lot of underlying politics involved now along with the usual jealousy from those who don't have the wherewithal do do the same. Some of those screaming for blood are the same people who have been in and out of friends and neighbours houses and meeting for drink and barbecues during lockdown certainly in my area.


----------



## Rorschach (27 May 2020)

Chris152":3cyfvr9z said:


> Rorschach":3cyfvr9z said:
> 
> 
> > Another fascinating video that is definitely worth watching.
> ...



You need to watch the whole video. 

There are lots of explanations for the higher rate of deaths, firstly we don't know exactly when C19 deaths started so there were very likely low deaths slowly building. Then a big factor that once we started to see problems, old people were taken out of hospital and put into the community and care homes. The virus affects certain vulnerable populations, when it was circulating before it is likely it was spreading to those with either a good immune response or near natural immunity, so while it was spreading it wasn't causing significant harm and those people were only spreading it to a few people. Once the virus gets a hold in a vulnerable community it spreads rapidly as not only can it easily infect people but the symptoms it causes produce lots more virus to be spread around and cause more people to be involved in caring for that person. People who are involved in that care (nurses, doctors, care workers, paramedics etc) are also the people who will come into contact with other vulnerable people. 
Once the virus gets a foothold then the deaths start to rise rapidly and it's quite likely we could have made it worse (in the short term).


----------



## Chris152 (27 May 2020)

Rorschach":165z0bw2 said:


> Once the virus gets a foothold then the deaths start to rise rapidly and it's quite likely we could have made it worse (in the short term).


But according to her account the virus got a foothold much earlier, across wide sections of society, yet still wasn't killing people in huge numbers til a point that fits Ferguson's model. Rapid increase in deaths in care homes came still later, didn't it? 
Point taken about watching the whole thing, I shan't be submitting my review to the Lancet just yet.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (27 May 2020)

My friend was being facetious, I'd think.  
You should have listened to Nick Ferrari on LBC questioning an extremely tongue tied Michael Gove about DC's joy ride - it'll be interesting to see how you get out of this ....... it'll be fun! :lol:


----------



## rafezetter (27 May 2020)

RogerS":14xzjylw said:


> CHJ":14xzjylw said:
> 
> 
> > Phil Pascoe":14xzjylw said:
> ...



not just the vegans - that made me, a purebred carnivore feel a little "off", and I made the mistake of googling "chitterlings" - thanks for that.


----------



## Rorschach (27 May 2020)

Chris152":3etus7uf said:


> Rorschach":3etus7uf said:
> 
> 
> > Once the virus gets a foothold then the deaths start to rise rapidly and it's quite likely we could have made it worse (in the short term).
> ...



I took it as spreading around the country at least a month or so earlier than we thought it was. Not taking a foothold in vulnerable sectors until later though and then we started testing so we started recording the deaths. 
Remember that the most vulnerable to this are also the people least likely to be exposed to it at first.

Also this spreading is predicated on our knowledge of the disease and it's mechanisms which are still being understood. Fergusons model makes more sense if the disease spreads easily, has a high mortality and turns everyone infected into a spreader, Guptas model makes more sense if the disease is not as easily spread amongst the healthy and has lower mortality. Evidence seems to be going that way especially as children, traditionally the main spreaders of disease, are looking more and more likely to be essentially immune or at the very least incapable of spreading it. We certainly know that the mortality rate amongst children/teens is essentially nil which would slow the initial spread.


----------



## lurker (27 May 2020)

When the DC issues first started, I said to her majesty “it’s inconceivable that he could not find help in the event of an emergency, closer to home “.
However having seen a bit more of him since, I appreciate why I was wrong.


----------



## Droogs (27 May 2020)

Regarding cummings, are people aware that he has a sister in law who lives less than 10 miles away from his home in London in a straight line. When not get them to take the kid?


----------



## Rorschach (27 May 2020)

Droogs":8r1dpmz2 said:


> Regarding cummings, are people aware that he has a sister in law who lives less than 10 miles away from his home in London in a straight line. When not get them to take the kid?



I wouldn't trust my sister in law to look after my child, even in an emergency.

Assuming he was on good terms with his SIL, what about her family, are they vulnerable, is she already under a lot of pressure, maybe his chid doesn't get on with her? I understand is autistic, the SIL might not be able to cope with that.

He was offered an empty property where they could isolate and there were several single, low risk family members who offered to come take care of them. One of which as his niece I believe, it could very well be that the niece was his autistic child's favourite person and would be much calmer and happier being taken care of by her than by the SIL who they might not get along with. Bear in mind the media know where the SIL lives but didn't know about the Durham property, something else to consider when you are firmly in the public eye.

At the end of the day we don't know the private family dynamics going on and exactly why he thought that solution was the best at the time. The law however allowed him to make that decision so he did. Were I in a similar situation I would do whatever I needed to do, regardless of the law or the potential of fines/prosecution.

As a family we have done several things that are not strictly allowed/legal or are open to our interpretation. I don't regret a single one of them and would gladly plead my case in a court if needed. I won't judge others for doing the same.


----------



## Lons (27 May 2020)

Phil Pascoe":3nlg0rof said:


> My friend was being facetious, I'd think.
> You should have listened to Nick Ferrari on LBC questioning an extremely tongue tied Michael Gove about DC's joy ride - it'll be interesting to see how you get out of this ....... it'll be fun! :lol:



You didn't say your friend was being facetious Phil so it was reasonable to assume he meant what he said and it seems you don't know either.
If your last sentence was aimed at me then it's pointed in the wrong direction as I have no intention of defending DC as imo he's an arrogant d*ckhead and I've said so. My point was that I may well have done a similar thing given the circumstances as I've seen my missus in panic mode when it comes to the kids I just wouldn't have lied about it, I certainly would not have gone on a jolly to BC though and my comment about the media is valid, they act like animals blatantly breaking the law while pointing fingers at others.

Have you ever met a politician who doesn't lie or at least bend the truth or avoid the question? I haven't and though Cummins isn't a politician he's near enough. Journalists of course don't lie or bend the truth to get a scoop. :roll:


----------



## lurker (27 May 2020)

Droogs":28lbsyx2 said:


> Regarding cummings, are people aware that he has a sister in law who lives less than 10 miles away from his home in London in a straight line. When not get them to take the kid?



Or... his mate Michael Gove and his wife Sarah Vain.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (27 May 2020)

Lons":209p517c said:


> Phil Pascoe":209p517c said:
> 
> 
> > My friend was being facetious, I'd think.
> ...



He's a perfectly intelligent bloke, so I assume he was being facetious - but I wouldn't really blame him if he wasn't. If the people who write the laws/regulations/guidance think them so unimportant they are prepared to do the the opposite we can't really blame others for doing the same.
Sorry, no, the last sentence wasn't specifically aimed at you, it was badly worded. It was fun to listen to Gove making himself look a total twunt, though.


----------



## Chris152 (27 May 2020)

Phil Pascoe":21prv6h6 said:


> Lons":21prv6h6 said:
> 
> 
> > Phil Pascoe":21prv6h6 said:
> ...


Actually Phil your wording was close to the original:
https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/ ... -baranard/
'What's the right way of putting it?' Well, Michael, your fabricating this particular little bit of the puzzle so that's entirely up to you...


----------



## Garno (27 May 2020)

One thing seems apparent, inspite of all the deaths covid has caused 1 man seems to of done more harm to the country and the world, instead of working to find a way out of this mess people seem content to concentrate on getting a man sacked from his job. Not a single one of you will gain anything from it, trying to find a workaround for covid you will all gain from it. 

Dr Bob mentioned on a previous thread that one of his fitters did some work in an office block where people were working whilst being fulough, lets get that fitters name and start a campaign to have him never work again, what about the people in that office on fulough lets get them all sacked, after all they are costing the tax payers money. All the people caught attending parties lets get them sacked as well not to mention all those hundreds of people who attended Matlock bath. I would wager that every single one of us knows someone who has bent the lock down rules to how they understand them, should we also try and get those people sacked? How about the people standing too close in a queue as they pose a greater risk to you and I than DC ever has been.

Some of you would not be happy until you see DC swinging from the gallows and even then no doubt you would moan that the rope was not as rough as you would like, that would then be followed by everyone suddenly being an expert on ropes. I am absolutely horrified at the way the media has handled the whole DC debacle but I am even more shocked at the mob mentality that has followed, you are happy to attack someone who has never been any kind of a threat to you yet turn a blind eye to those who have been.

I am still on an enforced lockdown, I am one of the 1.5m people who got the letter from the government. I understand that when your life is not threatened you look at things differently to how I look at them. I look at what harm can someones actions do to me, I ask myself has that person and what that person is doing put my life at risk and I can honestly say that what DC did would put him very low down on the list, the list would contain tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of names who have done more harm than him.

Try and put things into context and start thinking of what happens next and what you will do next instead of trying to stay with the mob and the flaming torches.

RANT OVER
.


----------



## Rorschach (27 May 2020)

Bloody well said Garno!


----------



## RogerS (27 May 2020)

Garno, you make some valid observations but the one critical factor that you've overlooked is not whether what he did was right or wrong, legal or illegal, whether he should be sacked or not...all of these matter not one jot. What matters is how his actions are perceived by the general public. We are being asked to carry out a certain way of life for the moment, lockdown etc. But when we see someone in his position doing whatever he wants and not perceived to be 'obeying' the same 'rules' as the rest of us, then it is human nature to say 'Damn that...if he can do that then so can I'.

And therein lies the danger. You only have to look at what happened in the last few days at Weston Hospital to see just how easy things can go pear-shaped quite quickly.


----------



## Chris152 (27 May 2020)

Garno":1157nwtu said:


> Try and put things into context


Context: this is the man who wrote the rules and acted against what the people (reasonably) understood those rules to mean. Polls show 60+% of people would now be less inclined to follow lock down rules in future (Liason Committee currently taking place). That means getting the virus back under control when it next gets out of control will be harder and more people presumably will die as a result. Surely that's the context?


----------



## Rorschach (27 May 2020)

What happened to personal responsibility?


----------



## Chris152 (27 May 2020)

Rorschach":3vdzhegk said:


> What happened to personal responsibility?


Exactly!


----------



## Rorschach (27 May 2020)

Chris152":38jic498 said:


> Rorschach":38jic498 said:
> 
> 
> > What happened to personal responsibility?
> ...



I meant for everyone else you are talking about.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (27 May 2020)

Objective reflection of DC actions would be:

- going north 250+ miles to isolate with kiddie - completely understandable
- trip to Castle Bernard to test eyes - seems implausible for lots of reasons

He may have been better off to acknowledge the CB jaunt and apologise. But there is no evidence that anyone was put in any danger through his actions.

The media by contrast have conducted themselves appallingly. In particular the scrum outside his house was completely beyond any interpretation of the rules. There is audio and video evidence to arrest the lot of them.

We need to appear very clear (irrespective of political affiliation) who should be running the country:

- politicians who at least can be fired or re-elected every five years
- the media ,often in pursuit of trivia, who act as a pack of dogs after a fox 
- political advisors & elites - the former can be fired by the PM (in theory)

For all their weaknesses I still prefer the democratic process :mrgreen:


----------



## thetyreman (27 May 2020)

cummings should be at very least fined, ideally though sent to prison, but no... one rule for them, different rules for us.


----------



## Chris152 (27 May 2020)

I think my head's going to explode! Today's Hancock's half hour (currently broadcasting) is pleading with the British people to 'do the right thing' and, if you have symptoms, not to leave home. Where's that brown paper bag, I need to do some heavy breathing.


----------



## RogerS (27 May 2020)

Terry - Somerset":1ksvrw84 said:


> .... But there is no evidence that anyone was put in any danger through his actions.


But irrelevant in the broader context. It's all about perceptions - pls see above.


Terry - Somerset":1ksvrw84 said:


> The media by contrast have conducted themselves appallingly. In particular the scrum outside his house was completely beyond any interpretation of the rules. There is audio and video evidence to arrest the lot of them.
> ...


Hopefully they will be but don't hold your breath.


----------



## Chris152 (27 May 2020)

Terry - Somerset":rsp3et7e said:


> He may have been better off to acknowledge the CB jaunt and apologise. But there is no evidence that anyone was put in any danger through his actions.


Well, except that driving with potentially dodgy eyesight is clearly a threat to other people's safety.


----------



## Garno (27 May 2020)

RogerS":lthdga66 said:


> Garno, you make some valid observations but the one critical factor that you've overlooked is not whether what he did was right or wrong, legal or illegal, whether he should be sacked or not...all of these matter not one jot. What matters is how his actions are perceived by the general public. We are being asked to carry out a certain way of life for the moment, lockdown etc. But when we see someone in his position doing whatever he wants and not perceived to be 'obeying' the same 'rules' as the rest of us, then it is human nature to say 'Damn that...if he can do that then so can I'.
> 
> And therein lies the danger. You only have to look at what happened in the last few days at Weston Hospital to see just how easy things can go pear-shaped quite quickly.



I hear what you are saying but could the same not be said about the labour MP's who also broke lockdown guidance rules before DC? These are MP's they play an important role in how the country is run no matter what side they fall on. What about the thousands of people who broke lockdown rules as mentioned in my previous post before DC did this? 

I give the members of public more credence and do not believe anyone decided to do what DC did because of his actions, and if they did then more fool them. The media are making more out of this than it actually is, it is easy to say you would not of done the same to potentially protect your children when not faced with having to make that choice. If my children were young (They are in their 40's now) and I was faced with the same choice I would do the same even though I am one of the vulnerable, the difference is I would of been nicked for speeding.

I give you a lot of credit Roger and respect what you have to say with all your posts but if you really believe that the problems Weston Hospital has faced over the last few days have anything what's so ever to do with DC driving his children somewhere a few weeks ago, then Sir I feel for you. How does the conversation go " Lets go to Weston because DC took his children to safety when he should of really put them at risk when he had Covid19" again DC would of been very low down on the list of excuses for all of the idiots who attended.


----------



## Garno (27 May 2020)

Chris152":1sxpwqbo said:


> I think my head's going to explode! Today's Hancock's half hour (currently broadcasting) is pleading with the British people to 'do the right thing' and, if you have symptoms, not to leave home. Where's that brown paper bag, I need to do some heavy breathing.



So what should he be saying then?
If you have symptoms go out and infect everyone? or would you prefer him to not give any advice and keep on the same DC topic?


----------



## RogerS (27 May 2020)

Garno":2rc2v2e3 said:


> RogerS":2rc2v2e3 said:
> 
> 
> > Garno, you make some valid observations but the one critical factor that you've overlooked is not whether what he did was right or wrong, legal or illegal, whether he should be sacked or not...all of these matter not one jot. What matters is how his actions are perceived by the general public. We are being asked to carry out a certain way of life for the moment, lockdown etc. But when we see someone in his position doing whatever he wants and not perceived to be 'obeying' the same 'rules' as the rest of us, then it is human nature to say 'Damn that...if he can do that then so can I'.
> ...



No, I didn't say that at all..you misinterpreted what I wrote. And you still are missing out on how the public perceive his actions. It's all to do with the psychology of the mob.


----------



## Chris152 (27 May 2020)

Garno":2zjgmh4h said:


> Chris152":2zjgmh4h said:
> 
> 
> > I think my head's going to explode! Today's Hancock's half hour (currently broadcasting) is pleading with the British people to 'do the right thing' and, if you have symptoms, not to leave home. Where's that brown paper bag, I need to do some heavy breathing.
> ...


Again, I think you've missed the context Garno. he should be saying all those things but not against the background of a pm who's belligerently standing by a senior advisor who didn't do what H is asking the rest of us to do.


----------



## Garno (27 May 2020)

Chris152":gafus30g said:


> Garno":gafus30g said:
> 
> 
> > Try and put things into context
> ...



And who was surveyed? I ask that because if you did a survey with the most vulnerable you would no doubt get 95+% saying they would follow it. If you survey the Labour party members and asked them with the added bit it would mean DC being sacked then 98+% would say they were less inclined. If you surveyed the 18 - 25 yr olds You would get a higher figure again. 

You say he wrote the rules, are you sure of that? or does it fit your arguement better saying that. If 60+% of people are really not going to follow any future lockdowns then why have they not all gone back to work instead of going to Weston. If 60+% of people do not think this virus is serious enough that they would not support another lockdown then why are they moaning so much about what DC did? If 60+% of people are not going to support another lockdown then the people of this country need to take a long hard look at themselves. When people start dying in droves they can say it's all because of DC, they can sleep well at night knowing they had not infected too many others.


----------



## Chris152 (27 May 2020)

All possible Garno. I think the best we can do is to assess the evidence and draw our own conclusions.


----------



## RogerS (27 May 2020)

If Cummings was so squeaky clean then why did he go and make an amendment to his blog to try and make him look like 'The Good Guy' ?


----------



## Chris152 (27 May 2020)

Yep, that's an odd one - did he think people wouldn't notice?And is it of any importance really?! Very odd.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (27 May 2020)

I watched some beeb today whilst stuffing sausages - they seemed very clear that I should be incensed over the actions of Mr Cummings. 

If you tell the public that they should be very angry about something, quite a lot of people will get quite agitated. The media seem to be flogging the horse pretty hard, and from my perspective, said horse doesn't look to be getting up any time soon. My question is why push the righteous indignation narrative? What are "they" hoping to gain, and who are "they"?

All of this reminds me a lot of The Life of Brian balcony scene - to misquote: "You are all individuals....you've got to think for yourselves...you are all different."

"I'm not!"


[youtube]QereR0CViMY[/youtube]

Hands up who is an individual...


----------



## Rorschach (27 May 2020)

Has anyone written to their MP, apparently lots are according to the BBC.

I wrote to mine after I heard that.


----------



## doctor Bob (27 May 2020)

Rorschach":2qt96w17 said:


> Has anyone written to their MP, apparently lots are according to the BBC.
> 
> I wrote to mine after I heard that.



The mental is strong at present, once one in 5 lose their jobs and they realise the holiday is over and universal credit is rubbish, they will start to realise there are more important things to sh!tt yourself over. 
I'd genuinely say if you're not in discussions with your boss about returning to work then your job is very much on the line.


----------



## Rorschach (27 May 2020)

doctor Bob":10umqc49 said:


> Rorschach":10umqc49 said:
> 
> 
> > Has anyone written to their MP, apparently lots are according to the BBC.
> ...



I am very worried about a few friends for this reason.


----------



## Garno (27 May 2020)

RogerS":2knpc68o said:


> If Cummings was so squeaky clean then why did he go and make an amendment to his blog to try and make him look like 'The Good Guy' ?



In fairness further down it does say that the original did include links to a site mentioning Covid and that the edited part of the blog was a paragraph that had been taken from there.


----------



## Trevanion (27 May 2020)

doctor Bob":1idn8uv6 said:


> I'd genuinely say if you're not in discussions with your boss about returning to work then your job is very much on the line.



I was chatting with an acquaintance who runs a large glass firm that's just started back up today and they were saying that about half the staff on the work floor have come back to work now and they're still operating at pretty much the same production rate they did before the lockdown when they had twice the staff, it's just that the ones who want to work that are actually in work now. Combined with the fact that they've spent the lockdown period focusing on automating the admin side of things more so that fewer people would be needed there... I was told there was a list of names being produced for the termination in excess of fifty people.

It really is a case of survival of the fittest in many different ways, I think people should spend less time fussing about the really small petty things and start getting their affairs in order and try and be as strong as possible to make it through.


----------



## Chris152 (27 May 2020)

Trainee neophyte":1jzd8kx4 said:


> I watched some beeb today whilst stuffing sausages - they seemed very clear that I should be incensed over the actions of Mr Cummings.


If you'd had time you'd have seen the same on ITV and Channel 4. Something of a consensus. Sometimes even the mainstream media are right.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (27 May 2020)

My wife works for a bank (Swedish) and she says the consensus there is that some firms are doing unbelievably well atm, some will probably get through but some others will go bust shortly. There will then be lull while businesses try to get going again properly then another wave of closures and bankruptcies in the autumn. Also, commercial landlords should be very, very afraid - so many companies are finding that people working from home works perfectly well now that their hand has been forced - her own firm included. (She's been at work while others have been at home (her job is largely paper based) - she says it's bliss just to be able to get on without interuption.  )


----------



## Rorschach (27 May 2020)

Chris152":3fskyc2p said:


> Trainee neophyte":3fskyc2p said:
> 
> 
> > I watched some beeb today whilst stuffing sausages - they seemed very clear that I should be incensed over the actions of Mr Cummings.
> ...



I can think of some other things that MSM had consensus on but were wrong. :twisted:


----------



## doctor Bob (27 May 2020)

Chris152":1hcl5jrl said:


> Trainee neophyte":1hcl5jrl said:
> 
> 
> > I watched some beeb today whilst stuffing sausages - they seemed very clear that I should be incensed over the actions of Mr Cummings.
> ...



If in your opinion they are right then fair enough but as TN says why are they trying to make me apoplectic with rage, I really have more to worry about. The papers are focusing on the wrong story in my opinion.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (27 May 2020)

Phil Pascoe":dn4dducl said:


> ...
> Also, commercial landlords should be very, very afraid - so many companies are finding that people working from home works perfectly well now that their hand has been forced...



That is going to have quite an impact on pension funds, which have pretty significant commercial office space in their portfolios. Pension funds have spent the last ten years desperate for yield, and under-performing against all their projected expectations. They are now going to start seeing some major yield reduction.


----------



## Rorschach (27 May 2020)

I wonder if the change in working habits will solve the housing crisis? Convert commercial buildings into affordable housing maybe?


----------



## Andy Kev. (27 May 2020)

If I were Boris, I would have dealt with this by saying something like, "He acted entirely sensibly and responsibly in making arrangements for the welfare of his child and at no point did he place anybody else in danger. However, he skated a bit close to the limits of the spirit of the rules. Therefore he and I have agreed that he will donate 10k to charities of his choice.

I will ensure that it is made clear to all who work in Whitehall (politicians, civil servants, advisors etc.) that we will be returning to old-fashioned standards of integrity for them i.e. higher standards than we expect of the rest of the public. Anybody who thinks he/she has a case for exemption from rules must apply for dispensations. FWIW I would have granted Cummings a dispensation due to the vital nature of his role.

And that is the end of the matter."

But that's just the way I would have done it.


----------



## RogerS (27 May 2020)

Andy Kev.":17muxsgk said:


> ...FWIW I would have granted Cummings a dispensation due to the vital nature of his role.
> ...



What ? Spin doctor ?


----------



## Rorschach (27 May 2020)

Andy Kev.":qg457mfn said:


> If I were Boris, I would have dealt with this by saying something like, "He acted entirely sensibly and responsibly in making arrangements for the welfare of his child and at no point did he place anybody else in danger. However, he skated a bit close to the limits of the spirit of the rules. Therefore he and I have agreed that he will donate 10k to charities of his choice.
> 
> I will ensure that it is made clear to all who work in Whitehall (politicians, civil servants, advisors etc.) that we will be returning to old-fashioned standards of integrity for them i.e. higher standards than we expect of the rest of the public. Anybody who thinks he/she has a case for exemption from rules must apply for dispensations. FWIW I would have granted Cummings a dispensation due to the vital nature of his role.
> 
> ...



The media would turn that into "rich think they can buy their way out of lockdown"


----------



## doctor Bob (27 May 2020)

Rorschach":3f0dh6ug said:


> I wonder if the change in working habits will solve the housing crisis? Convert commercial buildings into affordable housing maybe?



They tried that in Harlow ........... terminus office block near the bus station, it's been a disaster. crime and drug hotspot now. It's difficult to believe Harlow can go down hill but it has and thats from someone who saw a gang of yobbos put a police car on it's roof outside the Essex skipper in the 90's.


----------



## woodhutt (27 May 2020)

Phil Pascoe":2h9trhh0 said:


> My wife works for a bank (Swedish) and she says the consensus there is that some firms are doing unbelievably well atm, some will probably get through but some others will go bust shortly. There will then be lull while businesses try to get going again properly then another wave of closures and bankruptcies in the autumn. Also, commercial landlords should be very, very afraid - so many companies are finding that people working from home works perfectly well now that their hand has been forced - her own firm included. (She's been at work while others have been at home (her job is largely paper based) - she says it's bliss just to be able to get on without interuption.  )



Philski. My missus has found the same. Working from home (for the local City Council) she says her productivity has increased measurably due to the lack of constant interruption from colleagues dropping in 'for a chat'. 
As the council were on the verge (pre-Covid) of closing the building temporarily to carry out earthquake strengthening, it will be interesting to see if they re-evaluate the need for such a big building at all, particularly as the work will cost a few hundred thousand and money is about to get tight.
Pete


----------



## Trainee neophyte (27 May 2020)

woodhutt":3nk6hdqo said:


> As the council were on the verge (pre-Covid) of closing the building temporarily to carry out earthquake strengthening, it will be interesting to see if they re-evaluate the need for such a big building at all, particularly as the work will cost a few hundred thousand and money is about to get tight.



Government getting smaller? That would be unusual, to say the least. In a few years time, government, or newly nationalised corporations, may be the only employment available.


----------



## worn thumbs (27 May 2020)

Trainee neophyte":4gx6oitt said:


> Government getting smaller? That would be unusual, to say the least. In a few years time, government, or newly nationalised corporations, may be the only employment available.



An interesting observation.I would counter by mentioning that a few days ago on the excellent Euronews channel they ran a feature on the food banks operating in Northern Italy and serving the increasingly desperate members of the black economy.Not a small community judging from the length of the queues.I would much rather we all paid our fair share of the nation's tax burden but I suspect the efforts of that sector of our society will have a large part to play.


----------



## rafezetter (28 May 2020)

RogerS":2t77hwc5 said:


> Garno, you make some valid observations but the one critical factor that you've overlooked is not whether what he did was right or wrong, legal or illegal, whether he should be sacked or not...all of these matter not one jot. What matters is how his actions are perceived by the general public. We are being asked to carry out a certain way of life for the moment, lockdown etc. But when we see someone in his position doing whatever he wants and not perceived to be 'obeying' the same 'rules' as the rest of us, then it is human nature to say 'Damn that...if he can do that then so can I'.
> 
> And therein lies the danger. You only have to look at what happened in the last few days at Weston Hospital to see just how easy things can go pear-shaped quite quickly.



Just my two cents - I agree with the sentiments of Garno, "there but for the grace of god" and all that, but the reality and the political reality for Boris is what Roger has said.

DC (Cummings not Coultard) isn't a man for whom his actions have no real world consequence, unlike the rest of us. Perception can be everything, as Amy Cooper in America (google it) learned recently to her extreme cost.

DC's situation could well have been utterly unavoidable, but then lying about it (or what looks like it) and the "drove 30 miles for an eyetest" stretched credulity - it's all downhill after that.

His either extreme naivety of how this would be perceived - or extreme stupidity that this could be ridden out has just inflamed the situation tenfold.

Hence the burning torches and pitchforks - because the polite and calm calls for his resignation or sacking have been loudly ignored.

The other side of this equation that many of the more cogniscent are understanding is that Boris is buying himself a major problem come the next election - wholesale - during a time when the country needs govt stability; regardless of what you think of the Conservatives, a forced change of Govt via a no confidence situation, and all that goes with that, would be a bloody distaster over the next 12 / 24 / 36 months, and Boris isn't exactly swimming in an excess of political capital to squander away on this. I absolutely beleive that Labour, given half a sniff, would use this situation to force that no confidence vote, regardless of how costly it would be to the country, for the opportunity to reverse Brexit and further thier own agenda.

Those that see all this are practically screaming at Boris to cut this guy loose - and those who aren't seeing this other side of the equation are assuming the pleb(ian)s of the "braying hounds" pitchfork carrying persuasion and the political "this is going to cost you bigtime Boris" group are one and the same.

So all is not quite as it seems Garno, a little temperance may be in order.


----------



## woodhutt (28 May 2020)

Trainee neophyte":2f2x6ehj said:


> woodhutt":2f2x6ehj said:
> 
> 
> > As the council were on the verge (pre-Covid) of closing the building temporarily to carry out earthquake strengthening, it will be interesting to see if they re-evaluate the need for such a big building at all, particularly as the work will cost a few hundred thousand and money is about to get tight.
> ...



Not necessarily smaller, although a few positions could be lost if a large 'Town Hall' were no longer needed. As far as I can see, there are only a few departments that would require a publicly accessible office (planning, building consents spring to mind). Much of the work is already conducted remotely - from the public, I mean - via email and over the website rather than face-to-face. A smaller public footprint would certainly save ratepayers money.
A couple of years back we successfully fought off an attempt to marginalize the individual councils in the region by setting up a 'Super Council' based in Wellington and who would oversee the collection and distribution of monies to the various sub-councils. We knew where this would lead to and who would be the main beneficiary. Rather like (say) the GLC collecting rates for all the councils in the London area who would then have to go cap in hand to plead their individual cases. (Perhaps that _is_ the situation in London, I don't know :| )
However, IMO, downsizing would certainly re-focus the local council's attention on its core functions - that of providing essential services to its ratepayers.

Anyway, haven't we long been told that this is our future? Working and shopping from home via the interweb, paperless society etc. It's taken this pandemic to force the experiment to begin in earnest. As for pension fund investment being heavily focused on property, perhaps it's time they began to look further afield. I would imagine smart investors are already looking at what future society will look like and moving their money in that direction - perhaps with beneficial results.
Pete


----------



## Trainee neophyte (28 May 2020)

woodhutt":32bzd31r said:


> As for pension fund investment being heavily focused on property, perhaps it's time they began to look further afield. I would imagine smart investors are already looking at what future society will look like and moving their money in that direction - perhaps with beneficial results.



Long term, the smart money will get out early and already be investing in domestic coffee making machines or whatever, but leviathan pension funds as a group can not do this: firstly, they are colossal and cumbersome, and secondly they have a limited range of assets they are allowed to invest in, and thirdly they have assumptions for growth and income that they use to cover their liabilities, which are the future payments to their retirees. If they miss earning sufficient to pay out to pensioners, the capital is used instead, which then depletes the fund, which must then chase an even higher yield, taking more risk (but limited by law as to what assets are eligible). You see the vicious circle? 10 years of near zero interest rates have already caused chaos. Luckily the stock markets have found a "permanently high plateau", otherwise we would all be in trouble.


> (Stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau. I do not feel there will be soon if ever a 50 or 60 point break from present levels, such as (bears) have predicted. I expect to see the stock market a good deal higher within a few months.”
> – Irving Fisher, Ph.D. in economics, Oct. 17, 1929)



What could possibly go wrong?


----------



## woodhutt (28 May 2020)

Just an aside. A friend of SWMBO's works in the bullion trade in Wellington. She says there has been a marked increase in US customers buying and depositing bullion in NZ. There is also a reported upswing in applications from the US for NZ residency.
Well, it makes a change from the Asian invasion, I suppose.
Pete


----------



## Andy Kev. (28 May 2020)

Rorschach":3th0mle4 said:


> Andy Kev.":3th0mle4 said:
> 
> 
> > If I were Boris, I would have dealt with this by saying something like, "He acted entirely sensibly and responsibly in making arrangements for the welfare of his child and at no point did he place anybody else in danger. However, he skated a bit close to the limits of the spirit of the rules. Therefore he and I have agreed that he will donate 10k to charities of his choice.
> ...



It would depend on how it was handled. For instance, if it became known that one of the Downing St typists or a cleaning lady at the MOD had also been granted a dispensation - entirely possibly because difficult personal circumstances are encountered in all walks of life - and that there had been cases of self-entitled MPs and peers having been refused dispensations ("Do you know who I am?" constituting insufficient grounds) then the public would be likely to show its usual reasonableness.

Incidentally, I see that the BBC has coughed to bias on the part of Emily Maitliss on _Newsnight_, a possibly unprecedented event. They must be really worried about the licence fee going. The odd thing is that they can't see that all they need to do to survive is to start acting professionally i.e. political neutral and as objective as possible.


----------



## Rorschach (28 May 2020)

Another great video, why are all these scientists not being listened to on the MSM? Could it be because they go against the fear narrative and they show the MSM messed up big time in calling for lockdown?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl-sZdfLcEk

You know what, just watch most of the videos on that channel, they are all really good and the interviewer is excellent.


----------



## Rorschach (28 May 2020)

Wonder why this didn't make the news.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/184 ... ?ref=fbshr


----------



## Chris152 (28 May 2020)

ONS stats show about 6-7% of UK population have so far been exposed to Covid 19. (Channel 4 news this evening.) 
DoH figures show 37,837 deaths so far.


----------



## Rorschach (28 May 2020)

Chris152":2zm4z7a6 said:


> ONS stats show about 6-7% of UK population have so far been exposed to Covid 19. (Channel 4 news this evening.)
> DoH figures show 37,837 deaths so far.



That puts the case fatality rate at around 0.8%, getting better, still not as low as many of the experts are predicting on the videos I linked but improving.


----------



## Chris152 (28 May 2020)

Yea, looking great. Looks like we're doing a spanking job in the UK as we come out of lock down
https://amp.ft.com/content/6b4c784e-c25 ... IkXTPtAJ2Q


----------



## Rorschach (28 May 2020)

The worse it is now, the faster it gets better. I've said it all along, we won't save anyone from C19, but we can save those whose lives are being destroyed by the unnecessary lockdown.


----------



## Droogs (28 May 2020)

So we now have the highest death rate per capita according to excess deaths figures (50K) released this evening according to the FT


----------



## Droogs (28 May 2020)

Rorsarch you are so full of effluent on this it almost literally brings tears to my eyes. Ask any person on this planet about this and they would all rather be poor and alive than rich and dead!


----------



## Trainee neophyte (28 May 2020)

Droogs":1q6kw258 said:


> So we now have the highest death rate per capita according to excess deaths figures (50K) released this evening according to the FT



UK is first among equals: https://www.healthexpress.co.uk/obesity/uk-statistics



> 62% of the UK population is overweight.
> This equates to 58% of women and 68% of men.
> Nearly 25% of adults are classed as obese.
> 525,000 NHS admissions were obesity related in 2015/2016.
> ...



I wonder how many of that 30,000 (if true) have been lumped in with the Covid19 numbers?


----------



## rafezetter (28 May 2020)

woodhutt":zqhi63nt said:


> Just an aside. A friend of SWMBO's works in the bullion trade in Wellington. She says there has been a marked increase in US customers buying and depositing bullion in NZ. There is also a reported upswing in applications from the US for NZ residency.
> Well, it makes a change from the Asian invasion, I suppose.
> Pete



If I had the cash or the skills I'd have mived to NZ years ago - always been my country of choice - your PM's handling of the Covid just reinforced that beleif for many I would think.

Ofc having a small population made it easier for her but even so, she done good (and that ban on guns as well).


----------



## woodhutt (28 May 2020)

Rorschach":182tt61d said:


> The worse it is now, the faster it gets better. I've said it all along, we won't save anyone from C19, but we can save those whose lives are being destroyed by the unnecessary lockdown.



You astound me. If you'll forgive the observation of an outsider looking in which admittedly is based on reports from MSM and chats with friends and relatives in the UK, the lock down regime in the UK has been farcical. Whether this is the result of confusing guidelines, selfish actions or sheer bloody-mindedness from parts of the community (probably a combination of all three) the UK lock down has been an unmitigated disaster. The fact is, you *can* save people from C19 as has been ably demonstrated by other countries. 
To claim that 'the worse it is now, the faster it gets better' is, IMO, fallacious. Currently, the UK is hovering at or just below an R rating of 1.0 which can result in 14,000 additional cases. If the lock down is eased and the R number rises to 1.1 this would result in an additional 25,000 cases and it increases exponentially as the R rate rises further. Given the high mortality rate in the UK, (second highest in the world at 57 per 100K population despite the excellent efforts of the NHS), this would result in a significant number of deaths.
Perhaps some find this an acceptable risk in order to open up again. 
I know that I don't.
Pete


----------



## rafezetter (29 May 2020)

Droogs":3jr15k5k said:


> Rorsarch you are so full of effluent on this it almost literally brings tears to my eyes. Ask any person on this planet about this and they would all rather be poor and alive than rich and dead!



Pretty sure I was saying this and calling him on out on having this viewpoint a month ago - I don't wish bankruptcy on anyone, but if you are still alive, you've got the chance to reverse it.

Dead, you don't.

I'm glad someone else now sees it - although I'll be honest I never actually expect rorschach to say it openly in such a callous manner - "we can't save them, so let's get back to making (me) money".

As far as I know he still hasn't openly declared what his business is, that we may better understand his postition - a little telling to be honest. Dr Bob's situation is wholly different, he's gone back to work, but taking full precautions and iirc has stated if a second wave hits and needs to shut down again, so be it.

OFC he won't see this as he's blocked me, totally fine his choice, but I feel completely vindicated on my previous comments.


----------



## rafezetter (29 May 2020)

Rorschach":2ubkj6fc said:


> The worse it is now, the faster it gets better. I've said it all along, we won't save anyone from C19, but we can save those whose lives are being destroyed by the unnecessary lockdown.




Rorschach, you were WRONG the first time and you're WRONG now - I don't think you even understand the phrase "lives being destroyed" - why don't you come and have a very frank open and honest talk to ME about "life being destroyed".

I'll tell you everything, after which I think you'll have a very different perspective on the phrase "life being destroyed", that's assuming you have any sort of empathy for another human being, which I'm starting to doubt.

Once again you have placed monetary loss above human life, and I've openly said here (and to family) if it came to it and there was a choice between myself being given a ventilator and a person with a child, I would insist that person have it, because I have no spouse, no children and no dependants emotional or financial of any kind. 

I'm pretty sure I can guess what you would do. I get a lot of stick on here for being "unstable", quite a lot of it directed from you and yeah sure I have my moments, but I think you've just proven which of us is the better human being. I'm poor and of little consequence to humanity, but I can hold my head high for reasons you currently cannot and probably never will.

Rightly or wrongly I DO NOT TRUST the general population to be sensible if the lockdown was eased any faster or more openly than it already is - what's happening in other countries is no guarentee the same moderation will happen here - since the lockdown was eased we've seen a spike in covid cases compared to the previous weeks, thankfully not as bad as a full "second wave" but a spike nonetheless.

I'm also absolutely certain THE LOCKDOWN HAS SAVED LIVES from covid - or are you disputing that as well?

If you dispute the lockdown has saved lives - your above comment makes sense according to your beliefs, callous as it might be.
If you DON'T - your above comment is CONTRARY to that belief, and makes me wonder why you would post it at all considering how it makes you look.

which is it buddy?

I know what my money is on.

Edit - I came back to possibly edit this post now that the initial reaction has lowered - but I've re-read it and you know what? I'm going to stick with it.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (29 May 2020)

It would seem that the view is binary - full lockdown forever to save the world, or back to normal, and acres of dead bodies. There is actually a middle ground, which no one is recommending. We know that 95% of deaths occur in patients with "co-morbidities" ( I love the way the propaganda has created all this new jargon that everyone glibly throws around), and we know that no more than 2% of the population are at risk. Currently, 100% of the population are suffering the consequences of "saving" the 2%. Why? Every life is valuable beyond calculation, and no suffering is too much suffering, provided we save just one life. Except you don't get to be protected if you are a "key worker" - you get the entire street coming out to clap you as you go to work, to use social pressure to ensure that you don't stay at home and hide. A while ago I read that "The aristocracy shelter in their private estates and islands, the middle classes work safely from home, but the working class get out there and fight and die, for the benefit of those who have the wealth to rely on their status to hide and be safe". The world is not equal, and some don't have the luxury of isolating themselves.

It seems to me that there is a third way - for the vast majority of people, the disease has little effect. For a third, no effect whatsoever. Why not allow full economic activity - back to normal in other words, but those who are at risk can, _if they so choose_, isolate themselves to whatever degree they deem necessary. In other words leave it to the individual. You are all individuals. (See my Monty Python clip above for more details).

There will be consequences to the lockdown strategy, with it's pre-planned repeated closures of the economy over the next two years (think about that). Small and medium sized businesses will mostly be unable to pay their debts, so will either be subsumed by the giants (who benefit from largess from government much more than smaller businesses do), or those hard-working entrepreneurs will have their assets given to the banking industry through bankruptcy, in amounts that has never happened before, _worldwide_. The largest worldwide transfer of wealth from the general population to a tiny minority. This doesn't have to happen, but it will, because the 2% are more important than the other 98%, and the "1%" elite are going to make hay while the sun shines. It's an ill wind that blows no one any good.

I wonder how much those with no skin in the game want everything shut down for their own safety, at the expense of everyone else, _with no consideration of the consequences._



rafezetter":1xnanxff said:


> Pretty sure I was saying this and calling him on out on having this viewpoint a month ago - I don't wish bankruptcy on anyone, but if you are still alive, you've got the chance to reverse it.
> 
> Dead, you don't.



All I say is "Careful what you wish for". An individual bankruptcy is a traumatic thing, but you can get over it, certainly. When entire nations are bankrupted? Food riots in Chile, because lockdown is total. Thousands (millions?) of peasant workers abandoned to walk home or starve in India. That sort of thing doesn't have to be just far away - it could happen in Europe, too. Why should supply chains remain intact, if everyone is cowering under their beds? You get to hide, why shouldn't farmers, too?

Actions have consequences. So does inaction.

And before everyone accuses me of being a genocidal nazi, all of the above is food for thought - I'm not advocating freeing up the economy, I am interested in views. I can probably weather the storm for the next couple of years, with virtually no economic activity - I'm all right, Jack. It's everyone else I worry about. I am semi self-sufficient now, and could be completely if necessary (I may have to eat grasshoppers, but it's good protein, so why not). 
Our current course of action will see everyone in the world becoming dependent on the largess of the likes of Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos and friends, because they will own _everything_. Do we trust them?


----------



## rafezetter (29 May 2020)

Trainee neophyte":1hsqsxez said:


> It would seem that the view is binary - full lockdown forever to save the world, or back to normal, and acres of dead bodies. There is actually a middle ground, which no one is recommending. We know that 95% of deaths occur in patients with "co-morbidities" ( I love the way the propaganda has created all this new jargon that everyone glibly throws around), and we know that no more than 2% of the population are at risk. Currently, 100% of the population are suffering the consequences of "saving" the 2%. Why? Every life is valuable beyond calculation, and no suffering is too much suffering, provided we save just one life. Except you don't get to be protected if you are a "key worker" - you get the entire street coming out to clap you as you go to work, to use social pressure to ensure that you don't stay at home and hide. A while ago I read that "The aristocracy shelter in their private estates and islands, the middle classes work safely from home, but the working class get out there and fight and die, for the benefit of those who have the wealth to rely on their status to hide and be safe". The world is not equal, and some don't have the luxury of isolating themselves.
> 
> *It seems to me that there is a third way - for the vast majority of people, the disease has little effect. For a third, no effect whatsoever. Why not allow full economic activity - back to normal in other words, but those who are at risk can, if they so choose, isolate themselves to whatever degree they deem necessary. In other words leave it to the individual. You are all individuals. (See my Monty Python clip above for more details).*
> 
> ...



In the ideal scenario I'm all for this - the problem as I stated above is I DON'T TRUST PEOPLE - people WITH the virus have been caught NOT self isolating because they felt thier need for whatever it was, was more important than the risk of spreading the virus.

Also in the UK at least when the schools all closed and the social distancing "stay at home" message began - a whole bunch of idiots all went on a jolly to the countryside, I wonder how many caught the virus those days or how many deaths resulted? So the PM said - "right you fu**wits - seeing as you clearly can't be trusted to use your judgement, I'm going to make it a mandatory lockdown".

Do you REALLY think it'll be any different second time around? I don't.

Unless those people who may otherwise show little symptoms, self test every day and can then provide PROOF they have self tested negative to any challenge in a public place - OR - every place where crowds gather have some sort of controlled entry point and are checked, such as is happening - but everywhere, and social distancing is fully maintained (which I've noticed many people not observing since the lockdown easing) then there's little alternative but to have what we have currently.

it sucks - I get it, and some people are really hurting financially, and some businesses and livelihoods have been and will be lost, but what other option is there?

Just open the floodgates like rorschach wants and "take your chances?" rorschach has proven that even among this small group of forum members, there are people in society for whom the fear of loss of personal wealth is greater than the care for the loss of a strangers life (as if we needed any more proof), because he's been maintaining the lockdown was unnecessary since the beginning, and STILL IS despite all evidence to the contrary, and I absolutely wouldn't trust rorschach and those of his ilk to have the social conscience to self isolate EVEN if he was ill - for all we know he could be a narcissistic sociopath who really doesn't GAF - plenty of those around. Now multiply up this forums membership to the size of the nations population and you have literally hundreds of thousands of people who are saying "nope really don't give a toss if they live or die as long as I'm OK".

So every person is then at risk, all over again. The question you have to ask yourself is "is he talking out of his rear end or is all that a possibility, even partially, based on previous recent evidence?"

I wish all this wasn't true because it would mean humanity is better than, and able to overcome, our naturally hostile nature when the chips are down, and mostly we seem to be, although it's sad it took a worldwide pandemic to get humanity to wake up to what was truly important in our lives and society after having forgotton all the lessons learned by our forebears only 75 years previously, and it's been quite heartening to see and hear the acts of kindness and community and things happening all over the world; such that maybe there's hope for us yet and mutual annihilation from war isn't our forgone fate; unfortunately it looks to me like there's still enough that are not playing the same game to give the rest of us a problem.

NATO was set up as a "never again" system after WW II - I hope the WHO gets a massive upgrade to become the deterrant for any viral threat, with significantly increased powers such that they can hold any country accountable if there is another cover up like wuhan.


----------



## Rorschach (29 May 2020)

woodhutt":1moqgoya said:


> Rorschach":1moqgoya said:
> 
> 
> > The worse it is now, the faster it gets better. I've said it all along, we won't save anyone from C19, but we can save those whose lives are being destroyed by the unnecessary lockdown.
> ...



Sorry but you are wrong there, you can't save people from C19, you can only delay.
Any country that has managed to keep the numbers of deaths low, NZ and AUS for instance has only delayed the inevitable and is now stuck in limbo, you can't open up the borders either in or out. NZ's economy is 25% tourism, what on earth do you do to replace that?

Of course the UK is going to suffer high deaths, we have an elderly, unhealthy, fat population. All those are risk factors for C19, they are also risk factors for death in general.

For those saying it is better to be poor and alive than rich and dead, you have obviously never been truly poor or lived in a poor country. If this goes on much longer you will see, though I suspect those saying that are elderly and relatively wealthy so don't need to worry, but your children and grandchildren will suffer.

Mark my words, in the end all countries will end up suffering similar % of fatalities (adjusted for demographics), they might happen now or they might happen in the coming months/years but they will happen. Those that stay in quarantine will suffer decades of economic hardship long after those they locked to save have died of other causes and then young will be left asking "what was it all for?" Then you will see the real trouble!


----------



## Rorschach (29 May 2020)

Trainee neophyte":3limbtar said:


> I wonder how much those with no skin in the game want everything shut down for their own safety, at the expense of everyone else, with no consideration of the consequences



This sums it up rather well. Those calling for lockdown won't suffer from it or are (possibly) protected by it. Their jobs will either continue after this is over, while they complain about how awful the country is now after lockdown, or they will have died of natural causes won't suffer the hardships to come.

This article is worth a read, for those that don't subscribe to the MSM brainwashing narrative anyway

https://thecritic.co.uk/were-all-in-the ... mbers-now/


----------



## doctor Bob (29 May 2020)

I'll meet peopleon middle ground on the arguement.
In my opinion the country needs to start opening up, as safely and quickly as possible.

However, there will be a lot of families (banging the drum for more furlough, more remain at home and no schools this year, keep business closed, there are plenty of them, go on facebook) who in 2 years time have lost their employment, heavily morgaged homes, lease car and living on universal credit, I'm sure that 3 month summer furlough won't look quite so appealing then.
Redundancy is starting to kick in now due to companies smelling the coffee and realising the rules of redundancy and time lines, June and july will be massive for unemployment.

This arguement about employers greed, is mental, it's not about greed it's about survival and keeping employment of employees. The biggest recession in history is coming. The young fit healthy kids are being screwed over.
People have mentioned "making money" on here as though it's a dirty illness, well lets also be frankly honest and say if you are obese (which seems to be a major issue with covid 19)) then glutteny has cost us all dearly (controversial and non PC, I accept, however I'm open minded and will listen to all arguements put forward by those upset, on the benefits of being grossly overweight). The sad thing is, the past 3 months have been such an opportunity to get healthier, IMHO the fit have got fitter and somehow the fat have got fatter.


----------



## Chris152 (29 May 2020)

Rorschach":8n86i6hg said:


> you can't save people from C19, you can only delay.


Isn't the point to try protect as many people as possible in the hope that a vaccine and / or therapeutic treatments can be developed? That's what I understood.


----------



## Rorschach (29 May 2020)

Chris152":2ag0mr2w said:


> Rorschach":2ag0mr2w said:
> 
> 
> > you can't save people from C19, you can only delay.
> ...



How long do you wait for that? A SARS COV1 vaccine has been in production for 8 years and we still don't have it, indeed we have never successfully managed to create a coronavirus vaccine for any strain.

And who are you protecting? Most of the people who will die from C19 will die before a vaccine could be developed. The young don't even need protecting.


----------



## Chris152 (29 May 2020)

It's possible that no vaccine or treatments can be developed; I don't think that makes the case for assuming that they won't and just letting the virus run through the population. Certainly most of the developed world seems to think it's worth delaying the spread as the search continues.


----------



## RogerS (29 May 2020)

Droogs":2t3qteja said:


> Rorsarch you are so full of effluent on this it almost literally brings tears to my eyes. Ask any person on this planet about this and they would all rather be poor and alive than rich and dead!



Succinctly put, my friend. The new forum troll has emerged.


----------



## Rorschach (29 May 2020)

I think you will find most of the world has been concentrating on making sure their health systems are not overloaded (that danger has long passed, indeed it never became much of a danger). Countries are now realising this is not a big deal and are starting to open up. Italy is open for tourism next week, Spain in a few weeks.


----------



## Droogs (29 May 2020)

Still spouting from your backside rorsarch. None of us know what it's like to be poor! as you say, well you have definately not read any of my early posts have you

When I joined this formum it was as I started to find my feet again after having lived for 18 months under a plastic sheet hidden in the bushes of a public park. No benefits of any kind given to me as not elligable as I had been working overseas for the UN working with refugees and the war crimes commission but none of that mattered regarding getting help once I was back. for all that time I ate regularly 3 times a week as that was when the Cyrenian's soup kitchen was open any other time was foraging in bins literally at the back of Greggs. Ididn't even own the clothes I was in as they had been donated to me. In that situation can't get a job as no address, can't get an address asno job etc. 
DO NOT SAY PEOPLE HAVE NO IDEA - YOU HAVE NO CLUE TO PEOPLES BACKGROUND. 

It was only because of the kindness of strangers that I made it through that period at all, so yeah far better poor than dead.

I wish you all the best and prosperity but you as far as I am concerned you are a heartless, selfish cad


----------



## Chris152 (29 May 2020)

Rorschach":126vxars said:


> I think you will find most of the world has been concentrating on making sure their health systems are not overloaded (that danger has long passed, indeed it never became much of a danger). Countries are now realising this is not a big deal and are starting to open up. Italy is open for tourism next week, Spain in a few weeks.


Surely that's in recognition of the need to have a functioning economy, the absence of which would also be disastrous - I've heard no reports that those countries consider the threat of the virus not to be a big deal. 
I think it's a good thing to consider possibilities, but it can be a bad thing to latch onto one of those possibilities and lose sight of the others that challenge it.


----------



## Rorschach (29 May 2020)

Droogs":2foo5fnn said:


> Still spouting from your backside rorsarch. None of us know what it's like to be poor! as you say, well you have definately not read any of my early posts have you
> 
> When I joined this formum it was as I started to find my feet again after having lived for 18 months under a plastic sheet hidden in the bushes of a public park. No benefits of any kind given to me as not elligable as I had been working overseas for the UN working with refugees and the war crimes commission but none of that mattered regarding getting help once I was back. for all that time I ate regularly 3 times a week as that was when the Cyrenian's soup kitchen was open any other time was foraging in bins literally at the back of Greggs. Ididn't even own the clothes I was in as they had been donated to me. In that situation can't get a job as no address, can't get an address asno job etc.
> DO NOT SAY PEOPLE HAVE NO IDEA - YOU HAVE NO CLUE TO PEOPLES BACKGROUND.
> ...



I am sorry to hear of your situation but glad you are doing better now. My question is, do you want to go back to that? What if that situation was the rest of your life from now on and there isn't food in the back of greggs to help because there are dozens of other people fighting for it?
Your situation was awful but you were able to get out of it because we had a system that allowed you to get back on your feet, what if we had a system that was making people poorer and homeless, do you think you would have been able to get help then?

I am not heartless or selfish, I might be a cad. I want the vast majority of people in country to be safe, happy, healthy and comfortable. I am willing to let a tiny fraction of very elderly people die a little bit early for that to happen. 10% of over 80's die every year regardless and we don't blink at that. 1% of the entire population dies every year, we don't blink at that. Saving lives at any cost is not realistic or sustainable.


----------



## doctor Bob (29 May 2020)

The outrage is strong today, yet merely a few days ago people were hoping the stupid would catch covid and die on this very forum!!!! Would it be as acceptable substitute "stupid" with fat or unhealthy or old, doubt it but who knows, you lot change the rules of engagement daily, seems to always be the case in these debates.
Is "morally outraged" contagious ...............


----------



## Andy Kev. (29 May 2020)

doctor Bob":2a7v3sht said:


> I'll meet peopleon middle ground on the arguement.
> In my opinion the country needs to start opening up, as safely and quickly as possible.
> 
> However, there will be a lot of families (banging the drum for more furlough, more remain at home and no schools this year, keep business closed, there are plenty of them, go on facebook) who in 2 years time have lost their employment, heavily morgaged homes, lease car and living on universal credit, I'm sure that 3 month summer furlough won't look quite so appealing then.
> ...


I fear that taking some sort of middle way is inevitable.

If you could give an individual the scenario of the choice of an assured death for him/her and a prostrate economy, I suspect that many would go for the latter and few would be altruistic enough to opt for their own death and the greater good. I don't criticise people for that as we are all human beings. OTH if I were a PM or President, I would realise that my position demands of me a certain capacity for dehumanisation i.e. I would almost certainly have to opt for a course which accepted a certain amount of deaths which could be dramatised as a _de facto_ decision to condemn a number of people to death. That has already happened in every country on the planet and it will continue to be the case.

The question is the extent to which any nation's voters accept their government's decision. I suspect that their is a reluctant and sad acceptance of that risk in most countries - but how do those feel who assess themselves as being in the assured death category? This pandemic represents one of the few sets of circumstances where I have a degree of sympathy for political leaders.

We have surely learned - or so you would hope - that complete lockdown can only ever be a short term measure and it can only ever be properly carried out if we have made advanced provision for it e.g. if, for instance, the country holds stocks of NBC respirators for every man woman and child. If that were the case and airports and ports had been closed down, the disease would have been completely stopped in 3 - 4 weeks.

But then you have to wonder why we don't do that for the flu? It might turn out that covid is essentially no worse than flu. Have we witnessed a case of international panic? We'll have to wait a while to be certain about what we have been dealing with.

What I am sure about is that the pandemic has brought out all the worst and best human traits. I'm utterly sick of arts and humanities graduate journalists pontificating about the matter as if they have spent the last decade in a virology laboratory and I'm equally sick of politicians trying to make politics out of it. The WHO has lost its name - deservedly so and in one of extremely few matters where I find myself agreeing with Trump - and should suffer a severe wave of sackings. And of course there have been the clueless rantings of the uninformed in general (served up on a silver platter here and in many other places).

All in all I think that it has been a depressingly ordinary extraordinary event in terms of H. sapiens' response to it. I'm just glad I've got some wood to plane.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (29 May 2020)

RogerS":2n5synty said:


> Droogs":2n5synty said:
> 
> 
> > Rorsarch you are so full of effluent on this it almost literally brings tears to my eyes. Ask any person on this planet about this and they would all rather be poor and alive than rich and dead!
> ...



Just as I thought how civilised things were without SuperTroll.


----------



## Chris152 (29 May 2020)

Andy Kev.":3p3t5u2v said:


> I'm utterly sick of arts and humanities graduate journalists pontificating about the matter as if they have spent the last decade in a virology laboratory and I'm equally sick of politicians trying to make politics out of it.


This discussion's as much about an ethical problem as it is about a virus. It reflects the issues being faced throughout the country. You don't generally turn to virologists to tackle ethical problems tho no doubt they might have stuff to contribute.


----------



## Andy Kev. (29 May 2020)

Chris152":2f8jxe0k said:


> Andy Kev.":2f8jxe0k said:
> 
> 
> > I'm utterly sick of arts and humanities graduate journalists pontificating about the matter as if they have spent the last decade in a virology laboratory and I'm equally sick of politicians trying to make politics out of it.
> ...


That hasn't stopped ill-educated clowns in the media repeatedly going off at half-cock and often without thought for the possible effects of their witterings. We can all consider ethics at leisure (something, incidentally from which I think we would all benefit, although the fewest seem to do it) but it is not something for the half-witted to do in the heat of a panicky public space. Moral philosophy is a matter for thoughtful and careful consideration. It is not something which lends itself to an "In case of emergency, break glass" response. It is also far too important to be purely the preserve of academics and media luvvies.


----------



## doctor Bob (29 May 2020)

RogerS":31c6axif said:


> The new forum troll has emerged.



The amazing thing is it's always you they seem to fall out with................. quite a curiosity, gotta be just coincidence.


----------



## Rorschach (29 May 2020)

Phil Pascoe":1vphd889 said:


> RogerS":1vphd889 said:
> 
> 
> > Droogs":1vphd889 said:
> ...



I prefer to think of myself as a controversialist or an agitator. There are clearly some here who don't have a grasp on the reality of life for the working classes. They are also hypocritical at one time saying people who go out should die but at another saying there is no limit to how much we should spend to save a life.

You might see me as a troll but I do confine my trolling to this post and people are free to ignore me if they wish. On other posts I try to be helpful and share what knowledge I have in a friendly manner. I should also note I have not been rude here, expect maybe a little bit to RogerS, but he started it! lol


----------



## Chris152 (29 May 2020)

Andy Kev.":3s95mvx3 said:


> It is also far too important to be purely the preserve of academics and media luvvies.


I do wonder what percentage of your posts _don't_ involve insulting what somebody else does for a living ak.


----------



## RogerS (29 May 2020)

Chris152":tmvdrydo said:


> .... *Certainly most of the developed world seems to think it's worth delaying the spread *as the search continues.


And as does anyone with an ounce of human compassion...clearly lacking in a certain quarter.


----------



## RogerS (29 May 2020)

doctor Bob":2z5wp4qa said:


> RogerS":2z5wp4qa said:
> 
> 
> > The new forum troll has emerged.
> ...



Nah...you're imagining things, Bobble.


----------



## selectortone (29 May 2020)

Rorschach":1vf24n5l said:


> Chris152":1vf24n5l said:
> 
> 
> > Rorschach":1vf24n5l said:
> ...



Without the lockdown The NHS would have been swamped. As it was, it was a close-run thing for a few weeks. Without the lockdown they would have run out of ventilators, oxygen, PPE and all the rest. The staff would not have been able to cope. Triage would have been the order of the day. People would have been left to die in ambulances, corridors hospital car parks and worse. 

Lockdown has allowed at least a semblance of order, belated as it was. Every week has allowed new systems of social distancing to be developed, further research into effective treatments, development of vaccines, etc., etc.

It's been a pain in the buttocks. I'm a widower, living alone and I have desperately missed my kids and my grandchildren. I have some solace in my workshop and my lathe, but I'm desperate for a hug from my little granddaughter. But like just about everyone I know, I will continue to put up with lockdown because of the lesser burden on the NHS and consequently, from an entirely selfish standpoint, the better chance I will have of surviving covid-19 if and when I catch it.


----------



## Lons (29 May 2020)

rafezetter":2qydcv1e said:


> Pretty sure I was saying this and calling him on out on having this viewpoint a month ago - I don't wish bankruptcy on anyone, but if you are still alive, you've got the chance to reverse it.
> 
> Dead, you don't.
> 
> I'm glad someone else now sees it - although I'll be honest I never actually expect rorschach to say it openly in such a callous manner - "we can't save them, so let's get back to making (me) money".


You're wasting your time, it isn't the first time he's said it and been challenged so he's not going to change his mind. He presumably has no parents who would now be elderly and vulnerable, or doesn't care for them or wouldn't have been suggesting as he did once before that they be allowed to die. As it happens he got his wish as many of those in care homes were turned away from the hospitals and didn't survive.

I don't know rorschach or what he does for a living but found his remarks callous, distasteful and the way he presented his personal opinions and google links as fact reminded me of another member who now has disappeared.


----------



## Andy Kev. (29 May 2020)

Chris152":29nmatcb said:


> Andy Kev.":29nmatcb said:
> 
> 
> > It is also far too important to be purely the preserve of academics and media luvvies.
> ...


I'm not bothered about what people do for a living as long as is not criminal or detrimental to others. I'm not even usually bothered if somebody does their job sub-optimally, unless it has damaging consequences for others.

However, the public space which is essentially political and medial, tends to be occupied by those whom we group under the umbrella of "the chattering class" and that involves politicians, media types, the quangocracy, academe and to an extent the legal profession. Were all of those people to drop dead tomorrow (God forbid: I do recognise them as my fellow human beings), they would go largely unmissed and unmourned (except by their immediate families) although the taxpayer would probably be grateful. A few who have genuine functions would have to be replaced in the short to medium term.

The problem with the chattering class is that they have little to do other than chatter. They certainly rarely get involved in anything that most of us would regard as productive or necessary. Every time I read of e.g. Oxbridge banning somebody or no platforming somebody else, I am reminded of the old adage that "The Devil makes work for idle hands". Personally I take the unimplementable view that there are certain positions which should only be open to people who can demonstrate at least ten years of productive labour in the real world beforehand.

And finally, one of the great saving graces of the British is that we do not take intellectuals seriously and are instinctively suspicious of them (cf the French who actually give them honours!) I don't dislike all intellectuals. For instance, I would heartily recommend the collected journalism of the late Anthony Burgess, everybody should be given a copy of _I Drink, Therefore I Am_ by the late Prof. Scruton and the reading of _God Is Not Great_ by the equally late Christopher Hitchens should be on the curriculum in all schools. All that said, we should remain deeply suspicious of people presenting themselves as intellectuals.


----------



## Chris152 (29 May 2020)

Ah, I see.


----------



## Andy Kev. (29 May 2020)

You quite possibly don't or don't want to but I live in hope.


----------



## Lons (29 May 2020)

Trainee neophyte":v1ms224n said:


> Currently, 100% of the population are suffering the consequences of "saving" the 2%. Why? Every life is valuable beyond calculation, and no suffering is too much suffering, provided we save just one life



You've overlooked the figures published by NHS England that the percentage of infected people dying with *no underlying conditions* is rising sharply and now at 5% of deaths in hospitals so not only the vulnerable and as certain ethnic groups are much more at risk, as indeed are men where do you draw the line?



> except you don't get to be protected if you are a "key worker" - you get the entire street coming out to clap you as you go to work, to use social pressure to ensure that you don't stay at home and hide.



That's crass and utter bulls*t, as you live in the middle of nowhere you have not experienced it so your opinion counts for nothing. We have a large number of family, friends and neighbours in the NHS and it very definitely is the opposite to what you say. Given your views you will be pleased no doubt to note it was probably the final time for most last night!

I'm not going to quote the rest TN but from that and previous posts it seems you have very large chips on your shoulders, must be heavy burdens to carry and in my opinion based on the many I know locally in agriculture I'd say " typical bl**dy farmer! :roll:


----------



## Rorschach (29 May 2020)

selectortone":251kz89w said:


> Without the lockdown The NHS would have been swamped. As it was, it was a close-run thing for a few weeks. Without the lockdown they would have run out of ventilators, oxygen, PPE and all the rest. The staff would not have been able to cope. Triage would have been the order of the day. People would have been left to die in ambulances, corridors hospital car parks and worse.
> 
> Lockdown has allowed at least a semblance of order, belated as it was. Every week has allowed new systems of social distancing to be developed, further research into effective treatments, development of vaccines, etc., etc.
> 
> It's been a pain in the buttocks. I'm a widower, living alone and I have desperately missed my kids and my grandchildren. I have some solace in my workshop and my lathe, but I'm desperate for a hug from my little granddaughter. But like just about everyone I know, I will continue to put up with lockdown because of the lesser burden on the NHS and consequently, from an entirely selfish standpoint, the better chance I will have of surviving covid-19 if and when I catch it.



NHS was nowhere near being swamped, we had ample space in ICU units and never even opened the fully equipped Nightingale hospitals. I am not saying we should have done nothing but we didn't need to do what we did, we could have managed perfectly well like Sweden.

I am sorry you are isolated and alone, if you were living in Switzerland you would be allowed to hug your granddaughter, the risk is absolutely tiny.


----------



## Rorschach (29 May 2020)

Lons":29orbxb0 said:


> You're wasting your time, it isn't the first time he's said it and been challenged so he's not going to change his mind. He presumably has no parents who would now be elderly and vulnerable, or doesn't care for them or wouldn't have been suggesting as he did once before that they be allowed to die. As it happens he got his wish as many of those in care homes were turned away from the hospitals and didn't survive.
> 
> I don't know rorschach or what he does for a living but found his remarks callous, distasteful and the way he presented his personal opinions and google links as fact reminded me of another member who now has disappeared.



My mother is 65, in good health and not fat, my step father is 88, been fighting cancer for the last 30 years but otherwise in excellent health, not fat. They have both already been exposed to C19 on a foreign holiday earlier this year, we don't know if they caught it, tests were not available then. Lockdown has turned what should have been a minor operation for him into something much more serious that might cost him his arm.
A 97 year family member died in a care home in early march from suspected C19.

That enough for you?


----------



## MikeG. (29 May 2020)

Rorschach":wnlwjbtz said:


> Chris152":wnlwjbtz said:
> 
> 
> > ONS stats show about 6-7% of UK population have so far been exposed to Covid 19. (Channel 4 news this evening.)
> ...



It isn't as straight forward as that. First of all "exposed to" doesn't mean "caught". Secondly, the death numbers lag many weeks (at least 4) behind the "had the disease" numbers, so you can't take the deaths and divide it into the number who have had the disease up to todays date, you have to take the deaths and divide it by how many people had the disease 4 or 6 weeks ago. Doing what you have just done mathematically makes the assumption that none of the people who have caught the disease in the last 4-6 weeks will die of it.


----------



## Rorschach (29 May 2020)

MikeG.":3ett1coi said:


> Rorschach":3ett1coi said:
> 
> 
> > Chris152":3ett1coi said:
> ...



If the death number lag at least 4 weeks, lockdown was pointless because the deaths peaked 2 weeks after lockdown started.

My number was only rough to make a point that it isn't 12% mortality as some are pushing. Go and watch one of the videos I posted where a German virologist puts the mortality rate at 0.25-0.34%, some others put it even lower than that.


----------



## MikeG. (29 May 2020)

Andy Kev.":3m5gqabf said:


> .........And finally, one of the great saving graces of the British is that we do not take intellectuals seriously and are instinctively suspicious of them (cf the French who actually give them honours!) I don't dislike all intellectuals. For instance, I would heartily recommend the collected journalism of the late Anthony Burgess, everybody should be given a copy of _I Drink, Therefore I Am_ by the late Prof. Scruton and the reading of _God Is Not Great_ by the equally late Christopher Hitchens should be on the curriculum in all schools. All that said, we should remain deeply suspicious of people presenting themselves as intellectuals.



Bizarre, Andy. Just bizarre.

It's the intellectuals who are doing the work on the vaccines etc as we speak. Imagining not having them as having zero consequences is nuts. The intellectual pursuit is actually what makes us human, and is the only thing which truly separates us from the other animals.


----------



## doctor Bob (29 May 2020)

Rorschach":2fxedgsj said:


> A 97 year family member died in a care home in early march from suspected C19.



Her whole life ahead of her ............ taken to early, God's a right barstard.


----------



## MikeG. (29 May 2020)

Rorschach":1t726t6b said:


> .......If the death number lag at least 4 weeks, lockdown was pointless because the deaths peaked 2 weeks after lockdown started............



You're just making stuff up. The date of peak deaths in the UK was the 21st April, and lockdown started 4 weeks previously on the 23rd March.


----------



## Rorschach (29 May 2020)

doctor Bob":55hlbnwe said:


> Rorschach":55hlbnwe said:
> 
> 
> > A 97 year family member died in a care home in early march from suspected C19.
> ...



The vicar actually said "untimely death" in the funeral! I think he meant because she had just been taken into care and got a bit confused in his messaging, it was one of the first video funerals and he seemed nervous.

On a serious note that might sound callous to some, it was a bit of a blessing for her. She lived in her own house until earlier this year, she was almost blind and had mild dementia. She was being cared for daily by her son which is what allowed her to stay in her house where she was happy. Her son died suddenly (aged 76) and she had to be moved into the care home where she rapidly deteriorated mentally and was getting very stressed because she couldn't see anything or find anything and had no independence, of course no family were allowed to visit either.


----------



## Rorschach (29 May 2020)

MikeG.":3udokfri said:


> Rorschach":3udokfri said:
> 
> 
> > .......If the death number lag at least 4 weeks, lockdown was pointless because the deaths peaked 2 weeks after lockdown started............
> ...



Peak death was April 8th.


----------



## MikeG. (29 May 2020)

Rorschach":11ah4j9n said:


> MikeG.":11ah4j9n said:
> 
> 
> > Rorschach":11ah4j9n said:
> ...



Like I said, you're making stuff up. 21st April 1172 people died. On the 8th, 1103 died. Even if you are talking about the 7 day rolling average, that peaked on the 10th April, but of course if you chose, for instance, a 3 or 5 day rolling average you would have a very different date. It's all well and good trying to make whatever argument you are trying to make, but you don't get to make unsustainable claims of fact. That's just lying.


----------



## Rorschach (29 May 2020)

MikeG.":3109xf27 said:


> Like I said, you're making stuff up. 21st April 1172 people died. On the 8th, 1103 died. Even if you are talking about the 7 day rolling average, that peaked on the 10th April, but of course if you chose, for instance, a 3 or 5 day rolling average you would have a very different date. It's all well and good trying to make whatever argument you are trying to make, but you don't get to make unsustainable claims of fact. That's just lying.



7 day rolling average is all that matters, there are peaks after each weekend due to reporting systems.
Last I read the peak was april 8th, ok if you are right it's april 10th, still not 4 weeks after lockdown is it?


----------



## doctor Bob (29 May 2020)

MikeG.":1x88py35 said:


> Even if you are talking about the 7 day rolling average, that peaked on the 10th April, but of course if you chose, for instance, a 3 or 5 day rolling average you would have a very different date.



Surely 7 day is best as per gov't advice due weekends. 3 and 5 days would be terrible to use.


----------



## Andy Kev. (29 May 2020)

MikeG.":2q53dycf said:


> Andy Kev.":2q53dycf said:
> 
> 
> > .........And finally, one of the great saving graces of the British is that we do not take intellectuals seriously and are instinctively suspicious of them (cf the French who actually give them honours!) I don't dislike all intellectuals. For instance, I would heartily recommend the collected journalism of the late Anthony Burgess, everybody should be given a copy of _I Drink, Therefore I Am_ by the late Prof. Scruton and the reading of _God Is Not Great_ by the equally late Christopher Hitchens should be on the curriculum in all schools. All that said, we should remain deeply suspicious of people presenting themselves as intellectuals.
> ...



While you are of course right in the fact that anybody using their brains to work is an intellectual by definition, I am using the word in a widely accepted but looser sense meaning those who are involved in "soft" academic matters e.g. philosophy, the arts and the study thereof, social sciences etc. Much of this activity is essentially pure self-indulgence. For instance, Roger Scruton, who I cited above, was a Professor of philosophy whose speciality was aesthetics and much of his work was thought provoking (I really would recommend the book I mentioned) but there's no doubt in my mind that society doesn't actually "need" such people in the sense that it desperately needs bin men, mechanics, train drivers, tailors etc.

Our mistake is to automatically give weight to the arguments of such people. Even worse are those of their number who themselves think that they are something special. The more pertinent point I was making is that now is not the time for them or their former pupils to be pontificating about the pandemic. The simple reason for this is that we won't be able to sensibly discuss it until it is over. Only then are we likely to be able to come to informed conclusions as to the nature of what is currently being regarded as a crisis. It has certainly been made into a crisis. 

I'm suggesting that we don't know yet whether that is justifiable or not. Therefore the chattering class or commentariat would do best to be very sparing with its commentary for the time being. 

A simple for instance: the govt. was initially tempted to lean to a herd immunity strategy. Then Prof. Ferguson's figures emerged and were instantly hailed - particularly by those who favour big govt. and who have political axes to grind - as being definitive. However, it now appears that his methods are likely to go down in academic history as some of the most flawed ever employed. The problem was not Prof F. (I think we have to assume that while his mistakes were massive, they were honest. In other words, he was just incompetent.) but rather the way the commentariat seized upon his ideas and the way in which the govt. let itself be influenced by them (how could it not, him being from Imperial College and all that). His cheerleaders seem to have become rather quiet.

This BTW does not vindicate the herd immunity approach. The point is that there have been too many people jumping the intellectual gun in public and proving (to me at least) that ... er ... they are not quite intelligent enough to be regarded as intellectuals.


----------



## doctor Bob (29 May 2020)

MikeG.":z0dwkon9 said:


> The intellectual pursuit is actually what makes us human, and is the only thing which truly separates us from the other animals.



and riding bicycles ................. oh hang on, chimps ..... Ok playing cricket.......... :wink:


----------



## selectortone (29 May 2020)

Rorschach":348v08ei said:


> selectortone":348v08ei said:
> 
> 
> > Without the lockdown The NHS would have been swamped....
> ...



Really? I must have imagined those reports night after night of wards rammed with seriously ill people and exhausted NHS staff pleading for more ventilators, oxygen, PPE etc.

I suppose you're going to tell me the evil mainstream media were making it all up :lol:


----------



## woodhutt (29 May 2020)

Rorschach":nfcddfua said:


> Sorry but you are wrong there, you can't save people from C19, you can only delay.
> Any country that has managed to keep the numbers of deaths low, NZ and AUS for instance has only delayed the inevitable and is now stuck in limbo, you can't open up the borders either in or out. NZ's economy is 25% tourism, what on earth do you do to replace that?



Sorry, but *you* are wrong there. By delaying the death of people from the disease you can await the development of a vaccine.
Oz and NZ are already in talks about reopening their borders to one another. Also, NZ had already identified its over-dependency on tourism before the outbreak of the pandemic and had resolved to address it. A four day week to promote domestic tourism is being seriously considered.
Your arguments appear to be based on an assumption that, if the virus is allowed to run its course and dispose of those at risk then the world can move back to where it was 5 - 6 months ago. This IMO will not happen. Whether better or worse, the world will be different. Perhaps this is a chance to make it a better one.
If that means a step back to a time before globalization (and mass tourism) so be it. Globalization has done nothing to improve the lot of most of the world's population other than to give some a more comfortable existence at the expense of other, poorer, countries. It and the mass movement of people, has also led to the ease at which this and other viruses have spread. The pandemic has further exposed the dangers of inter-dependency, whether it be for pharmaceuticals or foodstuffs.
If replacing NZ's tourism industry with other industries that promote more self-sufficiency then bring it on. 
Pete


----------



## Rorschach (29 May 2020)

selectortone":2b60yesw said:


> Rorschach":2b60yesw said:
> 
> 
> > selectortone":2b60yesw said:
> ...



Nope you didn't imagine it, there were hospitals in certain areas of London that got very close to being overwhelmed. If they had spread those patients around the country more though it wouldn't have been an issue. Plenty of hospitals have seen barely any C19 patients and are ghost towns because they cleared everyone else out.
The NHS as a whole has been absolutely fine, isolated pockets have struggled and things should have been handled better there, for a start once they built the Nightingale hospital in London they should have filled it with patients.


----------



## doctor Bob (29 May 2020)

selectortone":1feh4r08 said:


> I suppose you're going to tell me the evil mainstream media were making it all up :lol:



Do you think the media

a/ underplay a good story
b/ tell the absolute truth
c/ overplay a good story

I don't know but their record is not great. I hope it is b.


----------



## Rorschach (29 May 2020)

woodhutt":su8vgjs3 said:


> Rorschach":su8vgjs3 said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry but you are wrong there, you can't save people from C19, you can only delay.
> ...



Let's see how things pan out for NZ, I hope I am wrong, but I doubt I will be. Feel free to message me in 6 months, in 12 months etc and prove me wrong, I hope you can.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (29 May 2020)

A few thoughts:

Initially (before lockdown) transmission rates meant that cases and subsequent deaths were doubling every 3 days (approx). It is completely complacent to suggest that NHS was nowhere close to being overwhelmed - mass deaths etc were only a week away. It is worth noting that the death rate would have multiplied as those needing hospitalisation but not ventilation (eg supplementary oxygen) may not then have received treatment.

This is very much a disease of the vulnerable and old. For most (under 45??) I can fully understand why lockdown and the financial and emotional pressures have been so difficult.

For the vulnerable (includes me sadly) I am increasing drawn to the thought that it is more about personal risk management. Individuals who wish to minimise their own risks and isolate themselves should be supported in so doing broadly as now currently happens. The rest of the community, apart from properly respecting the right of some individuals to isolate, should be able to live largely as before the pandemic - restaurants, bars, cinemas, sports etc etc. 

Vulnerable individuals can decide for themselves what level of risk they find acceptable - eg: I may be happy having a beer outside in a pub garden, but not inside a crowded bar. I may go to the local beach during the week outside school holidays, but not at the weekend or in school hols. I will carry on with the joy of online shopping, but will briefly visit the local baker for a fresh baguette.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (29 May 2020)

Today went as well as can be expected, I suppose. At least we are all still taking, sort of.

A question: is the lockdown in p!ace to save lives, or allow the NHS respite? The original assumption was many more cases, many more extreme adverse reactions, and many more deaths. They emptied out the hospitals and dumped seriously ill people on care homes, who were obviously not equipped to deal with it. As per the BMJ, two thirds of care home deaths can be attributed to non-covid19 causes. Was that done to save lives, or save the NHS?

The propaganda du jour is that it has all been done to keep the public safe. Is that true, or just a fig-leaf to cover a very pragmatic problem - NHS lack of capacity? I'm not criticising the NHS staffing levels - it would be insane to keep enough employees in hand to cope with a one-in-a-hundred-year problem. But do we cower under our beds in the hope of saving one more life, or in the hope of the creaky system tottering on until the case levels drop, once enough people have caught the disease?

It strikes me how few people here interested in looking to the future. For me, the whole point and purpose of these types of conversation is to try work out what happens next, and how to deal with it. What actions to take, what to avoid, what is true, what is false. I suppose I use everyone as a sounding board, with car-crash results on occasion (for which I am truly sorry, really). But, what comes next? No one cares? As long as someone else provides food and electricity to run the bandsaw, we're all good? 

Something I learned today, much to my surprise: the US federal reserve in March reduced the need for banks to hold 10% of assets as reserves to zero. In other words, theoretically a bank could now create an infinite amount of money, at no cost, and with no consequences. In theory, that is. UK currently has no reserve requirement either, but being the UK it is all done with "gentlemen's agreements" and "my word is my bond", so it's all a bit more opaque. I'm trying to work out if this is astonishingly dangerous, or irrelevant. Galloping inflation and madness, or business as usual? Answers on a postcard.

So, two questions, really: one - are we saving lives, or the NHS? Two: what comes next, over say the next two years? Any views?


----------



## Rorschach (29 May 2020)

Terry - Somerset":1gf8xsgg said:


> This is very much a disease of the vulnerable and old. For most (under 45??) I can fully understand why lockdown and the financial and emotional pressures have been so difficult.
> 
> For the vulnerable (includes me sadly) I am increasing drawn to the thought that it is more about personal risk management. Individuals who wish to minimise their own risks and isolate themselves should be supported in so doing broadly as now currently happens. The rest of the community, apart from properly respecting the right of some individuals to isolate, should be able to live largely as before the pandemic - restaurants, bars, cinemas, sports etc etc.
> 
> Vulnerable individuals can decide for themselves what level of risk they find acceptable - eg: I may be happy having a beer outside in a pub garden, but not inside a crowded bar. I may go to the local beach during the week outside school holidays, but not at the weekend or in school hols. I will carry on with the joy of online shopping, but will briefly visit the local baker for a fresh baguette.



Sadly it seems there are a lot of people that cant seem to manage that simple task and require precise instructions. It makes you wonder if they have a little instruction manual on how to wipe their own buttocks.
Personal risk management is something we should all be doing everyday but it seems we can't or think we can't and the elites think we can't be trusted anyway. They call the young generation snowflake but it's the middle aged too especially among the middle classes.


----------



## MikeG. (29 May 2020)

Rorschach":i0n8r5nm said:


> .........Personal risk management is something we should all be doing everyday but it seems we can't...........it's the middle aged too especially among the middle classes.



You haven't got any evidence of this. Yet another unsubstantiated claim.


----------



## Rorschach (29 May 2020)

Trainee neophyte":16zzgiaq said:


> So, two questions, really: one - are we saving lives, or the NHS? Two: what comes next, over say the next two years? Any views?



Saving the NHS which they assumed can't cope, even though it could, but more importantly saving the image of the NHS lest we realise that is a totally inadequate, bloated drain on public finance . My views on the NHS were not popular before so I won't air them again but it is in serious need of reform if we have such a dim view of it that we need to tank the economy in order to save it's public image.


----------



## Rorschach (29 May 2020)

MikeG.":vhp3pds4 said:


> Rorschach":vhp3pds4 said:
> 
> 
> > .........Personal risk management is something we should all be doing everyday but it seems we can't...........it's the middle aged too especially among the middle classes.
> ...



Take one look at facebook and you will see. Case in point, radio2 this lunchtime, chap phones in about the new guidelines on meeting 6 people. He said "my daughter and husband have 3 children, so with me and my wife that makes 7, does that mean we can't see them?" :shock: 
If you are that dumb that you can't make a sensible decision about that and need to ask someone then I weep for humanity.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (29 May 2020)

MikeG.":2soevdl8 said:


> You haven't got any evidence of this. Yet another unsubstantiated claim.



Every time I see a government spokesperson give the latest advice, it is followed by talking heads denigrating the advice by asking "but what if my brother-in-law's ex wife wants to do some shopping, and I need to fill up the petrol tank?", or other facile, not-quite-ticking-all-the-boxes scenario. The media demand spoon-feeding of every possible permutation, and claim government incompetence when it isn't forthcoming. At least, that is my perception from what I see on the BBC - it may be different for those actually inside Blighty.

My Life of Brian balcony scene seems as apposite as ever. (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QereR0CViMY in case you missed it).


----------



## MikeG. (29 May 2020)

Rorschach":z8eoc7la said:


> MikeG.":z8eoc7la said:
> 
> 
> > Rorschach":z8eoc7la said:
> ...



That's it? That's the best you've got? Really, that needs a big laughing dog emoticon. I said "evidence". I didn't say "confirmation-biased tittle tattle on social media". I'm not really surprised that you don't know the difference.


----------



## Rorschach (29 May 2020)

MikeG.":3ga92r06 said:


> That's it? That's the best you've got? Really, that needs a big laughing dog emoticon. I said "evidence". I didn't say "confirmation-biased tittle tattle on social media". I'm not really surprised that you don't know the difference.



:lol: 
What were you expecting, a study and a graph? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

You must have looked really hard to find something to pull me up on.


----------



## MikeG. (29 May 2020)

Rorschach":nahee7w2 said:


> MikeG.":nahee7w2 said:
> 
> 
> > That's it? That's the best you've got? Really, that needs a big laughing dog emoticon. I said "evidence". I didn't say "confirmation-biased tittle tattle on social media". I'm not really surprised that you don't know the difference.
> ...



A link to some evidence. You know, in the normal way.



> You must have looked really hard to find something to pull me up on.



No, there's unsubstantiated nonsense in many of your posts on this subject.


----------



## Rorschach (29 May 2020)

MikeG.":1d6incrl said:


> No, there's unsubstantiated nonsense in many of your posts on this subject.



But you point out the one that was obviously an anecdotally based opinion (with HYPERBOLE :lol: ) instead of the ones you knew had facts, studies, articles and scientists to back them up. Because then of course you would have to work hard to find something to refute it instead of being able to be all high and mighty :roll: :lol:


----------



## MikeG. (29 May 2020)

You could maybe read the 3 or 4 posts in this little series and see how silly this looks. You made a claim, I said you'd got no evidence, you said "look at Facebook". You didn't say "no, I haven't, but I've got some anecdotes..." or "I was was just being hyperbolic" (there was nothing whatever about your claim which was hyperbolic. You just decided to slander middle class people). No, you said "look at Facebook...."

There's a reason I stay away from this thread. I really should stick to that.


----------



## nev (29 May 2020)

If you lot cannot be civil and not have personal digs at other members then this lot goes in the bin.

When we try and be lenient with the politics rule it always ends up in handbags and oneupmanship.

grow up, learn to ignore trolls, idiots and pedants or go somewhere else.


----------



## RogerS (29 May 2020)

Trainee neophyte":1nvvdt5w said:


> .....
> So, two questions, really: one - are we saving lives, or the NHS? ....



The two go hand-in-hand. Covid-19 has significantly higher morbidity than seasonal flu. Which places a significantly higher load on the NHS. We've already forum'd this out ad nauseam...it was this realisation (finally) and that the necessary parameters to reflect this had not been plugged into Ferguson's model. It's also more infectious than seasonal flu.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (29 May 2020)

RogerS":9k0d65i9 said:


> Trainee neophyte":9k0d65i9 said:
> 
> 
> > .....
> ...



However, only a very limited number of people (+/- 2% of the population) are at risk - for everyone else, it's all somewhat to completely irrelevant. Why not isolate just them?


----------



## RogerS (29 May 2020)

Trainee neophyte":xrdmqyyv said:


> RogerS":xrdmqyyv said:
> 
> 
> > Trainee neophyte":xrdmqyyv said:
> ...



LOL...are you serious ? How do you know who the 2% are?


----------



## Trainee neophyte (29 May 2020)

RogerS":108gcepd said:


> LOL...are you serious ? How do you know who the 2% are?



95% of deaths have co-morbidities. Not rocket science. Hardly beyond the abilities of our genius medical professionals, you would think.

Besides, my personal preference would be to leave it to the individual - make your own choice as to whether or not to self-isolate. Of course, this means all the wealthy hide, and the working poor drop like flies because they have no choice. Perhaps it should be mandatory, if you want to not overwhelm the services. Pretending to be acting in the best interests of the individuals concerned does seem to be a bit disingenuous, when it patently isn't the motivation.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (29 May 2020)

I wonder whether there are parallels with exploration of the new world (America) a few centuries ago. Whole tribes were wiped out by infections to which explorers had some degree of resilience - mumps, chicken pox, syphillis.

CV-19 had the potential as a new virus to do similar to the global population. We now have a much more confident handle on the groups impacted, risks etc. We also have a whole load of cultural and behavioural baggage which largely defines how we react.

Only 1% of all CV-19 deaths relate to those under 45. Going back to the old normal may be more dangerous for this group with increased road accidents, drugs, alcohol, knives etc etc.

Thus the lockdown has everything to do with the preservation of the elderly, particularly those with co-morbidities. Had lockdown not happened, given R0 of 2.5-3.0, I am certain that the NHS would have been quickly overwhelmed. Irrespective of personal beliefs about death and the preservation of life, it would be a truly unpleasant sight to behold - mass graves, burial wagons touring the streets each morning to pick up the departed etc etc.

Whether the preservation of life at all costs (cultural baggage) is something that we should strive for I believe is questionable. Many of us would rather put down a valued and loved pet, having no desire to prolong its suffering. Yet we treat other animals (homo sapiens) worse than animals. I accept this is a very personal issue with deeply held views and I have no wish to offend.

But this does mean that the more vulnerable in society need to have the right to choose their own risk appetite and not be bound by arbitrary central rules. The rest of society need only do what is reasonably required to enable people to make those choices.


----------



## Lons (29 May 2020)

Rorschach":3hxah09g said:


> My mother is 65, in good health and not fat, my step father is 88, been fighting cancer for the last 30 years but otherwise in excellent health, not fat. They have both already been exposed to C19 on a foreign holiday earlier this year, we don't know if they caught it, tests were not available then. Lockdown has turned what should have been a minor operation for him into something much more serious that might cost him his arm.
> A 97 year family member died in a care home in early march from suspected C19.
> 
> That enough for you?


Sorry to hear about the death of your family member, who's to say she wouldn't have lived to be well over a hundred and pleased your parents are ok but saying they're not fat and healthy just means that even though they reduced the risk they were lucky, not so lucky was a friend of our extended family who died very suddenly 2 weeks ago, cause was corvid 19 / seriously low oxygen blood levels, she was an extremely fit 62 year old with absolutely no underlying conditions. My 93 year old MiL is in a care home, definitely not fat :roll: but has asthma and other conditions, not her fault as she's never smoked and has lived a healthy life, remember IS NOT FAT but tested positive a few days ago, we can only hope it's a false result as she has no symptoms.

Your attitude and previous posts still stink!


----------



## RogerS (29 May 2020)

Trainee neophyte":15bwuk4o said:


> RogerS":15bwuk4o said:
> 
> 
> > LOL...are you serious ? How do you know who the 2% are?
> ...



Stringing a random selection of words together does not make a coherent post. You're back on lockdown !


----------



## Lons (29 May 2020)

Trainee neophyte":3vbk7e0m said:


> However, only a very limited number of people (+/- 2% of the population) are at risk - for everyone else, it's all somewhat to completely irrelevant. Why not isolate just them?


So in the UK it's widely reported that from the start of the outbreak to current there appear to have been more than 60,000 excess deaths over what would be expected based on historical averages over a number of years and although it's also unlikely these were all corvid related there is little doubt among reasonable people that this figure would have been much higher had it not been for isolation.
That's not just a number TN it's lives that were lost, many far too early, lockdown should have come earlier and been more strict, the bulk of Joe Public are like sheep and as thick as pigsh*t.


----------



## doctor Bob (29 May 2020)

Lons":2zh6idex said:


> That's not just a number TN it's lives that were lost, many far too early, lockdown should have come earlier and been more strict, the bulk of Joe Public are like sheep and as thick as pigsh*t.



I take it you consider yourself superior to joe public (good for you), obviously the majority of us normal folk on the forum must count as joe public or at least some of us?

Mine you theres a lot on here which think they are a bit clever (the side effect seems to be anger and the need to start arguements).


----------



## doctor Bob (29 May 2020)

RogerS":3ly5peh1 said:


> You're back on lockdown !



You sure your not Jacob, you used to question why he kept unlocking people.
Either keep him on ignore or stop banging on about locking him down.


----------



## Lons (29 May 2020)

doctor Bob":21qaocjr said:


> I take it you consider yourself superior to joe public (good for you), obviously the majority of us normal folk on the forum must count as joe public or at least some of us? .



Far from it Bob and I think you know better than that as you've read some of my posts going a long way back.

I'm from a working class family, brought up in a council house and we had very little, father was a miner but with 9 kids had to work damn hard and I learned from that. Everything I ever achieved was off my own back and I've had some hard times as well as good ones including my own business, not so different from yourself I would think!


----------



## doctor Bob (29 May 2020)

Lons":1z27cq9l said:


> doctor Bob":1z27cq9l said:
> 
> 
> > I take it you consider yourself superior to joe public (good for you), obviously the majority of us normal folk on the forum must count as joe public or at least some of us? .
> ...



That's what I thought, I'm not trying to be clever. I just think it's a bit of a harsh statement. I think a small minority f**k it up for the many, rather than the bulk being thick. Plus the media like to over egg the numbers flouting the lockdown, false images etc.


----------



## Rorschach (30 May 2020)

doctor Bob":xzapvpmx said:


> That's what I thought, I'm not trying to be clever. I just think it's a bit of a harsh statement. I think a small minority f**k it up for the many, rather than the bulk being thick. Plus the media like to over egg the numbers flouting the lockdown, false images etc.



Absolutely bang on, the vast majority of people are good people, reasonably intelligent, kind, hard working and just want to live a comfortable life with happy friends and family. All we hear though are the vocal minority or the exceptions pointed out by the media in order to enrage us or manipulate us.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (30 May 2020)

Ok, so no one wants to go against the concept of compete lockdown, "for the public good". No problem.


RogerS":39bgx8h4 said:


> Stringing a random selection of words together does not make a coherent post. You're back on lockdown



Perhaps (addressed mainly to those who can actually see this), you might care to have a go at my second question: what's going to happen over the next two years? I've put my money (quite literally) on a deflationary shock, followed by print-to-infinity government currency expansion madness. I think we are in for a ten year depression. I would love someone to explain why I am wrong, and that the world is going to be a better, happier place. Especially where countries remain locked up for the next two years or so.

Anyone?


----------



## Chris152 (30 May 2020)

Trainee neophyte":7u3i14ti said:


> Perhaps (addressed mainly to those who can actually see this), you might care to have a go at my second question: what's going to happen over the next two years?


I guess it depends what the boffs in white coats can come up with? Deep recession or serious depression depending on whether they're successful or not?


----------



## worn thumbs (30 May 2020)

I think the official hints from the Bank of England are sufficient to tell us what might be ahead.Its also pretty clear that much of the retail world is built on pretty frothy foundations.We clearly need supermarkets,do we need vape shops and nail salons?Will we continue to flock to car showrooms for three year personal lease deals?I agree with TN that inflating our way through this is almost inevitable.


----------



## Rorschach (30 May 2020)

Trainee neophyte":3me8ez2c said:


> Ok, so no one wants to go against the concept of compete lockdown, "for the public good". No problem.



You have seen my posts right? That's one of things I have got the most flak for.


----------



## Chris152 (30 May 2020)

I don't think anyone's suggesting we don't come out of lockdown, it's a question of how, when and with what resources in place? 

'Prof Edmunds, from the London School of Tropical Hygiene and Medicine and a member of Sage, said the levels of the coronavirus were still "very high" and many scientists would rather the number of cases declined before measures were relaxed.
Sir Jeremy Farrar, director of the Wellcome Trust and a member of Sage, said on Twitter that Covid-19 is "spreading too fast to lift lockdown in England" and NHS test and trace "has to be fully working and infection rates have to be lower" [...]
The documents also showed only half of people isolate for seven days when they become sick.'
This morning - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52858392

Getting it wrong will lead to increased loss of life and more damage to the economy as we lock down again.


----------



## Rorschach (30 May 2020)

Do you think another lockdown would be accepted? I don't, especially as more and more people are starting to realise the damage it has caused for a rather debatable purpose. I think a second attempt at lockdown would be roundly ignored. The weather is perfect for rioting.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (30 May 2020)

I think a second full lockdown would be most unlikely to work.

The government will be withdrawing many of the key support schemes - eg: furlough, self employed. Others will cause major stress if not extended - mortgage holidays, bounce back loans, eviction bans, etc etc.

I do not believe they will want to (or could) afford to restart them. Schemes probably benefit well over 10m people - 8.4m are furloughed at the moment.

So if there is a second peak - possible as the lockdown has been relaxed before test track and trace is proven - they will rely upon the elderly and vulnerable to isolate themselves, and everyone else to take their chances. Some measures may be implemented as they have more limited economic impacts and and are easier - eg: reinforce distancing messages, close large events (sports, cinemas, theatres) etc.

As the health impacts are so skewed by age, the NHS may be able to cope with the spread of the virus amongst the mostly younger economically active anyway.


----------



## Rorschach (30 May 2020)

I agree Terry and personally I am in favour of large gatherings being cancelled for quite some time yet, things like football matches or concerts are way down the list in terms of essential activities either in terms of economics or social cohesion.

Regarding a second peak, I think this term is bandied around far too much with no context, same as second wave. Can't stand either of them. What defines a wave and what defines a peak? If we had 10 deaths a day every day for the next months and then one day we had 12 deaths that is a second peak and an increase of 20%, but it's totally meaningless. The previous peak was somewhere in the region of 1200 deaths per day (incidentally almost exactly the same as the daily death average for any given year), I think it impossible that we will see that many deaths per day again, so at what point do we qualify a second peak, any increase at all?
The regions are bound to get an increase in deaths now that lockdown is lifting, the epidemic was primarily focused on London, as one would expect, now it is going to spread out across the country a bit more evenly. Do we then shutdown again because of this second peak? In theory those areas never had a first peak/wave, the South West has seen only a handful of cases that can barely be described as a wave.
As an aside, the south west has the oldest population demographic (I am pretty certain of that anyway). If those elderly wish to protect themselves, as they probably should, then there is going to be an unofficial lockdown here for quite some time yet, at least for a large portion of the population.
There has been much made of getting people to stay away from the SW, who is promoting that message I wonder? Surely the people working in the tourism industries are the younger who have little to fear and should be encouraging tourism while the elderly protect themselves.


----------



## Andy Kev. (30 May 2020)

How about this for a scenario?

Lockdown ends but we maintain the use of face masks and distancing is maintained especially in restaurants, cafes etc. Subsequently wherever outbreaks start again, the smallest feasible area is subject to a renewed lockdown i.e. the disease is targeted locally. It would be a case of playing chase until a vaccine is developed but I can't see a sensible alternative.

And would it not be the case that if the disease kicked off nationally again, it could not gain such a hold precisely because by still using masks and keeping distance, it will be a bit harder for it to spread?

As TN implies above, we simply cannot afford to create an economic wasteland. At the same time we have to do what we can to contain the disease.


----------



## Rorschach (30 May 2020)

The problem with that Andy is that for some businesses social distancing is impossible if they want to continue to function.

My solution would be basically the same as I offered at the beginning of this almost 3 months ago.

Elderly and Vulnerable to shield at home (voluntarily of course).
Vulnerable who still work to be assessed by their GP and remain furloughed if not able to work from home.
Schools to re-open with mandatory sanitation before and after the school day, no items to be rough in from home or taken home such as books etc. All food to be in a disposable container.
No large gatherings, sports events, concerts etc.
Shops to maintain 1 metre social distancing where possible.
Workplaces to maintain social distancing where possible.
Work from home if you can.
Hospitals to re-open fully with wards set aside for C19 patients isolated from the rest of the building.


----------



## RogerS (30 May 2020)

doctor Bob":5zf7nnho said:


> RogerS":5zf7nnho said:
> 
> 
> > You're back on lockdown !
> ...



Whatever.


----------



## Andy Kev. (30 May 2020)

Rorschach":v0cwh34f said:


> The problem with that Andy is that for some businesses social distancing is impossible if they want to continue to function.
> 
> My solution would be basically the same as I offered at the beginning of this almost 3 months ago.
> 
> ...



I can see the thinking behind what you propose but measures would need to be closely looked at.

For instance, there might be a danger of "filing and forgetting" the elderly, voluntarily isolated. Efforts would IMO have to be made at local level for activities, day trips etc. specifically aimed at them, as well as opening hours in shops reserved for them. One would have to remember that they wouldn't be just doing themselves a favour but also the whole of society.

Secondly, while I can't see any justification for full sized crowds at recreational events e.g. football matches, perhaps a sensible kind of spacing could be maintained there to the effect of stadiums being e.g. 20% full.

Thirdly, people who can be shown to have had the disease should be identified so that if e.g. firms want to send people to conferences/meetings etc. then they send those who have had it.


----------



## Rorschach (30 May 2020)

I disagree on the activities etc for the vulnerable, that is not an important factor IMO at the moment, something to consider if this was to last longer than another 6 months maybe.

Maybe you could have lower capacity at stadiums, but is that workable in an economic sense? I wouldn't think but could be looked at.

Regarding people who have had the disease I am (at the moment) firmly against any kind of immunity passport type idea. Recent studies are showing very low levels of antibody for C19. Best theory at the moment is that only those who have a moderate to severe reaction are producing a full antibody response. Children, young and healthy adults and the asymptomatic appear to not be producing an antibody response and are instead showing a natural immunity or rather more likely their immune system is able to fight it off before it gets a hold, therefore negating the need for specific antibodies.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (30 May 2020)

RogerS":2nbj0l7b said:


> Whatever









(He can't see this, so a bit unfair to be taking the Micky)



Andy Kev.":2nbj0l7b said:


> Secondly, while I can't see any justification for full sized crowds at recreational events e.g. football matches, perhaps a sensible kind of spacing could be maintained there to the effect of stadiums being e.g. 20% full.



I don't know how their busines model works, but there is a good chance that it would lose less money by just not opening the gates. Similar with airlines and the nonsensical "distancing" rules, (which is mostly virtue-signalling government meddling). If you want a quarantine, have a quarantine. Public transport is not, and never will be a quarantine, no matter how many masks you wear. Businesses can't run at a loss just to provide a service which people feel they ought to be entitled to. At least, they couldn't until now - perhaps we live in a new era where government subsidy will provide. It's worked for the banking system for the last ten years - time to expand the quantative easing regime to the entire economy. What could possibly go wrong?


Rorschach":2nbj0l7b said:


> You have seen my posts right? That's one of things I have got the most flak for.



Lonely voices crying in the wilderness - you and me both  I was addressing the consensus, not the loonie fringe (and we both know who that is).


----------



## Terry - Somerset (30 May 2020)

Any route out of the crisis needs to have regard for the whole community - not for particular groups at the expense of others.

The economically active need to return to normal activity. Workplaces and facilities (shops, restaurants, schools, theatre, public transport etc etc) need to be adapted to meet acceptable CV-19 standards. 

Those which are not able to do so will fail and go out of business. There is a large unknown with respect to how the new normal will differ from the old, and this should (over time) create new opportunities.

The only justification for government subsidy is to protect key infrastructures (capability or skills), or where it is expected that further easing of guidance will soon enable businesses to restart. 

The vulnerable should be able to decide for themselves the level of isolation and distancing they are comfortable with. Provision needs to be made to allow this - eg: online shopping priority, dedicated time slots etc. It is quite unacceptable to marginalise parts of society through a failure to accomodate their reasonable needs.


----------



## RogerS (30 May 2020)

Says it all, really.


----------



## RogerS (30 May 2020)

doctor Bob":z31l0cea said:


> Lons":z31l0cea said:
> 
> 
> > That's not just a number TN it's lives that were lost, many far too early, lockdown should have come earlier and been more strict, the bulk of Joe Public are like sheep and as thick as pigsh*t.
> ...



For God sake, Bobble, go and watch Idiocracy.


----------



## doctor Bob (30 May 2020)

RogerS":31jpqwrz said:


> For God sake, Bobble, go and watch Idiocracy.



too busy Roger, what is it?


----------



## Nigel Burden (30 May 2020)

RogerS":22yoq0qz said:


> Says it all, really.



Won't be going there any time soon although fairly local, it'll be heaving, and although the Lulworth Estate have a one way system in place, it's not really being adhered to, and the path is only about four feet in width.

Some idiots were injured today jumping off the Door :roll: , and a helicopter had to land on the beach, which had to be evacuated.

Nigel.


----------



## RogerS (30 May 2020)

doctor Bob":2itmecus said:


> RogerS":2itmecus said:
> 
> 
> > For God sake, Bobble, go and watch Idiocracy.
> ...



Go find out. Might open those eyes.


----------



## RogerS (30 May 2020)

Nigel Burden":19dzy0zr said:


> ....the path is only about four feet in width.



YUP...too thick to realise that they can socially-distance ALONG the path.


Nigel Burden":19dzy0zr said:


> Some idiots were injured today jumping off the Door :roll: , and a helicopter had to land on the beach, which had to be evacuated.
> Nigel.



Ah, Darwin Award candidates, then.


----------



## doctor Bob (30 May 2020)

RogerS":1d5rmkfo said:


> doctor Bob":1d5rmkfo said:
> 
> 
> > RogerS":1d5rmkfo said:
> ...



to what


----------



## Andy Kev. (30 May 2020)

Trainee neophyte":3oflcdts said:


> Andy Kev.":3oflcdts said:
> 
> 
> > Secondly, while I can't see any justification for full sized crowds at recreational events e.g. football matches, perhaps a sensible kind of spacing could be maintained there to the effect of stadiums being e.g. 20% full.
> ...



I wasn't so much thinking of sports clubs but more the people who might want to go and watch sporting events. Mind you, I wouldn't be in their number as it would seem to me to be taking a wholly unnecessary risk. It's the same thing for cultural events. I feel sorry for e.g. musicians who might be losing their jobs or seeing their careers going up in smoke (that's horrible irrespective of how you earn your money) but the unfortunate fact is that sport, arts and culture are all essentially leisure time activities and irrespective of how much pleasure they may give, they will be the first to the wall in such circumstances.

It's odd when you think about all the zillions of money involved in professional football and now we can get it in perspective as a fairly trivial activity.

The Germans are beginning to open their museums etc. but the numbers are controlled, masks must be worn and distances observed.

It might be a good time to be a successful author or to work in publishing though. I've read some books I wouldn't otherwise have had time for.


----------



## woodhutt (31 May 2020)

RogerS":1jlel878 said:


> Says it all, really.



I understand three of them jumped from the cliff top. Thanks for the pic. I always wondered what lemmings looked like. :lol: 
Pete


----------



## Rorschach (31 May 2020)

That picture is a classic example of a few idiots ruining life for the sensible majority, pretty much like some of members here really.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (31 May 2020)

Andy Kev.":30lw0efu said:


> I wasn't so much thinking of sports clubs but more the people who might want to go and watch sporting events. Mind you, I wouldn't be in their number as it would seem to me to be taking a wholly unnecessary risk. It's the same thing for cultural events. I feel sorry for e.g. musicians who might be losing their jobs or seeing their careers going up in smoke (that's horrible irrespective of how you earn your money) but the unfortunate fact is that sport, arts and culture are all essentially leisure time activities and irrespective of how much pleasure they may give, they will be the first to the wall in such circumstances



If Glastonbury festival were to be held this year, I guarantee it would be packed. That photo of Roger's shows lots and lots of young people, who are fully aware that they have nothing to be scared of - and they are in enforced lockdown entirely for the benefit of other people. Economics has been based for years on the idea that people _ only _ act in self-intetest, and it would seem that the younger generation can't find much benefit in lockdown, no matter how much FUD is thrown in their direction.


----------



## Andy Kev. (31 May 2020)

I think you're right in that people probably would flock to something like Glastonbury. OTH they would be a self-selecting group of people who don't give a toss. There might be a majority for a more selfless approach. What I think people really resent is the slightly unintelligent approach of the police. OTH the govt. like all its predecessors had no sensible plan. The latter is almost sure to emerge as a result of a much needed enquiry.

It seems to me that it is a matter of distinguishing in as liberal and relaxed way as sensibly possible of allowing things to provide as much normality as normal and not allowing things which represent an irresponsible risk.

The former means accepting a risk e.g. allowing cafes to open in "clear" areas which will inevitably lead to some deaths which would not otherwise have occurred i.e. relatively low numbers whereas the latter effectively means throwing in the towel and accepting any number of deaths that comes.

I reckon that it is still too early to be able to make an informed decision. We don't know and may never know how many people may have caught the disease but had mild or no symptoms* and we don't know how many people are naturally immune. We may eventually work out sensible figures for it and find out that it is actually less dangerous than e.g. flu.

*For example at the peak of infection rates where I live, one morning I felt a bit off colour for an hour or two, then developed a scratchy pain in my throat, felt a bit wobbly when I stood up but by 10 pm that day the symptoms had gone. Was that an example of mild symptoms of corona? I hope so but I certainly wasn't going to go to the doctor to try to find out and I work on the worst possible case that it wasn't and that I need to continue to be cautious.


----------



## Lons (31 May 2020)

RogerS":8hub0otn said:


> Says it all, really.



Exactly the same on the North East beaches and country walks around here Roger, traffic on the main road through the village is very heavy.

I was a bit harsh when I said "the bulk of Joe public were sheep and thick as pig sh*t". perhaps not bulk but they certainly aren't thin on the ground imho


----------



## worn thumbs (31 May 2020)

I have been extremely happy to roam further afield than the local streets and footpaths since the most stringent lockdown restrictions were lifted.I may have been lucky only to encounter thoughtful people making an effort to maintain social distancing.I was absolutely shocked when I saw the crowding on the beach at Durdle Door when two helicopters landed to deal with the lunatics who had injured themselves.My guess is that the NHS now has to deal with some physical injuries and will be braced for some more covid related admisssions.I hope nobody present in that crowd was infectious or we will soon be returning to a stricter lockdown.


----------



## Lons (31 May 2020)

Rorschach":3qqhq8qu said:


> That picture is a classic example of a few idiots ruining life for the sensible majority, pretty much like some of members here really.



I guess if the cap fits then you're wearing it! :wink:


----------



## Chris152 (31 May 2020)

Purely because it was mentioned - odd-looking scenario.


----------



## Rorschach (31 May 2020)

Lons":3lnhiwk1 said:


> Rorschach":3lnhiwk1 said:
> 
> 
> > That picture is a classic example of a few idiots ruining life for the sensible majority, pretty much like some of members here really.
> ...



I guess we both wear the same size then :lol:


----------



## Terry - Somerset (31 May 2020)

The media are hugely selective in the images and stories they publish to meet pre-conceived ideas of reality in order to sell newspapers, advertising etc etc.

It would be easy to assume that every beach was swarming with inconsiderate idiots spreading infection!

On Friday we went on a 40 minute drive to a local resort - something we often do for a few hours wandering along the promenade and maybe have lunch. 

Clear bue skies, 24 degrees, delightful. Car park only 1/3 full compared to normal. Social distancing of 5m + easily achieved depsite half term when it would normally be teeming. 

A neighbour who had taken a bike ride to some other higher profile local resorts reported almost no tourist traffic. 

Read and watch media reporting with real scepticism - it is not to suggest inconsiderate stupidity does not exist, but people behaving responsibly and with restraint does not make a profitable news story.


----------



## thetyreman (31 May 2020)

Terry - Somerset":d3r255wx said:


> The media are hugely selective in the images and stories they publish to meet pre-conceived ideas of reality in order to sell newspapers, advertising etc etc.
> 
> It would be easy to assume that every beach was swarming with inconsiderate idiots spreading infection!
> 
> ...



they use stock photography to sensationalise or exaggerate stories, e.g showing beaches packed but not even telling you it's from 4 years ago on the busiest day of the year.


----------



## Rorschach (31 May 2020)

thetyreman":2t3e5fpc said:


> they use stock photography to sensationalise or exaggerate stories, e.g showing beaches packed but not even telling you it's from 4 years ago on the busiest day of the year.



I caught someone on my facebook page doing that last week, using an image from a heatwave we had a few years ago and showing a really crowded beach, they claimed the picture was taken that day. I proved the picture was years old as did a few other friends, not only did they ignore our comments, they deleted them and kept on with the claim.


----------



## Andy Kev. (31 May 2020)

thetyreman":jk7x16f3 said:


> they use stock photography to sensationalise or exaggerate stories, e.g showing beaches packed but not even telling you it's from 4 years ago on the busiest day of the year.


I think that in general terms the media have on the whole been pretty disgraceful. Having decided that Corona was the only story on the planet, they inevitably came up against a vacuum of their own creating and presumably unimaginative editors demanded space fillers from their hacks.

I subscribe to the Telegraph and couldn't believe some of the rubbish that otherwise sensible journalists have produced. One or two have distinguished themselves by continuing to produce serious journalism but they seem mostly to have not been reporting directly on the crisis.

While I'm firmly against censorship of the press, I do think that it would be acceptable for standards to be imposed on them whether they like it or not i.e. they can say anything they want but in the case of publishing a stock photograph it should be compulsory for them to make it clear that it is such an indirectly related image. The compulsion could even go to the point of prescribing the type size they have to use to make such things clear.

I think that one of the curses of the media age is the 24 hrs rolling news cycle. If you think about it, all we need for Corona reporting is a half hour briefing (or one and a half sides of a newspaper) and the same again in the evening.


----------



## RogerS (31 May 2020)

Andy Kev.":3f5z2gj9 said:


> ......is almost sure to emerge as a result of a much needed enquiry.
> .....



Too damn right. I'd start by looking at all the minutes of meetings, exchange of emails etc at PHE over the last few years because I bet that there will be some good people there who raised 'insignificant things' such as lack of enough PPE, no pandemic planning whatsoever, only being able to test 5 x a day or a week..but being shouted down, brushed off etc. Simple solution...put them in charge now and sack all those who brushed them off.


----------



## RogerS (31 May 2020)

doctor Bob":7ytdg4oz said:


> RogerS":7ytdg4oz said:
> 
> 
> > doctor Bob":7ytdg4oz said:
> ...



Watch it and find out for yourself. Oh...sorry..forgot. You're too busy.


----------



## doctor Bob (31 May 2020)

RogerS":2ey5x34m said:


> doctor Bob":2ey5x34m said:
> 
> 
> > RogerS":2ey5x34m said:
> ...



Yes unfortunately 7 day working weeks at present. As the business has been on it's buttocks for 10 weeks and the biggest recession / depression in history is looming. So excuse my shortness with you but I really haven't got time to watch a film (I presume) to pick up on your cryptic clue about what you think of me.


----------



## Rorschach (31 May 2020)

doctor Bob":33kr8j5p said:


> I really haven't got time to watch a film (I presume) to pick up on your cryptic clue about what you think of me.



I have seen the film and I have no idea what he is on about :duno:


----------



## Trainee neophyte (31 May 2020)

Rorschach":hqv1u4co said:


> doctor Bob":hqv1u4co said:
> 
> 
> > I really haven't got time to watch a film (I presume) to pick up on your cryptic clue about what you think of me.
> ...



"Ouch! My balls!"

Or "It has electrolytes"

One or t'other.

[youtube]CsJFNQd62Wk[/youtube]


----------



## selectortone (31 May 2020)

thetyreman":1sfdb4yc said:


> Terry - Somerset":1sfdb4yc said:
> 
> 
> > The media are hugely selective in the images and stories they publish to meet pre-conceived ideas of reality in order to sell newspapers, advertising etc etc.
> ...



I live in Bournemouth, about 10 minutes walk from Southbourne beach. My daughter has been down there for most of the day and she said it wasn't particularly busy and those that were there were able to keep their social distance. They would have been almost entirely locals. From all accounts it's entirely different just a mile or so to the west around Bournemouth Pier. We call them grockles. Mindless pale fat tattooed morons double parking and in people's drives, who leave still smouldering barbecue trays, beer cans and all manner of detritus behind after them. You can usually rely on a few of them to get caught in a rip tide, or get blown out to sea in some kind of flimsy blow-up canoe which necessitates the calling out of the RNLI boat. I wouldn't feel too upset if covid-19 culled a few of them. Put it down to natural selection.


----------



## Lons (31 May 2020)

Rorschach":y8912vhr said:


> I guess we both wear the same size then :lol:


Nope I think your's is a few sizes larger.


----------



## Nigel Burden (31 May 2020)

selectortone":2qa7ycwc said:


> thetyreman":2qa7ycwc said:
> 
> 
> > Terry - Somerset":2qa7ycwc said:
> ...



Yes, the wife showed me a photo taken today of Bournemouth beach, and it was busy. It looks as if Durdle Door was busy again, and there were morons on top of the arch again today. The reference to discarded smoldering barbeques reminds me that Dorset and Wilts Fire and Rescue Service had six appliances dealing with a flair up again at the fire in the Wareham Forest twelve or thirteen days after the initial blaze.

Nigel.


----------



## Lons (31 May 2020)

The media in general is atrocious and as said only interested in a story at all costs. There is little doubt that some use stock or doctored images and distortion of the truth however that certainly doesn't mean all the stories are fabricated.
I view comments from all politicians with scepticism, I don't subscribe to any newspapers and treat all stories especially on social media with suspicion until I can be reasonably sure they have some substance so what I said about id-iots gathering and ignoring distancing is from what I've witnessed personally along with the experiences of my immediate family.

We had visitors this afternoon (sitting apart in the garden of course) and they said that a journey that takes them usually 20 minutes took almost 45 due to volume of traffic. Some places are quiet others are as busy as they were before lockdown, as I said sheep and thick as pigsh*t.


----------



## RogerS (31 May 2020)

Lons":1h19sk8w said:


> ....as I said sheep and thick as pigsh*t.



Careful now otherwise you will get Boble all frothed up in a lather again. 

We seem to have been besieged by townies looking for Crammel Linn, the waterfall. And because, to the best of my knowledge, it doesn't have a postcode then their wee smartphones are of little use. Of course, they don't have a proper map or if they did would hold it upside down as they don't know how to use it.

So, what do they do ? They stop and ask someone from the village where it is. The reply ?.. Onto the No Through road up where we and a few others live. I say No Through road..actually the road goes on up into the Western extremity of the Kielder Forest but they don't get very far as the gates are locked (unless you 'know' the way around them :wink: ). So they turn round and stop at the first place to ask directions. Us. So I tell them...

Go back down to the village and turn left. Under the railway bridge. Keep going until you hit the next T-junction. Turn left and keep on going until you see the sign. 

Lons and Sam will know it as the Military Road...totally wrong direction. :twisted: 

I could understand the interest but don't they look at the weather FFS ? We've not had any rain for months. The Irving is a dribble. There IS no waterfall.


----------



## Lons (31 May 2020)

RogerS":3b34u3ez said:


> Go back down to the village and turn left. Under the railway bridge. Keep going until you hit the next T-junction. Turn left and keep on going until you see the sign.
> 
> Lons and Sam will know it as the Military Road...totally wrong direction. :twisted:


Hey I hope you said travel west on the military road so they head for the M6 rather than Newcastle.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (1 Jun 2020)

The ongoing search for pearls buried in all the detritus has led me to this: https://swprs.org/studies-on-covid-19-lethality/

I'm not going to make any claims about the accuracy and honesty of the data, but there are lots and lots of different studies collated here for all the fact checkers to get their teeth into. Important takeaways for me are that

1) the IFR is lower than reported, and only marginally higher than influenza (not my claim - it's an average of a series of different studies which comes to 0.278%)

2) the infection rate in the general population is _much higher_ than reported, 

3) the median age of death is over 80.

In their words, "Swiss Policy Research (SPR), founded in 2016, is an independent, nonpartisan and nonprofit research group investigating geopolitical propaganda in Swiss and international media. SPR is composed of independent academics and receives no external funding."

Please note that I have put this here to stimulate conversation, and see where it all ends up - food for thought, etc. It is not my specific intention to make Roger as angry as possible. Perhaps we could proceed on that basis?


----------



## Rorschach (1 Jun 2020)

Trainee neophyte":dykzmww8 said:


> The ongoing search for pearls buried in all the detritus has led me to this: https://swprs.org/studies-on-covid-19-lethality/
> 
> I'm not going to make any claims about the accuracy and honesty of the data, but there are lots and lots of different studies collated here for all the fact checkers to get their teeth into. Important takeaways for me are that
> 
> ...



That IFR rate is nearly identical to that posted by the German virologist in one of the videos I posted.


----------



## Andy Kev. (1 Jun 2020)

TN,

I think that your last post above confirms the instincts I've had from the start of this to the effect that we won't be able to talk sensibly about it until it is all over or until the masses of data collected have been analysed.

There have been a lot of people in politics, the media and on here making firm pronouncements about it. I have the impression that few of them were qualified to make any sort of sensible pronouncement on the matter. 

And then of course there are attempts to politicise it by attacking/supporting the govt. IMO it's really not a political matter. The country was caught unprepared because no govt. of any political colour is prepared to sink money into providing for something that might happen one day but hopefully not in this parliament and there are no votes in it anyway. That is now likely to change as making provision for the next pandemic will be politically sellable.

In short the politics seems to be a matter of the will to act which itself is dependent on circumstances but the actual provision is a matter of medical logistics, something which I think I'd rather trust to the medical services of the Armed Forces than the NHS. Give the money to the former. They will spend it more efficiently and solely for its intended purpose.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (1 Jun 2020)

Andy Kev.":ro5nfhzk said:


> I think that your last post above confirms the instincts I've had from the start of this to the effect that we won't be able to talk sensibly about it until it is all over or until the masses of data collected have been analysed



Data is now coming in, lots and lots of it, so there is opportunity to consider whether assumptions are holding up, whether actions need to be taken, etc. Whilst all of that is above my pay grade, it is also important that someone pays attention to what the data is saying, as opposed to what the agreed-upon narrative is claiming the data is saying. Just getting to the data is hard, because of so many vested interests.

For example, our good friend Nial Ferguson has a bit of a history when it comes to apocalyptic scenario projecting: he seems to have learned early in his career that he gets much more funding if he extrapolates megadeaths and disaster. https://www.aier.org/article/how-wrong- ... s-and-why/ . Is anyone actually questioning the lack of correlation between the paper which caused the lockdown, and the reality we currently have? Is there good correlation? The stuff I linked to suggests not, but the shrieking, angry woman on the BBC at lunchtime seemed to be saying lockdown must continue, no kids back to school, we are all going to die! (Maybe I'm exaggerating with that last one, but she was very peeved about something.) As always, it's hard to know where the truth is, but I don't think we should stop looking.


----------



## worn thumbs (1 Jun 2020)

Lets not confuse Niall Ferguson the historian with Neil Ferguson the epidemiologist.


----------



## RogerS (1 Jun 2020)

Andy Kev.":1rflfcz8 said:


> ... The country was caught unprepared because no govt. of any political colour is prepared to sink money into providing for something that might happen one day but hopefully not in this parliament and there are no votes in it anyway.....



Jeez...go and read my post a few pages back that highlighted (A) How Germany got things right and (B) How we monumentally cocked up. Nothing AT ALL to do with 'sinking money'.


----------



## RogerS (1 Jun 2020)

worn thumbs":1r4ljy20 said:


> Lets not confuse Niall Ferguson the historian with Neil Ferguson the epidemiologist.



As far as TN is concerned, they might as well be the same :lol:


----------



## Rorschach (3 Jun 2020)

I wonder if an old person (boomer) will ever dare lecture a millenial or younger again about how entitled their generation is? :-k


----------



## Trainee neophyte (3 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":3mpjatwl said:


> I wonder if an old person (boomer) will ever dare lecture a millenial or younger again about how entitled their generation is? :-k



Two days without internet, but I'm back! I think you will find the boomers are fully entitled to lecture everyone about everything, specially about how not to rape and pillage your way through limited resources, destroy environments, and generally live way beyond your means using debt instead of capital. They have earned the right, obviously.



worn thumbs":3mpjatwl said:


> Lets not confuse Niall Ferguson the historian with Neil Ferguson the epidemiologist.


 Whilst you may not, apparently I did! My bad.  



RogerS":3mpjatwl said:


> As far as TN is concerned, they might as well be the same


----------



## lurker (3 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":1mc5j9s4 said:


> I wonder if an old person (boomer) will ever dare lecture a millenial or younger again about how entitled their generation is? :-k



Your parents must have been really horrible people to cause you to hate older folks so much.


----------



## Rorschach (3 Jun 2020)

Another one I missed when it came out. Love the gotcha moment toward the end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJPF5j129QQ


----------



## Rorschach (3 Jun 2020)

lurker":3mdtqs4m said:


> Rorschach":3mdtqs4m said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder if an old person (boomer) will ever dare lecture a millenial or younger again about how entitled their generation is? :-k
> ...



Not all, just a select few who like to lecture the younger generations.

My mother is good person and I had wonderful grandparents who I dearly miss.


----------



## RogerS (3 Jun 2020)

No wonder Test and Trace is a CoS...just seen who is in charge. pointything Harding...failed CEO of TalkTalk..her grasp of anything technical is laughable.


----------



## Lons (3 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":2gyss0ag said:


> Not all, just a select few who like to lecture the younger generations.



Rorschach I'd respectfully suggest you read many of your own posts and realise that it is you doing the lecturing, perhaps you need to practice what you preach.  



> My mother is good person and I had wonderful grandparents who I dearly miss.


 No father mentioned? 
Genuine question not intended to provoke a reaction so don't answer that if it's too personal.

I know how you feel about your grandparents, my paternal grandmother was a bit of a witch but grandfather was amazing and I was devastated at his death when I was 17, never knew my maternal grandparents.


----------



## Rorschach (3 Jun 2020)

Lons":2z9fx2zt said:


> Rorschach":2z9fx2zt said:
> 
> 
> > Not all, just a select few who like to lecture the younger generations.
> ...



Justified lecturing I think after some of the posts I have seen here over the years from the older generation, not mentioning any names :wink: :lol: 

Bit more of a complicated story with my father. He wasn't intentionally a bad man but he was misguided in a lot of ways and suffered terribly with PTSD from a long military career with plenty of active service.


----------



## Lons (3 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":35cm4ukq said:


> Bit more of a complicated story with my father. He wasn't intentionally a bad man but he was misguided in a lot of ways and suffered terribly with PTSD from a long military career with plenty of active service.



Sorry to hear that. You can choose your friends but unfortunately not your family!


----------



## Chris152 (7 Jun 2020)

This doesn't make for particularly happy reading, but maybe worth a look and think:
https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2020/06/03/ ... ebXyFcYpBI


----------



## Rorschach (7 Jun 2020)

Chris152":33kscvfu said:


> This doesn't make for particularly happy reading, but maybe worth a look and think:
> https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2020/06/03/ ... ebXyFcYpBI



Sobering indeed. I wonder when the article was written (as opposed to published)? His information is out of date in several areas regarding re-infection (no observed cases) and antibody response.

Latest thinking is that up to 80% of the population is naturally immune or effectively not susceptible to catching the virus. Not only is herd immunity therefore the best response, it is the only the response and we are almost there as the vast majority of the susceptible population has already caught it. This is why countries that suffered at the beginning are now opening up with little to no increase in new infections.


----------



## RogerS (7 Jun 2020)

Chris152":2lqqf0lj said:


> This doesn't make for particularly happy reading, but maybe worth a look and think:
> https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2020/06/03/ ... ebXyFcYpBI



That makes sobering reading. I appreciate you taking the time to actually quote the link so we can read it for ourselves. 

Others here continually make sweeping statements without any reference to any sources.


----------



## selectortone (7 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":22vmwnp0 said:


> Latest thinking is that up to 80% of the population is naturally immune or effectively not susceptible to catching the virus.



Source please.


----------



## Rorschach (7 Jun 2020)

selectortone":1n7x5eoa said:


> Rorschach":1n7x5eoa said:
> 
> 
> > Latest thinking is that up to 80% of the population is naturally immune or effectively not susceptible to catching the virus.
> ...



Plenty of videos linked previously but no-one seemed to want to watch them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUOFeVIrOPg


----------



## Chris152 (7 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":1cmw3p6b said:


> selectortone":1cmw3p6b said:
> 
> 
> > Rorschach":1cmw3p6b said:
> ...


mr trump had a hunch it wasn't going to be so bad, too. but what do you think is the reason the rest of the developed world's not working with the 80% theory?


----------



## Rorschach (7 Jun 2020)

Chris152":1eam731j said:


> mr trump had a hunch it wasn't going to be so bad, too. but what do you think is the reason the rest of the developed world's not working with the 80% argument?



This isn't the fatuous oaf that the American people deigned to be their leader talking, these videos are interviews with scientists. Please don't comment unless you have watched the video and have suitable sources to discredit their findings.


----------



## Chris152 (7 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":x747rvwa said:


> Chris152":x747rvwa said:
> 
> 
> > mr trump had a hunch it wasn't going to be so bad, too. but what do you think is the reason the rest of the developed world's not working with the 80% argument?
> ...


ha. i asked a question in the second sentence. why do you think the rest of the developed world isn't working on the 80% theory?


----------



## Rorschach (7 Jun 2020)

It's a recent theory only come to light due to analysis the death data. Unimportant for the past, it's too late we have done the damage, but very important for what we do going forward. If 80% are basically unaffected that means C19 becomes an irrelevance for the vast majority of people.


----------



## RogerS (7 Jun 2020)

Chris152":1c6v44u4 said:


> Rorschach":1c6v44u4 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris152":1c6v44u4 said:
> ...



Chris, I think the phrase you're looking for is 'confirmation bias'. Applies to 'well-researched' Youtube videos.


----------



## Rorschach (7 Jun 2020)

Yep snarky comments are much more useful. :roll: 
Who is the troll now?


----------



## selectortone (7 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":3o49jpyi said:


> selectortone":3o49jpyi said:
> 
> 
> > Rorschach":3o49jpyi said:
> ...



'Latest thinking' is quite a sweeping statement. I was hoping for an authoritative source, like the WHO for example, not some bloke on a YouTube video.


----------



## Lons (7 Jun 2020)

selectortone":18nzrka3 said:


> 'Latest thinking' is quite a sweeping statement. I was hoping for an authoritative source, like the WHO for example, not some bloke on a YouTube video.



Don't hold your breath, sweeping statements are the nature of his signature phrase just check back on some earlier posts. :wink:


----------



## Rorschach (7 Jun 2020)

selectortone":2njslnky said:


> 'Latest thinking' is quite a sweeping statement. I was hoping for an authoritative source, like the WHO for example, not some bloke on a YouTube video.



"Some bloke", I am sure he would love to hear that. :roll: 
The scientists interviewed on that channel are some of the best in their fields, not some bloke on a forum saying "I don't like the sound of that as it would mean I might have been hoodwinked by the government into giving up my liberties for no reason so instead I'll call the person some bloke on youtube and thus my ego is restored" 

The WHO haven't exactly covered themselves in glory recently, they literally had one job to do and they have failed miserably and actually praised a dictatorship for they handled it.


----------



## selectortone (7 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":2sqr79gq said:


> selectortone":2sqr79gq said:
> 
> 
> > 'Latest thinking' is quite a sweeping statement. I was hoping for an authoritative source, like the WHO for example, not some bloke on a YouTube video.
> ...



Hoodwinked by the government? That's quite an assumption to make considering you don't know me from Adam.


----------



## Rorschach (7 Jun 2020)

selectortone":kjwvln2l said:


> Hoodwinked by the government? That's quite an assumption to make considering you don't know me from Adam.



Do you agree with the lock down?


----------



## Chris152 (7 Jun 2020)

I keep listening to the news, reading stuff from boffs on SAGE and all that, and none of them seem to be talking about this 80% thing. Have they just failed to notice the youtube vids you're watching Rorschach? Or are the opinions expressed in those vids marginal? Which doesn't make them wrong of course, and it's good other experts are exploring possible understandings of the virus. But why would you elect to believe them over what seems to be the dominant understanding among experts on this virus? Do you know something the rest of us punters don't?


----------



## RogerS (7 Jun 2020)

Chris152":29ve5czj said:


> ....But why would you elect to believe them over what seems to be the dominant understanding among experts on this virus? ...



Confirmation bias. Just keep Googling until you find something that supports your own opinion and then claim it as 'latest thinking'. 

Did you know that Lord Lucan had dinner with Elvis last night ? I'm sure if I Google hard enough I will find an 'authoritative source'.


----------



## Rorschach (7 Jun 2020)

Do you think the MSM would allow that to be broadcast if it is indeed true?


----------



## Jake (8 Jun 2020)

The use of "MSM" is a sign you've lost it, never mind the rest of that sentence.


----------



## woodhutt (8 Jun 2020)

Trainee neophyte":16v1y0zp said:


> My bad.



My most hated expression! Should be sin binned just for using it


----------



## Phil Pascoe (8 Jun 2020)

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/arti ... d=12338052

NZ's made a move. (Sent by my sister, a Kiwi.)


----------



## Trainee neophyte (8 Jun 2020)

RogerS":28isax1d said:


> Chris152":28isax1d said:
> 
> 
> > ....But why would you elect to believe them over what seems to be the dominant understanding among experts on this virus? ...
> ...



Is the intention to close down debate and stop anyone questioning the official narrative by ridiculing all who don't agree with your viewpoint?

Or are you just unnecessarily rude?


----------



## Rorschach (8 Jun 2020)

Phil Pascoe":1gff8qt5 said:


> https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12338052
> 
> NZ's made a move. (Sent by my sister, a Kiwi.)



I am glad for the people of NZ that they will be returning to something akin to normality soon. It still begs the question though, what now for the country as a whole. Their paranoia about C19 will keep them isolated for months, if not years now.


----------



## Rorschach (8 Jun 2020)

Trainee neophyte":24ljn6p6 said:


> Is the intention to close down debate and stop anyone questioning the official narrative by ridiculing all who don't agree with your viewpoint?
> 
> Or are you just unnecessarily rude?



People who know/are worried they are wrong or are terrified of realising that they may have bought into a lie always do this.


----------



## doctor Bob (8 Jun 2020)

Ain't it funny how this is following the brexit thread.
Majority attack the minority in quite a vicious manner. All sources are disbelieved by the oppo. 
That doesn't mean I know who's right and wrong. 
I suspect at this stage no one does yet the attackers seem convinced they do know.
Pleasantness has gone, rationality has gone, manners have gone, respect to fellow members has gone.

As you were, it's interesting human behaviour.
What should follow now is a mild attack on me .................


----------



## Chris152 (8 Jun 2020)

Exaggerating the problem somewhat I think, Bob. 

Did people see the Channel 4 programme, 'Coronavirus: Did the Government Get It Wrong?'
https://www.channel4.com/programmes/cor ... /71453-001

It clearly has a position, but I think what the people being interviewed have to stay is important.


----------



## doctor Bob (8 Jun 2020)

Chris152":3nq0c70v said:


> Exaggerating the problem somewhat I think, Bob.



I think if you asked the 2 main opposition guys they would disagree.


----------



## RogerS (8 Jun 2020)

Trainee neophyte":3cqoosvc said:


> ....
> Is the intention to close down debate .....



But it isn't a debate. Take this post quoted from Rorschach ...

_Latest thinking is that up to 80% of the population is naturally immune or effectively not susceptible to catching the virus....._

Now compare that with this ..

_One interesting alternative viewpoint which suggests that 80% of the population is naturally immune is put forward by Professor Karl Friston in this Youtube interview._

The first is a statement, brooks no dissent, brooks no debate.

The second suggests an alternative view and invites you explore further with the Youtube link. It invites discussion and debate.

Do you not see the difference ?

As for Doctor Bobbles little snide dig...a bit rich from one who made a post that seemed to suggest that it was acceptable for more people to die if it meant no lockdown but when asked to debate this further was 'too busy' and 'you're being confrontational'. Not too busy to keep popping in to make these sly digs.

Mods.....please...hasn't this thread run its course and time to be locked ?


----------



## Rorschach (8 Jun 2020)

If Roger can't see where he is wrong there then I don't what to suggest.

As for locking the thread, if Roger doesn't want get involved he is free to ignore it (as he has done for me, thankfully). I find at the moment the people who have nothing to say or find others saying things they don't like seem to always want to shut them down.


----------



## woodhutt (8 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":2leuvc8g said:


> I am glad for the people of NZ that they will be returning to something akin to normality soon. It still begs the question though, what now for the country as a whole. Their paranoia about C19 will keep them isolated for months, if not years now.



I've been out and about since the restrictions eased here in NZ and see no signs of 'paranoia'.
NZ and Oz are in talks about opening a travel 'bubble' between the two countries. If this excludes visitors from countries who have signally failed in their response to the pandemic - so much the better. Such visitors could hardly be expected to observe guidelines as visitors if they can't follow their own country's regime.
Apart from the table service, Saturday's visit to my local club seemed the same as before the pandemic as did shopping in the local supermarket and hardware store.
So, no observable paranoia, just sensible precautions.
I am cautious crossing the road. Or am I being paranoid?
Pete


----------



## Rorschach (8 Jun 2020)

woodhutt":3ua2us0e said:


> Rorschach":3ua2us0e said:
> 
> 
> > I am glad for the people of NZ that they will be returning to something akin to normality soon. It still begs the question though, what now for the country as a whole. Their paranoia about C19 will keep them isolated for months, if not years now.
> ...



Would you mind if I asked a few questions?

How old are you?
Do you work?
If so what sector do you work in?
Do you ever travel outside of NZ/Australia?


----------



## woodhutt (8 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":zh3h42b1 said:


> woodhutt":zh3h42b1 said:
> 
> 
> > Rorschach":zh3h42b1 said:
> ...



OK. I'll play the game and answer your questions even though the answers are not as cut and dried as your questions (life never is).

1. I am 69
2. I retired less than a year ago.
3. I worked as a pipeline consulting engineer in the oil, gas and petrochemical industries, (both transmission and refinery/production). My work took me all over the Asia/Pacific region and the US.
4. I do travel outside NZ/Oz and had in fact planned a trip in September this year to Canada to visit my brother, then on to the UK to see friends and relatives, then home via Singapore with a short break in KL in Malaysia. The trip has naturally been postponed.

Hope this helps.
Pete


----------



## Rorschach (8 Jun 2020)

woodhutt":2phs2080 said:


> OK. I'll play the game and answer your questions even though the answers are not as cut and dried as your questions (life never is).
> 
> 1. I am 69
> 2. I retired less than a year ago.
> ...



Yes very helpful, I understand your viewpoint much better now, the answers were pretty much as expected.
We probably should have done this from the start and all put our cards on the table. I expect that given a few bits of information as above we could determine where people stand on the C19 issue.


----------



## lurker (8 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":22q4b6ze said:


> woodhutt":22q4b6ze said:
> 
> 
> > OK. I'll play the game and answer your questions even though the answers are not as cut and dried as your questions (life never is).
> ...



I would be interested to hear the answers to your own questions. Just so I can understand your viewpoint too.


----------



## woodhutt (8 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":1lx2fjhv said:


> Yes very helpful, I understand your viewpoint much better now, the answers were pretty much as expected.
> We probably should have done this from the start and all put our cards on the table. I expect that given a few bits of information as above we could determine where people stand on the C19 issue.



Pleased to be of assistance, even though all the cards on the table seem to have been mine. :|


----------



## Lons (8 Jun 2020)

woodhutt":3m2q3zc2 said:


> Rorschach":3m2q3zc2 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes very helpful, I understand your viewpoint much better now, the answers were pretty much as expected.
> ...


You also fit very neatly into the category of retired so no job / business concerns and in the higher risk group which he seemed very happy to allow to just take their chances and so what if they die for the sake of the economy.


----------



## woodhutt (8 Jun 2020)

Lons":35d46c7p said:


> You also fit very neatly into the category of retired so no job / business concerns and in the higher risk group which he seemed very happy to allow to just take their chances and so what if they die for the sake of the economy.



I know my place... :lol:


----------



## Rorschach (8 Jun 2020)

Lons":3cipqw1j said:


> You also fit very neatly into the category of retired so no job / business concerns and in the higher risk group which he seemed very happy to allow to just take their chances and so what if they die for the sake of the economy.



Not true at all, please find where I said that?
I want to see the elderly protected as much as possible, I have stated this numerous times. If you are old or vulnerable, stay at home (if you want to). What I think is madness is that the rest of the country was forced into lockdown.


----------



## Rorschach (8 Jun 2020)

woodhutt":wifk37l4 said:


> Rorschach":wifk37l4 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes very helpful, I understand your viewpoint much better now, the answers were pretty much as expected.
> ...



Give me a chance man! :lol: 

I am 35, I am self employed as a professional craftsman producing what would be defined as fairly luxury goods for the export market. Most of my travel is within the UK, I travel abroad less than once a year on average.


----------



## doctor Bob (8 Jun 2020)

RogerS":3bpgvn94 said:


> As for Doctor Bobbles little snide dig...a bit rich from one who made a post that seemed to suggest that it was acceptable for more people to die if it meant no lockdown but when asked to debate this further was 'too busy' and 'you're being confrontational'. Not too busy to keep popping in to make these sly digs.



you were odds on favourite :lol: 
Is it really that terrible I don't want a fight Roger? It's just I have enough on my plate. They aren't sly they are straight forward really.
I tend to catch up during tea and lunch brreaks, when I retire I'll take you on Roger, about another 20 years if the economy goes as predicted.


----------



## RogerS (8 Jun 2020)

lurker":2tczj9fn said:


> Rorschach":2tczj9fn said:
> 
> 
> > woodhutt":2tczj9fn said:
> ...



I'm afraid that we all know you will be waiting in vain. Wonder what he's hiding ?


----------



## woodhutt (8 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":32swp8bo said:


> Give me a chance man! :lol:
> 
> I am 35, I am self employed as a professional craftsman producing what would be defined as fairly luxury goods for the export market. Most of my travel is within the UK, I travel abroad less than once a year on average.



That's interesting. You say you're self-employed making goods for export and yet you travel abroad 'less than once a year'.
How do you keep in touch with your markets? Assess new potential? Expand your customer base? 
Or are we talking about making and selling on E-bay and the like? 
Pete


----------



## RogerS (8 Jun 2020)

doctor Bob":3ajruf6o said:


> RogerS":3ajruf6o said:
> 
> 
> > As for Doctor Bobbles little snide dig...a bit rich from one who made a post that seemed to suggest that it was acceptable for more people to die if it meant no lockdown but when asked to debate this further was 'too busy' and 'you're being confrontational'. Not too busy to keep popping in to make these sly digs.
> ...



Neither was I yet you seemed to think me asking for some clarification indicated that I did. Weird. Takes all sorts.


----------



## doctor Bob (8 Jun 2020)

RogerS":3tyvho43 said:


> Weird. Takes all sorts.



Cool, it does indeed Rog, I also find you slightly weird in a nice way, it's what makes the world go round.


----------



## Rorschach (8 Jun 2020)

woodhutt":2nve6htq said:


> Rorschach":2nve6htq said:
> 
> 
> > Give me a chance man! :lol:
> ...



Don't want to get too off topic here but almost everything is done online. No need to travel, my customers contact me.


----------



## Blackswanwood (8 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":18kw3dua said:


> Don't want to get too off topic here but almost everything is done online. No need to travel, my customers contact me.



What am I missing? Isn't that a business model that is pretty much immune to the effects of a UK lockdown?


----------



## Rorschach (8 Jun 2020)

Blackswanwood":1rktinot said:


> Rorschach":1rktinot said:
> 
> 
> > Don't want to get too off topic here but almost everything is done online. No need to travel, my customers contact me.
> ...



UK specifically I am somewhat shielded personally, I do have customers here of course, just the bulk of business is export. I have lost custom here and abroad due to C19, although things have picked up a little and I got some unexpected orders from wealthier clients (who are probably benefiting in some way from lockdown in their countries).

I am not just interested in myself though, I have friends and family who are suffering because of this. At least one friend has lost their job (they are furloughed for now but the business is bust) and I know of others who are on very shaky ground.

Anyway, do I have to suffer personally to be against it, I can be altruistic in this


----------



## doctor Bob (8 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":2qrng00l said:


> I am not just interested in myself though, I have friends and family who are suffering because of this. At least one friend has lost their job (they are furloughed for now but the business is bust) and I know of others who are on very shaky ground.
> 
> Anyway, do I have to suffer personally to be against it, I can be altruistic in this



I agree, more worried for my son and his generation.


----------



## Andy Kev. (8 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":1xxipt8j said:


> As for locking the thread, if Roger doesn't want get involved he is free to ignore it (as he has done for me, thankfully). I find at the moment the people who have nothing to say or find others saying things they don't like seem to always want to shut them down.



Good point. I don't see why thinking a thread has run its course should lead anyone to ask for it to be closed down.

All you have to do is stay out of it. For instance, I think it's been in the doldrums for a bit and is now mostly about the people in it as opposed to the subject matter - this post being an example of and reaction to that - so why not let it lie until there is some sort of new development in the corona saga?

Incidentally, I may be alone in this but I do find the blanket media coverage of the latter to be increasingly tedious and often to be full of space-filling rubbish.


----------



## doctor Bob (8 Jun 2020)

Andy Kev.":2rko3mns said:


> Rorschach":2rko3mns said:
> 
> 
> > As for locking the thread, if Roger doesn't want get involved he is free to ignore it (as he has done for me, thankfully). I find at the moment the people who have nothing to say or find others saying things they don't like seem to always want to shut them down.
> ...



Just like the brexit thread


----------



## Blackswanwood (8 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":kgcd3nh2 said:


> Anyway, do I have to suffer personally to be against it, I can be altruistic in this



No, you definitely do not and I certainly wasn't asking the question intending to imply that you were so I apologise if that's how it came across. Perhaps therefore your observation earlier that if we all understood the questions you were asking would make it easier to understand where we all sit on the continuum of views on unlocking was a bit over-simplistic though? (Again, not asked or said to imply anything - just offering a different view!). 

Out of interest what type of goods do you make and do you expect demand to drop off?

Cheers


----------



## Rorschach (8 Jun 2020)

Blackswanwood":3vnrtvzr said:


> Rorschach":3vnrtvzr said:
> 
> 
> > Anyway, do I have to suffer personally to be against it, I can be altruistic in this
> ...



My apologies, I did take the question as a bit of an attack so I hope you will forgive my curt reply.

My intention behind the questions was not to simplify or to assert that one can only have a point of view based on circumstances, but in general those advocating for lockdown seem to be those who benefit most and suffer least and are not being particularly altruistic to my mind. Knowing their situation makes this clearer for all involved I think.

I won't name the goods as it would make it easier to identify me and I prefer my anonymity given the way certain members act. 
As to demand, I am not really sure but probably, I expect a good part of my customer base to be suffering as I tend to deal with the working middle classes (I think) rather than the super rich.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (8 Jun 2020)

So here is an interesting viewpoint that might warrant some discussion (how was that, Roger?):

https://in-this-together.com/hydroxychl ... ce-part-1/


> The story of how global and national health authorities have handled the potential of the inexpensive drug hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) to treat COVID 19 patients suggests everything we have been told about the response to the COVID 19 pandemic is a lie. Far from seeking to save lives, it seems lives may have been lost unnecessarily, and remain expendable, in the pursuit of corporate goals.


https://in-this-together.com/hydroxychl ... ce-part-2/


> Now we will consider what an effective preventative treatment for COVID 19 would mean for those who hope to distribute a global vaccine. We will explore the evidence which shows both how and why these interests have converged to make sure the potential threat of hydroxychloroquine is quashed. We ask what any of this has to do with saving lives.



If you think Bill Gates is a vaccination hero you may be a little upset with some it, and if you think the WHO is in charge and competent, you are going to be very peeved indeed. I would be interested to hear any thoughts regarding how the information is incorrect or otherwise.


----------



## Lons (8 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":180pkwqv said:


> Lons":180pkwqv said:
> 
> 
> > You also fit very neatly into the category of retired so no job / business concerns and in the higher risk group which he seemed very happy to allow to just take their chances and so what if they die for the sake of the economy.
> ...



I don't have time at the minute to trawl through 100s of posts in this thread and others as I'm in the middle of helping my very vulnerable 93 year old MiL who's resident in a care home that has corvid 19 infections.

You've allowed your carefully fixed mask to slip a number of times but hinted often enough and especially on pages 20 & 21 which provoked several responses including from me. e.g you said


> _"I am not heartless or selfish, I might be a cad. I want the vast majority of people in country to be safe, happy, healthy and comfortable. I am willing to let a tiny fraction of very elderly people die a little bit early for that to happen. 10% of over 80's die every year regardless and we don't blink at that. 1% of the entire population dies every year, we don't blink at that. Saving lives at any cost is not realistic or sustainable."_


I understand your strong view that you should not be locked down as well as your annoyance ( another slip) that others were furloughed "_on 80% or even 100% _of wages" while you weren't :wink: 
You're entitled to your opinions but they are *only opinions* which is the reason I keep questioning why you so often state things as a fact when they very definitely are not.

My opinion is different and I value life way way above economics, not everyone who is vulnerable is also old. If you're very lucky you might live long enough to be old yourself one day when hopefully your offspring might have a more humane outlook than you.


----------



## Lons (8 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":35kq3q20 said:


> I am 35, I am self employed as a professional craftsman producing what would be defined as fairly luxury goods for the export market. Most of my travel is within the UK, I travel abroad less than once a year on average.



That puzzles me a little, probably missing something obvious which might be down to a couple of glasses of the red stuff with dinner. :wink: 

If your goods are as you say " for the export market" then you were probably stuffed whatever the UK did as most other countries were in lockdown. 
The couriers were operating so transport wouldn't be an issue and you said you were shielded so might have been able to work even if on a reduced basis perhaps?

Unless you're selling through a middle man who was shut down.


----------



## Rorschach (8 Jun 2020)

Lons":25z48yb2 said:


> You've allowed your carefully fixed mask to slip a number of times but hinted often enough and especially on pages 20 & 21 which provoked several responses including from me. e.g you said
> 
> 
> > _"I am not heartless or selfish, I might be a cad. I want the vast majority of people in country to be safe, happy, healthy and comfortable. I am willing to let a tiny fraction of very elderly people die a little bit early for that to happen. 10% of over 80's die every year regardless and we don't blink at that. 1% of the entire population dies every year, we don't blink at that. Saving lives at any cost is not realistic or sustainable."_
> ...



Yes I said I was willing to let people who were already going to die soon of something (as my number stated) a little bit early for the good of country. That's not the same as wanting someone at 69 to die. Your quote there just proved my point so I am not sure why you think that's a "gotcha" moment. Also note that I said it was their choice if they go out. I am still in favour of them staying at home and sheltering but I don't want anyone being forced to do anything, you take your own risks and suffer the consequences. I might have a health condition I don't know about, I'm willing the take the risk as I do when I get into my car everyday (risk of hurting myself and other people there before you say it)

Also where did I complain about furlough? I might have done but I don't recall it. I think the system is stupid (as it shouldn't have been needed) but since the government has forced people out of work I think they need supporting.
Being self employed I actually benefit slightly more than furloughed workers. Not only did I get an 80% payout from the government, I am also allowed legally to keep working.


----------



## Rorschach (8 Jun 2020)

Lons":3a8lefbs said:


> Rorschach":3a8lefbs said:
> 
> 
> > I am 35, I am self employed as a professional craftsman producing what would be defined as fairly luxury goods for the export market. Most of my travel is within the UK, I travel abroad less than once a year on average.
> ...



You didn't read all of my posts, it will make more sense when you do. If you have more questions afterwards, please feel free to ask.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (8 Jun 2020)

Lons":101szrxr said:


> My opinion is different and I value life way way above economics,



That rather presupposes that tomorrow will be the same as yesterday. If you rely on a pension, you may find cat food is in your future, along with standing outside supermarkets begging for food. No economy must translate into lower living standards - the longer it goes on, the lower the standard of living. Are you comfortable with that? The standard way the system steals from _everyone_ is by inflation, and _they_ have been desperate to get inflation going for years now. This could be just the crisis _they_ need. The good news is that the super-wealthy will keep their wealth: in fact they will absorb all wealth from the middle classes, and we will go back to the old feudal system of lords and peasants.

Well, it's one view, anyway. Perhaps we will all carry on without missing a beat. I keep thinking of the Winston Churchill quote: "Never in the course of human history has so much been owed by so few, to so many". Or something.


----------



## doctor Bob (8 Jun 2020)

Lons":1ezcg7s0 said:


> My opinion is different and I value life way way above economics



This is an intersting opinion, I wonder where the line is, maybe we live too comfortable lives and if income tax was increased to say 70-80% and pensions halved, then the NHS would be massively funded and the people now dieing at average 80-85 could be increased to 95.
I'm not sure that thats the answer, as I say most would say the line needs to be drawn somewhere, like it is at present, otherwise the extreme is no one is allowed savings as this excess money could be spent on saving lives.

I take it by your logic that you must think the lockdown was a bit cr*p and should have been a proper chinese style one.

Surely the fact that Mcmillan have said there are 1900 missing new cancer patients a week at present means that we have a ticking timebomb waiting. The scaremongery has gone too far. Angry Karen's on facebook are never going to send their kids back to school or let husbands go back to work (at least not till the furlough money stops) by which time they won't have a job and angry Karen will then rant about universl credit.


----------



## doctor Bob (8 Jun 2020)

Is it true that if you get killed in an accident, say run over by a bus, and in the post mortem you test positive for covid, your death will be recorded as accidental but you will be included within the covid death count.


----------



## Rorschach (8 Jun 2020)

doctor Bob":3ds40la7 said:


> Is it true that if you get killed in an accident, say run over by a bus, and in the post mortem you test positive for covid, your death will be recorded as accidental but you will be included within the covid death count.



The death stats for the UK include anyone with C19 on their death certificate, suspected or tested, regardless of other contributing factors.


----------



## RogerS (8 Jun 2020)

And on a brighter note, this study suggests that lockdown saved nearly 500,000 lives in the UK. I call that a good result.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52968523


----------



## Lons (8 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":1x6zyw0b said:


> Yes I said I was willing to let people who were already going to die soon of something (as my number stated) a little bit early for the good of country. That's not the same as wanting someone at 69 to die. Your quote there just proved my point so I am not sure why you think that's a "gotcha" moment.



You're the only one saying that's a "gotcha moment", you asked for an example and with very little effort I found 2 pages including that comment, I couldn't be bothered to look for more at the time.

Where does the "die soon" element come from? The virus is likely to have been responsible for large numbers of people who most probably would not have died soon as they could easily live for many more years even with underlying conditions that were being controlled and that doesn't count the front line workers and others who were fit and healthy. Most sensible people surely wouldn't ignore the quoted estimates of excess deaths of 60,000 or 24% higher than historical figures would predict.
Had infected people been allowed to circulate as normal then even more front line staff would most likely have died, who the hell knows? I don't but neither do you!
Had the NHS not postponed routing treatments and then been overwhelmed then quite possible even more would have died and in any event the armchair experts would be slamming them for not making the required capacity just as they are now doing for making it available as a precaution.

I would agree without question that there will probably be large numbers of other casualties from cancer etc. because the government and media over hyped coverage but that doesn't change what I said.


> Also where did I complain about furlough? I might have done but I don't recall it. I think the system is stupid (as it shouldn't have been needed) but since the government has forced people out of work I think they need supporting.



Don't have time to look back at the minute but it was something you posted and did appear to be a moan reading between the lines, clearly it wasn't if you've had money but still been allowed to work. :wink:


----------



## Lons (8 Jun 2020)

doctor Bob":x8s1x06e said:


> Lons":x8s1x06e said:
> 
> 
> > My opinion is different and I value life way way above economics
> ...



Interesting thinking but your interpretation of "way more" is different to mine and somewhat extreme, :lol: and in any event do you really believe that massive extra taxes would increase efficiency within the NHS as a whole? History shows various periods where money has been thrown at it and wasted with much being absorbed at higher levels rather than front line as well as obscene amounts on doomed to fail technology. 
That reminds me of my workshop and storage, far too many unused, unwise purchases filling the space so I create more space and fill it with even more when I really need to clear out, get fitter and downsize, of course unless my income is halved I won't do it.

Can't argue with your last statement about missing patients Bob, capacity is available but people with symptoms won't go because of the hype and while being stuck at home I'm sure many people will be glued to the constant barrage of varying opinions and arguments screaming from the big box in the corner plus all the cr*p via google and social media.
Maybe a sizeable number of those missing patients caught the virus and died already, who knows? Very little of what we hear is certain.



> take it by your logic that you must think the lockdown was a bit cr*p and should have been a proper chinese style one.


Nope. Couldn't possibly have worked here where most likely there would have been riots, just like the idiots over the weekend abusing horses and police and causing criminal damage, what did I say about sheep and pigsh*t.  The UK doesn't have the power of resources to deal with those who ignore it unlike the Chinese and Koreans and of course I'm not suggesting it should!

I'm of the opinion that a lockdown was necessary but should have been applied sooner and with much more clarity, they ballsed it up but that's a different matter.


----------



## doctor Bob (8 Jun 2020)

Lons":1xyfq5i5 said:


> I'm of the opinion that a lockdown was necessary but should have been applied sooner and with much more clarity, they ballsed it up but that's a different matter.



I think our thinking is pretty similar.


----------



## Andy Kev. (9 Jun 2020)

A general thought on this matter: a lot of people have quite understandably written posts containing things like, "A study shows ... etc."

A lot of people right across the country latched on to Prof. Ferguson's studies which are now of course completely discredited (along with his previous predictions for various diseases). The problem is that in order to pronounce competently on any given study, one has to first assume that the data used are correct, then get down into the weeds of the study which necessarily involves understanding and accepting (or not) all assumptions etc. and so one can finally come to a sensible or supportable conclusion.

Now I have to admit that because I believe that the corona pandemic will run like all viral outbreaks in human history, I can't be ar*ed to do the above but equally I'm not going to prop up any views I may have with studies which may well prove to be wide of the mark, however well-intended they are and conscientiously they were carried out.

The bottom line is that while all human beings are eminently qualified to panic or be complacent according to their individual natures, the fewest are qualified to pronounce with any sort of confidence on pandemics and even less so into studies about a current pandemic.

So if you'll allow me one more bang of the drum I've been beating since it started: we won't be able to take a sensible view of this until it is more or less over, all the data are in from all countries and the definitive studies have been produced.


----------



## Rorschach (9 Jun 2020)

Andy Kev.":1k07n28e said:


> we won't be able to take a sensible view of this until it is more or less over, all the data are in from all countries and the definitive studies have been produced.



Very true. I've made my predictions, we'll see if I am right, I hope so......... sort of :lol:


----------



## Phil Pascoe (9 Jun 2020)

Lons":1xk6ylqc said:


> ... in any event do you really believe that massive extra taxes would increase efficiency within the NHS as a whole? History shows various periods where money has been thrown at it and wasted with much being absorbed at higher levels rather than front line as well as obscene amounts on doomed to fail technology ...


 The wife of a work colleague of my wife wanted a weekend job as she looked after the children in the week. She got an admin. job in the NHS .......... paying double time, as it's weekends. 
Nearly a full weeks income. Why? She'd have jumped at the job at its standard rate - it suited her needs. We wonder where the money goes. 
My friend, a senior nurse, took early retirement at the same time as her hospital employed a "pillow manager" on the same salary as her. Where the charge nurse used to phone the porter if they needed extra pillow, they then had to phone the pillow manager ........ who rang the porter.


----------



## Rorschach (9 Jun 2020)

Phil Pascoe":3spdfd0d said:


> Lons":3spdfd0d said:
> 
> 
> > ... in any event do you really believe that massive extra taxes would increase efficiency within the NHS as a whole? History shows various periods where money has been thrown at it and wasted with much being absorbed at higher levels rather than front line as well as obscene amounts on doomed to fail technology ...
> ...



Simple explanation that is exactly for local councils and almost any publicly funded organisation. You get given X budget, if you don't spend X then the following year your budget is cut. So they spend money to make sure that not only do they use all of X but actually X wasn't enough, they need more and the vicious cycle continues.
My father worked in the local council, towards the end of the financial year they used to get given an amount they needed to spend on something, anything, just to make sure the budget wasn't cut. 
Government caught onto this and then started looking at when the money was spent so they had to be a bit more clever but the same practice still went on. Efficiencies were only allowed if they made your job easier, not to save money.


----------



## Lons (9 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":3lnxlcok said:


> Phil Pascoe":3lnxlcok said:
> 
> 
> > Lons":3lnxlcok said:
> ...



Still happens everywhere including some private companies as the potential arises wherever budgets are allocated without incentive to actually save, a typical examples is my local golf course where the head greenkeeper a few years ago didn't splash his remaining budget before year end and it was promptly cut the following season.

In a past life I managed a couple of plastics stockholding branches and we always planned for the end of year councils rush to spend. They used to clear out my warehouses of Perspex, rooflights and especially polycarbonate and I was told by mates the same applied to office consumables, and whatever else they could find that didn't need additional or specific authorisation.

The prisons were the same only they would give me orders spread out over a few weeks, sometimes delivering every day because if they kept each order under £500 they didn't need to get it "signed off".


----------



## RogerS (9 Jun 2020)

It's not just things like that but individual salary packages sometimes where the incentives are very narrow and are not part of a cohesive plan as far as the overall goals of the company are concerned. So a lot of managers will focus on just what they need to do in order to get their bonus...regardless as to whether or not what they are doing is screwing things up elsewhere. Should be sorted out at Director/Board level but they also have their packages. And so it goes on.


----------



## Rorschach (9 Jun 2020)

Want to see opinion backed up by copious amounts of data, sources and qualifications, watch the part here by Knut Wittkowski. The doctor at the beginning is all "I feel" "I think", Knutt is "here is the data, here are the graphs"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtFtjk3YoO8


----------



## RogerS (9 Jun 2020)

I really do not see any further point in being involved with this thread. It's become binary. 

Rorschach will continue to seek and post up ONLY those youtube videos that provide his confirmation bias. It's not debate. It's not analysing and comparing and contrasting different views. It's more like a sledgehammer going at it day in/day out.

There are just as many other youtube videos, posts etc that put the opposite viewpoint.

As Andy Kev succinctly put, we need to wait until it's all over to see exactly what was what etc. 

Until then...

Ta ta.


----------



## Rorschach (9 Jun 2020)

RogerS":1l4iwvur said:


> I really do not see any further point in being involved with this thread. It's become binary.
> 
> Rorschach will continue to seek and post up ONLY those youtube videos that provide his confirmation bias. It's not debate. It's not analysing and comparing and contrasting different views. It's more like a sledgehammer going at it day in/day out.
> 
> ...



I sincerely hope you won't comment here again but I know you can't help yourself so see you soon


----------



## doctor Bob (12 Jun 2020)

Hopefully the latest economic figures will wake up the people in dreamland.


----------



## Droogs (12 Jun 2020)

I doubt it though Bob, most probably still think it will all go back to "normal" When everything gets to open back up next week.


----------



## Chris152 (12 Jun 2020)

I'd imagine most people are painfully aware that we're heading into a deep economic recession, serious unemployment etc. UK especially vulnerable now it seems.

Pm's under pressure to reduce the 2m distance rule to 1m, apparently. I've sort of got the hang of 2m, but once it becomes 1 I'm not sure what it means. Is that 1m between any part of the body, or heads? Good luck maintaining that in pubs after a few.
Anyway, I read this this morning
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-53014105
- the problems facing schools trying to reopen in September (which is where the 2m/ 1m comes up, among others) and wondered if this is the time to start introducing 'split-shifts' in schools (mentioned way back in this thread) - half the kids in in the morning, half in the afternoon, safe distancing, half the work done online for those that have access. Learning in schools has looked antiquated a long time, maybe a positive outcome.


----------



## Rorschach (12 Jun 2020)

I don't think most of the people l promoting this really knows what those numbers mean. They can't see how it will affect them longterm. 

I noticed yesterday how the MSM is finally starting to catch up with the knock-on effects of lockdown. They have realised 90% of cancer patients have dropped off the map because the NHS over reacted. People who cried "stay at home, save lives" will now be staying home and slowly dying of cancer. 

The backlash is going to get even worse now the WHO is saying that asymptomatic people basically can't spread it. If that is indeed the case then the predication for the which the whole lockdown was based on was a total waste of time and has cost this country and the world dearly.


----------



## Lons (12 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":960fs3vl said:


> WHO is saying that asymptomatic people basically can't spread it.



It's just as easy to find arguments against and retractions of that so you're doing your usual selective googling. :wink: Here's just one example.



> _*" Atop World Health Organization official clarified on Tuesday that scientists have not determined yet how frequently people with asymptomatic cases of Covid-19 pass the disease on to others, a day after suggesting that such spread is “very rare.”
> 
> The clarification comes after the WHO’s original comments incited strong pushback from outside public health experts, who suggested the agency had erred, or at least miscommunicated, when it said people who didn’t show symptoms were unlikely to spread the virus.
> 
> ...


----------



## Garno (12 Jun 2020)

Chris152":8g05937z said:


> - the problems facing schools trying to reopen in September (which is where the 2m/ 1m comes up, among others) and wondered if this is the time to start introducing 'split-shifts' in schools (mentioned way back in this thread) - half the kids in in the morning, half in the afternoon, safe distancing, half the work done online for those that have access. Learning in schools has looked antiquated a long time, maybe a positive outcome.



I have no wish to sound callous here (I will still get attacked by the select few) but what is this thing about schools?
They are the least likely to get infected and it is very unlikely they would even catch the virus in a room full of infected people.

Are we just protecting the teachers? the very same teachers who claim to be on the front line, whilst they are sitting at home they are no more on the front line than I am. I agree that teachers should be safe gaurded but if that is what we are doing by keeping the children away from school then lets just call it that instead of this constant media bombardment saying we are protecting the children. The longer the children remain away from schools and parents refusing to return to work the longer it will take this country to recover.

It seems to be that many people are happy to return to work if they had face masks, why not let the children have them? in all probability that will have to happen in September anyway unless people plan to never allow their children to return ever again. Do so called intellegent parents really believe that we will have a vaccine in place by September and that covid19 will no longer exist? Somewhere down the line something just has to give, either the children return to schools or they will get shut forever.

Before the fact that there are some teachers and pupils who sadly fall into the most vulnerable group get thrown at me, I do feel they should not return to school at this time, the vulnerable teachers could teach the vulnerable children on-line at home, this can be funded by the government so they provide all of the means and equipment needed. No doubt I will be the only person on here who is not best friends with a teacher or who has relations that are teachers, but I do have great grandchilden and grandchildren of schooling age and I, along with their parents believe they should be at school and restart the enjoyment of growing up in a very broken world.

For the record I also have a lot to say regards the troubles over last weekend, I am not going to hi-jack this thread by posting them and I am very glad that the subject has not yet opened on these forums.

Rant (moan) over.

Garno


----------



## Rorschach (12 Jun 2020)

Lons":3sxwsisj said:


> Rorschach":3sxwsisj said:
> 
> 
> > WHO is saying that asymptomatic people basically can't spread it.
> ...



Ok, they have changed their advice, I was going by what I heard on the news.

We'll see if that changes again


----------



## Lons (12 Jun 2020)

> Ok, they have changed their advice, I was going by what I heard on the news.
> We'll see if that changes again



That statement seemed a fair assessment to me when they suggested they don't yet know in which case it's bound to change as they gather and analyse more data, that's how science works!

My point was and still is that you just bung stuff on here as if it's fact because it fits in with your opinion and without looking at the other information properly. 
The retraction was issued very quickly I.E. last Tuesday so plenty of time so unlike a sensible person had you bothered, you would have noted that and not posted as justification that lockdown should never have happened.

For the record I have nothing personal against you and appreciate your self confessed "antagonist" role, I even agree with you occasionally just think you need to widen your viewpoint and maybe think twice before you stick up misleading cr*p. :wink: 

You would have fitted in well in the days when published "fact" was that the world was flat because they could see the edge and were scared they'd fall off it. :lol:


----------



## Rorschach (12 Jun 2020)

Lons":ldtr5yxp said:


> > Ok, they have changed their advice, I was going by what I heard on the news.
> > We'll see if that changes again
> 
> 
> ...



Don't make me point out that we never thought the earth was flat  lol

Regarding the asymptomatic it was only this week I heard it, and you are right they have admitted they are not sure. News changes so fast these days.

I am quite happy to be proved wrong if you can provide a credible source (which you did), it's other people, naming no names that assert I am wrong but provide no source or a spurious source or even worse only listen to the MSM narrative which is purely focused around covering their own buttocks.

I also notice that no-one else decided to lay their cards on the table regarding the personal situation which clouds a lot of their views I think.


----------



## doctor Bob (12 Jun 2020)

I think private pension schemes should be taxed heavier than normal.
The lockdown is mainly to protect the older generation, the young are safe and yet they have sacrificed the next economic ten years. Pensions should be heavily taxed for the next 10 to 20 years.
The people who have harped on about saving any life is worth more than the economy will have no objection........ or will they change their mind.............


----------



## doctor Bob (12 Jun 2020)

I'm lucky at present, seem to have a cracking order book and thanks to my certainty of doom I acted quickly, cutting company costs early, quite substancially.


----------



## worn thumbs (12 Jun 2020)

doctor Bob":2s0h2xff said:


> I think private pension schemes should be taxed heavier than normal.
> The lockdown is mainly to protect the older generation, the young are safe and yet they have sacrificed the next economic ten years. Pensions should be heavily taxed for the next 10 to 20 years.
> The people who have harped on about saving any life is worth more than the economy will have no objection........ or will they change their mind.............



Every time a budget rolls round and the government is short of cash,the scribblers in the financial pages offer their advice and predictions.Almost every time they speculate on the possibility of pension contributions only receiving tax relief at the basic rate.They state that it would be logical and fair and would raise some cash.Then they say that it won't happen because it would be electoral suicide.


----------



## Cordy (12 Jun 2020)

image url


----------



## Lons (12 Jun 2020)

doctor Bob":33bfyu5a said:


> I think private pension schemes should be taxed heavier than normal.
> The lockdown is mainly to protect the older generation, the young are safe and yet they have sacrificed the next economic ten years. Pensions should be heavily taxed for the next 10 to 20 years.
> The people who have harped on about saving any life is worth more than the economy will have no objection........ or will they change their mind.............



So perhaps the businesses that rushed to grab the grants and interest free loans should be paying them back, such as has been stated on this thread received help but were allowed to continue to work.
If you want to go further then the businesses who happily furloughed staff at taxpayers expense with very little intention of protecting those jobs once the payments are stopped, should be penalised and forced to retain the positions or pay the furlough costs?
What about the number of employees who have received those furlough payment / grants and loans who have been working when not supposed to? E.g. I know one who's never had so much income and several doing gardens, 2 cutting hair, I'm not going to make assumption on numbers just the one's I know but it seems pretty clear they are out there if you read between the lines on social media.

Those of us with moderate pensions and savings often rely on interest from the latter to supplement income on a monthly basis and are also feeling the effects as value of those has dropped significantly. Those of us who planned and saved usually by sacrificing other things in order to hopefully protect their families and not place a burden on the state especially when later life care is needed and savings, pensions and house value are used to pay for that care currently well in excess of £50,000 pa just for room and board. Double that if dementia takes hold.

As you well know Bob the vast majority are ordinary responsible people who worked hard for 40 to 50 years but who prudently planned for the future of their families and not the fat cat greedy bast*rds like politicians and bankers etc.


----------



## doctor Bob (12 Jun 2020)

Lons":3f9upguj said:


> As you well know Bob the vast majority are ordinary responsible people who worked hard for 40 to 50 years but who prudently planned for the future of their families and not the fat cat greedy bast*rds like politicians and bankers etc.



Yes but you will have saved lives, as you mentioned a while back you can't put a value on that, you could be proud that part of your pension did that. :wink:


----------



## doctor Bob (12 Jun 2020)

Lons":2mv2wl3v said:


> What about the number of employees who have received those furlough payment / grants and loans who have been working when not supposed to? E.g. I know one who's never had so much income and several doing gardens, 2 cutting hair, I'm not going to make assumption on numbers just the one's I know but it seems pretty clear they are out there if you read between the lines on social media.



I see no issue with whistleblowing on these people if they have broken the furlough agreement.


----------



## doctor Bob (12 Jun 2020)

Lons":3095fxvk said:


> So perhaps the businesses that rushed to grab the grants and interest free loans should be paying them back, such as has been stated on this thread received help but were allowed to continue to work.
> If you want to go further then the businesses who happily furloughed staff at taxpayers expense with very little intention of protecting those jobs once the payments are stopped, should be penalised and forced to retain the positions or pay the furlough costs?



I think a rolling payback is a good idea, all for it, maybe part employee, part employer.


----------



## powertools (12 Jun 2020)

doctor Bob":227u6i4p said:


> I'm lucky at present, seem to have a cracking order book and thanks to my certainty of doom I acted quickly, cutting company costs early, quite substancially.



How do you explain the fact you have a good order book but think that we are in for economic melt down.
I think that we are entering a period of change and uncertainty but business will adapt in the way you have and in time things will improve


----------



## Lons (12 Jun 2020)

doctor Bob":397sdrtc said:


> Lons":397sdrtc said:
> 
> 
> > As you well know Bob the vast majority are ordinary responsible people who worked hard for 40 to 50 years but who prudently planned for the future of their families and not the fat cat greedy bast*rds like politicians and bankers etc.
> ...


I wasn't complaining Bob just responding to your sweeping statement which overlooks the fact that whilst the elderly are most at risk so are large numbers of much younger people with underlying issues as well as those impoverished areas where there are poor housing problems, poor diet and a much higher percentage of cigarette and drug use, not to mention the susceptibility of black and Asian groups. Lockdown didn't just protect the elderly and we all pay one way or another.

I assume from comments in a number of your posts (correct me if I'm wrong), that you took the opportunity to get rid of dead wood employees or are they still furloughed?


----------



## doctor Bob (12 Jun 2020)

Lons":2z4s1nrl said:


> I assume from comments in a number of your posts (correct me if I'm wrong), that you took the opportunity to get rid of dead wood employees or are they still furloughed?



All back one month ago, apart from one who is part time and older.
The comment about taking stock early was things like mine and Michaels big trucks, just vanity they have gone back and we now sort own transport. Other various ways to reign it in, mainly impoacting on the directors life styles.


----------



## Lons (12 Jun 2020)

doctor Bob":3azl46tg said:


> Lons":3azl46tg said:
> 
> 
> > I assume from comments in a number of your posts (correct me if I'm wrong), that you took the opportunity to get rid of dead wood employees or are they still furloughed?
> ...


Fair enough Bob.

My assumption was based mainly on your strong views regarding furloughed employees taking the proverbial and who were going to get a rude awakening.
Pleased you have plenty of work ahead I think reputation for quality work is even more important now.


----------



## doctor Bob (12 Jun 2020)

Lons":1u9a2k5n said:


> whilst the elderly are most at risk so are large numbers of much younger people with underlying issues as well as those impoverished areas where there are poor housing problems, poor diet and a much higher percentage of cigarette and drug use, not to mention the susceptibility of black and Asian groups. Lockdown didn't just protect the elderly and we all pay one way or another.



That's simply not true, look at the deaths age group from covid published by the ONS. I don't disagree that Bame and poor health is a factor but nothing compared to age, if your obese your probably doing yourself no favours. Certainly not large numbers as a percentage (tiny percentage).


----------



## Rorschach (12 Jun 2020)

I'm with Bob on that. If you are under 60 you have little to worry about. Flu is more of a concern as it kills young and old.
Vast majorty of deaths are over 60 and most of them are over 80. I can't remember where I read it but they said that almost everyone that has died was older than average life expectancy. :shock:


----------



## doctor Bob (12 Jun 2020)

powertools":1ipgedfg said:


> doctor Bob":1ipgedfg said:
> 
> 
> > I'm lucky at present, seem to have a cracking order book and thanks to my certainty of doom I acted quickly, cutting company costs early, quite substancially.
> ...



Recessions take time. There is a mental depression coming. Companies can adapt but not when the economy is shrinking so rapidly. I'm sorry but if you think things are going to get better you are wrong, it will get much much worse before we turn the corner. Proper redundancies have not even started yet, that will all kick in end of June, I predict 3 million jobs will be lost in the next year.


----------



## Lons (12 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":nvei5e3y said:


> Don't make me point out that we never thought the earth was flat  lol



:lol: :lol: :lol: I stuck that in to see if you were paying attention, I retained at least some of the history I was taught.


----------



## Rorschach (12 Jun 2020)

Lons":38led526 said:


> Rorschach":38led526 said:
> 
> 
> > Don't make me point out that we never thought the earth was flat  lol
> ...



:lol: :lol: :lol: of course I was paying attention!


----------



## Terry - Somerset (12 Jun 2020)

There is far too much "wise with the benefit of hindsight". When the furlough scheme was introduced the government:

- prioritised speed of implementation over detail
- did not know how long it would last
- could only guess at the uptake and cost
- needed to get compliance with lockdown (effectively a bribe)

We now know a lot more and are relaxing lockdown. Distancing is a part of relaxation. The change in risk moving from 1m to 2m is not clear with figures quoted between a factor of 2 to 10. 

My simple non-scientific approach would estimate a factor of 5 or 6 on the basis that a single point virus release (eg: sneeze) will disperse to cover an area the square of the distance from release (4 times). The more distant the release, the less concentrated the virus becomes due to air movement, stopped by adjacent surfaces, too low a concentration to infect.

Aside for a few who seem unconcerned about the spread of CV-19 and its consequences, most would not want to provoke a major spike in infection and a second lockdown - financially and socially disasterous.

Getting community infection down to completely manageable levels, and test track and trace wholly effective is probably the only route to opening up completely. Vaccine if it happens will take a lot longer.

Schools could return to normal regular classes. Retail, entertainment, restaurants etc could re-open and trade normally. Without controlled very low infection rates the virus will continue to be a major drag on economic recovery.

Community infection is around 33000 and falling by around 20% per week. In 3 weeks it may be half the current level and TT&T properly up to speed. It is then that substantial relaxation would be feasible. Strangely this aligns with the governments early July target!


----------



## Lons (12 Jun 2020)

Terry - Somerset":2h8gu66p said:


> (eg: sneeze)


This little chap isn't taking any chances ( yeah I know it's faked, still funny though )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqLBBUXIMfs


----------



## Rorschach (12 Jun 2020)

Terry I think the reason they are doing things as they are is that they know no matter what happens with the infection rate a second lockdown is impossible. They know the terrible cost of the first one and that the public simply would not stand for doing it again. 

I mostly complied with this one, I would not do it again for any reason and I know several others who think the same.


----------



## Lons (12 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":33swjshe said:


> I mostly complied with this one, I would not do it again for any reason and I know several others who think the same.


Perhaps they should have done the same as Australia and issued $1000 fines to those on the streets without a valid reason and full 2 week quarantine when crossing a state border so if you left NSW for Queensland it was 2 weeks in a hotel then another 2 when you came back. Ok if all you wanted was a 4 week holiday locked in hotel rooms but with free bed and board.  

Relatively quick and hard lockdown, total reported Corvid deaths only 102

Info isn't from google btw it came from my brother in Sydney.


----------



## Jake (12 Jun 2020)

doctor Bob":k9r3uepe said:


> Lons":k9r3uepe said:
> 
> 
> > As you well know Bob the vast majority are ordinary responsible people who worked hard for 40 to 50 years but who prudently planned for the future of their families and not the fat cat greedy bast*rds like politicians and bankers etc.
> ...



We only paid off (or rather refinanced) the last bit of WW1 debt issuance in 2015, the WW2 yank loans in 2006, and as you've no doubt read, the 1833 debt issued to compensate slave owners for abolition in 2017. 

Governments and nations aren't households and the biggest risk is numbskull austerians revisiting their self-defeating catastrophic anti-cyclical nonsense based on a household (or private business) budgeting analogy.


----------



## Jake (12 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":2s6ioks9 said:


> I'm with Bob on that. If you are under 60 you have little to worry about. Flu is more of a concern as it kills young and old.
> Vast majorty of deaths are over 60 and most of them are over 80. I can't remember where I read it but they said that almost everyone that has died was older than average life expectancy. :shock:



Under 45 that's kind of true in terms of death, not that risks in the 1 in 1000s are much comfort to the 1 who dies and those around them. Understandably all the focus is on death rates as that's serious and dramatic and unavoidably terminally obvious, but there is insufficient attention being paid to long term and likely to be irreversible damage to eg lung and kidney function, which appears not to be as age-related (ie serious cases that go on to kill the older don't kill the younger but leave them permanently impaired and hence more vulnerable to future illness).


----------



## Rorschach (12 Jun 2020)

Jake":2l0b1c2m said:


> Rorschach":2l0b1c2m said:
> 
> 
> > I'm with Bob on that. If you are under 60 you have little to worry about. Flu is more of a concern as it kills young and old.
> ...



You do know 1 in 100 people die every year in this country right?


----------



## Jake (12 Jun 2020)

Yes, but as these are extra so what. Do you know that YouTube breeds an ill-informed person every second?


----------



## doctor Bob (12 Jun 2020)

Jake":2ytqd8eh said:


> Do you know that YouTube breeds an ill-informed person every second?



Where as forums breed people who look down on others because they think they know better. :wink:


----------



## Lons (12 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":3ddwsk6z said:


> You do know 1 in 100 people die every year in this country right?



You do know that the estimated EXCESS deaths over the 5 year expected average is 64000 (24%)? 
Of course you do it's been mentioned several times on this thread and you pay attention. :wink:


----------



## Jake (13 Jun 2020)

doctor Bob":75xcec4n said:


> Jake":75xcec4n said:
> 
> 
> > Do you know that YouTube breeds an ill-informed person every second?
> ...



Hi Bob how ya doing. I take care of my information space.


----------



## Jake (13 Jun 2020)

It's like basic personal hygiene but much more important. And YouTube for news and info rather than entertainment and giggles is the equivalent of using faeces for deodorant. So no, I'm not going to be polite to someone who tries to patronise me from that sort of a starting point. 

PS don't know why you are so defensively passive aggressive. Especially as you were doing this same gig previously, but now (sensibly) think that lockdown was too late.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (13 Jun 2020)

Jake":utidhlkm said:


> It's like basic personal hygiene but much more important. And YouTube for news and info rather than entertainment and giggles is the equivalent of using faeces for deodorant.



I agree about news from YouTube, but therein lies the root of the problem: who to believe?

This then becomes a battle of conspiracy theories, and the mainstream assumption is that a conspiracy theorist will enthusiastically believe six impossible things before breakfast, whilst that same conspiracy theorist will roll their eyes in despair when anyone uses Mainstream Media™ as the source, because it is so hopelessly biased, propagandised and factually incorrect. Which it is.



Jake":utidhlkm said:


> ...but now (sensibly) think that lockdown was too late.



Ah, yes: "Sensibly". Any right-minded person will happily follow the media narrative du jour, which currently depicts Boris as the bumbling buffoon, who couldn't even make a decision, so killed thousands with his ineptitude. But this is, unfortunately, just another narrative. There is science out there to suggest (some may say prove beyond doubt) that the lockdown was unnecessary, the "scientists" never wanted it, and it was a political decision based solely upon media pressure that caused said lockdown. Who is right? Who is wrong/misinformed/lying? Both views can't be right.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.02090.pdf







The number of cases has been falling since before lockdown started, so the virus is doing what viruses always do, which peak, and slowly peter out. No help required.

However, I found this info at a very nice website called lockdownskeptics.org (https://lockdownsceptics.org/2020/06/11 ... e-science/) - do you think they have an axe to grind? As per Dr House: "Everyone lies". The trick is to find out who might have told some truth by mistake.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (13 Jun 2020)

To continue the theme, here is a big list of facts, all "backed up" by links, but you will probably need to go to the original page to follow the links. You can find it here: https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/

Apologies for the data dump, but some people might not have seen these "alternative" facts. Some of these facts may even be true. Your choice, if you want, is to see how it fits with your current view of reality, and then to see if makes you uncomfortable enough to either investigate further, or attack with extreme prejudice. 




> Fully referenced facts about Covid-19, provided by experts in the field, to help our readers make a realistic risk assessment. (Regular updates below)
> 
> “The only means to fight the plague is honesty.” (Albert Camus, 1947)
> 
> ...


----------



## Rorschach (13 Jun 2020)

Lons":37yfmczk said:


> Rorschach":37yfmczk said:
> 
> 
> > You do know 1 in 100 people die every year in this country right?
> ...



To date they are excess yes. What will that number be in a year from now though. A lot of those people that have died have died early, if they didn't die of C19 they would have died of something else in the next year or so, 80 year olds don't live in care homes for a decade usually :wink:

EDIT: Life expectancy in a care home is 30 months.


----------



## Rorschach (13 Jun 2020)

Jake":29w4fjqi said:


> Yes, but as these are extra so what.



Ah I see, you are one of "those people". Good to know.


----------



## doctor Bob (13 Jun 2020)

Jake":2irn0ada said:


> PS don't know why you are so defensively passive aggressive. Especially as you were doing this same gig previously, but now (sensibly) think that lockdown was too late.



Not quite...........

I don't think I've ever said I was against lock down *. Have I said it's a balancing act between lives saved and the economy, yes.
I'm not a save lives at any cost man.

* I didn't trawl back.

I'm passive aggressive because I really dislike the way people are treated in these arguements. The majority belittle the minority in a very mean and superior manner and then get rattled when the reverse is carried out (on purpose) 

Bring back Grimsdale


----------



## Woody2Shoes (13 Jun 2020)

Trainee neophyte":2cx0b4ad said:


> Jake":2cx0b4ad said:
> 
> 
> > It's like basic personal hygiene but much more important. And YouTube for news and info rather than entertainment and giggles is the equivalent of using faeces for deodorant.
> ...



Copying a graph without axes (or source data references) is unhelpful - the author of the paper from which you took that graph goes on to explicitly state: "This paper does not prove that the peak in fatal infections in England and Wales preceded lockdown by several days".

I think you've just proved to me (something I already knew) that fake news is easy to create and disseminate and that people will believe what they want to believe. The real trick, as some manipulative people have discovered, is to make them want to believe that thing in the first place. Also, that the impossible thing is to equip everyone with the brainpower - and the time and inclination - to think for themselves.


----------



## Lons (13 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":1agbywqk said:


> Lons":1agbywqk said:
> 
> 
> > Rorschach":1agbywqk said:
> ...


There you go stating that as if it is fact - it isn't! There are counter opinions out there for every one of your cherry picked statements posted to support your extremely narrow view, but you know that and just choose to dismiss them or can't be ar*sed to look past the ones that fit your profile, so to save you the effort it took me 30 seconds to find this one, I haven't looked further as I have better things to do with my time than carry out research on your behalf. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... eaths.html

Back to your supported theory in simple terms it suggests that to return to the expected average the actual numbers would have to fall substantially below the average in the next few years to accommodate the people who died maybe a year or two early. 

The average reported age of people when they go into a care home is 83, well above the widely accepted start of at risk age of 65 - 70 and if you look further at the figures you'll find that apparently England had a fewer % of care home deaths than most European nations. Only looked at figures to 9th May when it was England 21% compared to Spain 66%, France 50%, Norway 61% and even Germany at 37%. Italy was excluded but would expect to up there, again I look at all that with scepticism as it's not the full story but it is another angle. https://www.carehomeprofessional.com/eu ... me-deaths/

I not so respectfully suggest you take a more lateral view and stop acting like an armchair professor. :wink:


----------



## Rorschach (13 Jun 2020)

Lets just wait until we see the mortality figures for 2019/20 as a whole compared to the 5 year average and a bad flu year figure as well. I guarantee (totally my opinion) that we will not see 60,000+ extra deaths on the average and my suspicion is the figure will be slightly higher than a (very) bad flu year. 

Of course the tricky bit will be how many of the extra deaths (yes I think there will be some) are cause by C19 and how many of the extra deaths are caused by the effects of the lockdown, eg Cancer deaths.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (13 Jun 2020)

doctor Bob":w68j83cb said:


> Bring back Grimsdale


Pretty please, no.


----------



## Lons (13 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":380k5b60 said:


> I guarantee (totally my opinion)



:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Rorschach (13 Jun 2020)

Lons":256jd8w1 said:


> Rorschach":256jd8w1 said:
> 
> 
> > I guarantee (totally my opinion)
> ...



Thought you might like that  :mrgreen:


----------



## Trainee neophyte (13 Jun 2020)

Woody2Shoes":24lunrov said:


> I think you've just proved to me (something I already knew) that fake news is easy to create and disseminate and that people will believe what they want to believe. The real trick, as some manipulative people have discovered, is to make them want to believe that thing in the first place. Also, that the impossible thing is to equip everyone with the brainpower - and the time and inclination - to think for themselves.



"The irony is strong in this one."

You said:


> ... the author of the paper from which you took that graph goes on to explicitly state: "This paper does not prove that the peak in fatal infections in England and Wales preceded lockdown by several days".



Completely true - that is exactly what the paper says. However, that sentence was taken ever-so-slightly out of context. Let's read the entire paragraph, shall we?


> This paper does not prove that the peak in fatal infections in England and Wales preceded lockdownby several days. Indeed the failure to undertake the sampling that could have gathered data to directlymeasure infections early in the epidemic means that it will never be possible to be certain about timings,given the severe biases in clinical data other than deaths and fatal disease duration. What the results showis that, in the absence of strong assumptions, the currently most reliable data strongly suggest that thedecline in infections in England and Wales began before lockdown. Furthermore, such a scenario wouldbe consistent with the infection profile in Sweden, which began its decline in fatal infections shortly afterthe UK, but did so on the basis of measures well short of lockdown.



Not quite the same meaning that you ascribed to it by carefully selecting what to quote. Which leads me to my second point: did you actually read it? Or just skip through looking for something might actually support your already presupposed case? Just in case you missed it, the paper also goes on to say:


> These facts have implications for the policies to be adopted in the coming autumn, particularly giventhe peculiar ethical issues associated with lockdown. For example, plausible estimates of the life lossburden from an unmitigated COVID-19 epidemic in the UK are about 2 weeks per person1 . A plausiblelower bound on the UK life loss from the 2008 financial crisis and its aftermath is 7 weeks per person2 .The economic shock from lockdown is substantially larger than 2008. Similarly the implied willingnessto pay to save a life year from COVID-19 appears to be an order of magnitude higher than the usual UKNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold used for any other disease


We could debate that, or you can carry on assuming that black is white, up is down, war is peace, etc. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were being cleverly ironic.


----------



## Rorschach (13 Jun 2020)

Burn! :lol: 

Even the governments own figures show a decline in deaths that is too early for lockdown to have been the cause, peak death rate was around 2 weeks after lockdown, infection to death on average is 3-4 weeks.


----------



## Garno (13 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":9luue4td said:


> Burn! :lol:
> 
> Even the governments own figures show a decline in deaths that is too early for lockdown to have been the cause, peak death rate was around 2 weeks after lockdown, infection to death on average is 3-4 weeks.



Shame our government did not employ you as the leading expert on Corona19 we would not of had a single fatality


----------



## Rorschach (13 Jun 2020)

Garno":kjah6nae said:


> Rorschach":kjah6nae said:
> 
> 
> > Burn! :lol:
> ...



We'd have had a lot more if I was in charge.


----------



## Woody2Shoes (13 Jun 2020)

Trainee neophyte":nggfnycr said:


> Woody2Shoes":nggfnycr said:
> 
> 
> > I think you've just proved to me (something I already knew) that fake news is easy to create and disseminate and that people will believe what they want to believe. The real trick, as some manipulative people have discovered, is to make them want to believe that thing in the first place. Also, that the impossible thing is to equip everyone with the brainpower - and the time and inclination - to think for themselves.
> ...



No-one is blinder than he who will not see...


----------



## doctor Bob (13 Jun 2020)

Well, I went and cut my field today. Lockdown is over, it just seemed like everyone is out, no distancing, big groups, beers on the green. Makes me wonder if I should even bother trying to do it at work anymore.


----------



## Blackswanwood (13 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":2qzvfpud said:


> Garno":2qzvfpud said:
> 
> 
> > Rorschach":2qzvfpud said:
> ...



Not really something to be proud of and a potentially inflammatory and callous statement to make in the knowledge that there are those on here who are worried about themselves or loved ones being in a high risk category.

For the avoidance of doubt I’m not one of them - I recognise how lucky I am. I also think we need to come out of lockdown decisively. I don’t feel a need though to be disrespectful of the very real concerns of others.


----------



## Blackswanwood (13 Jun 2020)

doctor Bob":2oexkv3y said:


> Well, I went and cut my field today. Lockdown is over, it just seemed like everyone is out, no distancing, big groups, beers on the green. Makes me wonder if I should even bother trying to do it at work anymore.



Obviously your choice Bob but obviously if you don’t you risk an employers liability claim if one of your guys goes down with C19. I’m not saying that’s right or deserved ... just that it’s a risk!


----------



## Trainee neophyte (13 Jun 2020)

Woody2Shoes":kwik66go said:


> No-one is blinder than he who will not see...



Any chance you could enlighten me? I'd love to understand what you are trying tell me. Currently, I'm somewhat baffled.


----------



## Rorschach (13 Jun 2020)

Blackswanwood":3h1vev91 said:


> Not really something to be proud of and a potentially inflammatory and callous statement to make in the knowledge that there are those on here who are worried about themselves or loved ones being in a high risk category.
> 
> For the avoidance of doubt I’m not one of them - I recognise how lucky I am. I also think we need to come out of lockdown decisively. I don’t feel a need though to be disrespectful of the very real concerns of others.



Not proud or otherwise, just realistic. 
I have set out my plan here before so I won't go into it again. My plan would likely have resulted in more direct C19 deaths because I would have given people freedom to choose and some of those people would have chosen to take the risk and died as a result. Those who took the advice given would have been fine though, but lonely and isolated.
In the longterm though I think my plan would have been less costly and probably less deadly (from associated deaths) than the plan the government went with.


----------



## Student (13 Jun 2020)

I’ve kept out of this debate so far and I have to confess that I haven’t read every single one of the 500 posts so far and I apologise if what follows has been covered before.

My reason for contributing is that I was concerned by Rorschach’s comment yesterday that 

“Vast majority of deaths are over 60 and most of them are over 80. I can't remember where I read it but they said that almost everyone that has died was older than average life expectancy.” 

What follows is very boring as it involves statistics

It’s true to say that those reaching age 80 have reached average life expectancy but that is the age expectancy at birth and, by age 80, quite a number of those who were born in, say, 1940 have already died. Based on data for 2016-2018, the Office of National Statistics reckons that the life expectancy of an 80 year old is over 8 years, by 90 it’s 4 years – see Ex in the table below. 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... encetables

Age x	q x	E x
80	0.054457	8.39
81	0.060978	7.85
82	0.067751	7.33
83	0.076890	6.82
84	0.086362	6.35
85	0.096080	5.90
86	0.108379	5.48
87	0.120527	5.08
88	0.135267	4.71
89	0.151119	4.37
90	0.164525	4.06

As well as figures for the expectation of life, the table also includes the probability of death at each age – column q x. So, for a group of 1,000 80 year olds, 55 would be expected to die before reaching age 81, 61 of a thousand 81 year olds etc. To calculate excess deaths, the statisticians calculate the expected number of deaths using similar tables and subtract that from the actual number of deaths. There has been much talk about excess deaths although another way of looking at it would be to regard them as premature deaths since we are all due to die at some time. As to whether deaths in future years will be lower, it’s possible, but not certain, since those who survive may well be the healthier ones. However, how long it takes for this to play out is anybody’s guess.

If one wants more information on the topic of excess deaths, it can be found here:

https://www.actuaries.org.uk/system/fil ... -06-09.pdf

As for the pronouncements by Matt Hancock et al, it might be worth reading the following couple of articles

https://www.actuaries.org.uk/news-and-i ... iable-data

https://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/ ... ting-data/ 

This last also gives a link to Matt Hancock’s reply.

However, matters continue to proceed at a fast rate so, what was true yesterday may not be true tomorrow.

Finally, when it comes to predicting the future, there is always a danger in being too confident about this. I read recently of a professor warning of being too confident of predictions by telling the story of a turkey that hatched in the USA on New Year’s Day. Every day thereafter he was fed and, as the months passed, he came to the conclusion that his future was bright; then came the fourth Wednesday in November. Also, when it comes to predictions, at the end of the 19th century, it was predicted that, with the growth of population and of transport in London, within a limited number of years there wouldn’t be enough resources to carry away all the horse manure and the streets of London would be awash with the stuff; then came the internal combustion engine.


----------



## doctor Bob (13 Jun 2020)

Blackswanwood":3kp6z6kh said:


> doctor Bob":3kp6z6kh said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I went and cut my field today. Lockdown is over, it just seemed like everyone is out, no distancing, big groups, beers on the green. Makes me wonder if I should even bother trying to do it at work anymore.
> ...



Yeh I know, only venting. I follow the rules trust me.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (13 Jun 2020)

This seems timely: 


> At the time of writing (10/06/2020) COVID 19 is said to have affected 0.4% of the UK populations and 0.06% have reportedly died as a result. Cancer alone kills 0.24% of the population every year in the UK. Even if you accept that all claimed deaths from COVID 19 were as a result of the syndrome, cancer kills at least four times as many people.
> 
> In 2018 541,589 people died in England and Wales. This represents 0.92% of the population which means approximately 0.15% of the population die every two months. The top 5 leading causes of death account for more than 40% of those deaths.







ONS data


> On average these five causes kill 0.37% of the population every year, equating to approximately 0.06% every two months. Roughly the same figure as reported COVID 19 deaths. Yet for these people, during the Lockdown regime, treatment and essential screening has effectively been withheld.
> 
> During the same period hospital bed occupancy has been at an all time low. Additional capacity was added in the form of the various Nightingale hospitals, though these have not been required to treat COVID 19 patents.
> 
> During the Lockdown regime, cancer screening and treatment was put on hold. Cancer Research UK estimate that 290,000 people have missed cancer follow ups, indicating that around 20,000 current cancer sufferers, who would otherwise have been detected, remain without a diagnosis in the UK. They state that 2.1 million people have missed screening appointment, potentially at the cost of another 3,800 lives. The impact upon cancer survival rates alone has been devastating.



The full article is here: https://in-this-together.com/lockdown-r ... -lokin-20/

I've been rather enjoying his work - not much output, but well-reasoned and well researched - at least, in my opinion.


----------



## Droogs (13 Jun 2020)

I do have to point out something that has been mentioned a few times on here about cancer patients and treatment. It is only in England within the UK that cancer treatments have been put totally on hold. In Scotland the diagnosis and treatment using both chemo and radiology have continued. I know this as i have just completed 12 weeks of chemo (4 days ago )and am currently on my 5 week pause before my 15 rounds of radiotherapy start. but i have been to hospital this week for my face mould to be made. In Scotland cancer treatment hospitals have been segregated from those areas treating covid patients.
Just one of the many areas of healthcare and social care information and facts that have been totally distorted by the English based MSM


----------



## Jake (13 Jun 2020)

Trainee neophyte":11wv743q said:


> However, I found this info at a very nice website called lockdownskeptics.org (https://lockdownsceptics.org/2020/06/11 ... e-science/) - do you think they have an axe to grind?



Yes it's run by Toby Young who is basically a notorious alt-right troll.


----------



## Jake (13 Jun 2020)

Trainee neophyte":3c2tal24 said:


> https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/



Yes you've relied on these people before. Very non-transparent and they do love to rely on the mainstream Russian propaganda channels like RT and Sputnik. So I'd give them a swerve if that doesn't dent your income too much.


----------



## Jake (13 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":1e9ri5mf said:


> To date they are excess yes. What will that number be in a year from now though. A lot of those people that have died have died early, if they didn't die of C19 they would have died of something else in the next year or so, 80 year olds don't live in care homes for a decade usually :wink:



The fact you are winking about people (of whatever age) dying is, well.

The actuarial stats are that the average person dying is losing 10 years of life. Just because someone is 80 doesn't mean they are going to die this year or next year because they've outlived the mean. 

But, it's all a nod and a joke and wink to you right?


----------



## Jake (13 Jun 2020)

doctor Bob":2jldq41h said:


> I'm passive aggressive because I really dislike the way people are treated in these arguements. The majority belittle the minority in a very mean and superior manner and then get rattled when the reverse is carried out (on purpose)



The majority on this and Brexit were definitely on your side Bob.


----------



## Jake (13 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":30m0z8o4 said:


> Lets just wait until we see the mortality figures for 2019/20 as a whole compared to the 5 year average and a bad flu year figure as well. I guarantee (totally my opinion) that we will not see 60,000+ extra deaths on the average and my suspicion is the figure will be slightly higher than a (very) bad flu year.



The very worst flu years (decades apart) are less than 30k in total so your theory is a non starter. Usually it is either in the hundreds (sometimes in the tens) and a bad year is high single digit thousands.


----------



## Jake (13 Jun 2020)

Droogs":3aodoq9c said:


> I do have to point out something that has been mentioned a few times on here about cancer patients and treatment. It is only in England within the UK that cancer treatments have been put totally on hold.



I don't think there is total hold (but there is a massive backlog). My sister's hospital has had 3 ICUs running, one for confirmed COVID, one for unknown from A&E, one for cancer patients and the like, who have had to isolate themselves themselves completely for weeks to ensure the ward is COVID clean.

Which is not to say there is not a problem.


----------



## Droogs (13 Jun 2020)

not denying there is a problem just that there is a misconception about the true state of cancer coverage/treatment amongst the populace and it is mainly due to misreporting by the mainstream media based in England as usual


----------



## Trainee neophyte (13 Jun 2020)

Jake":3p70wdig said:


> Trainee neophyte":3p70wdig said:
> 
> 
> > However, I found this info at a very nice website called lockdownskeptics.org (https://lockdownsceptics.org/2020/06/11 ... e-science/) - do you think they have an axe to grind?
> ...


"Everyone lies". 
Does being a "notorious alt-right troll" negate all the information contained therein? Sort of my point - there are no longer any facts , just selected evidence to bolster already chosen positions. Everyone is so ready to discount whatever doesn't fit with the preconceived notions. Science has become a major casualty in all this, which may actually be a good thing, as there are people who apparently want to use science to rebuild the world with you and me as much poorer versions of our former selves. (I am assuming that you are not a well-connected billionaire, but you know what they say about "assume".)
https://journal-neo.org/2020/06/09/now- ... eat-reset/


----------



## Jake (13 Jun 2020)

Trainee neophyte":ep66myu3 said:


> Does being a "notorious alt-right troll" negate all the information contained therein?



No of course it does not, but what it does do is impose an alt-right troll community filter on what you see . Better to seek closer to source opinions, without the censorship.



> #Sort of my point - there are no longer any facts , just selected evidence to bolster already chosen positions.



Very post modernist of you, anything is true if you say it. Do you actually believe that though? Is a table a table or just a construct of what a table is if you call something a table in a language in which a table is what a chair looks like? If you choose to think like that, you select irrationality.



> Everyone is so ready to discount whatever doesn't fit with the preconceived notions.



That's true for many, especially from the YouTube (using that as an analogy for a system of thought) generation. Thankfully, still not wholly the case.



> Science has become a major casualty in all this



Science is fine, you just don't understand how it works, very messily.



> which may actually be a good thing



No, it would be a very bad thing, although science is not a be and end all and does not provide answers to lots of questions (including if we are still on the subject, re COVID, for instance in the rational debate to be had about the balance between pathology and the economy (in short and long terms, which may not be the same thing).



> as there are people who apparently want to use science to rebuild the world with you and me as much poorer versions of our former selves. (I am assuming that you are not a well-connected billionaire, but you know what they say about "assume".)
> https://journal-neo.org/2020/06/09/now- ... eat-reset/



I have not read that and I'm not sure I CBA but your argument is that science is bad because bad people want to do bad things with science. I am sure that bad people also want to do bad things with all sorts of other things which are not inherently bad because bad people can do bad things with them. Get-away cars are the first example that comes to my head.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (13 Jun 2020)

Even the best science cannot unambiguously judge the relative importance of morals and money. Even where sound data is available the individual tendancy is to select that which confirms a personal bias.

A political judgement is underpinned by objective analysis to balance moral, economic, financial and feasibility issues. Inevitably the rules made will not please everyone - personal judgement is based upon individual beliefs and circumstances.

To put the following into some sort of context, I am retired and vulnerable:

1. I do not subscribe to the view that all life is worth preserving at any cost. But if you are a tolerably healthy 70 year old you may expect to have another 10,15 or 20 years of good quality life. This should not be denied.
2. I understand why younger people feel frustrated - expected to make significant personal sacrifices (financial and freedoms) for no immediate benefit. Worse, they will pay most to repair the financial hole left.

Society works if all are treated fairly, with dignity and respect. Removing lockdown without regard for older people is as unreasonable as maintaining lockdown at the expense of the young.

The retired have the largest discretionary income af any age group - 65-74 year olds closely followed by over 75s (ONS figures for March 2019). They also have saved the most money on items prevented during lockdown.

To balance the pain there may be a very good argument for a tax surcharge on pensioners (for 3-5 years?) to recognise the benefit to them and the sacrifice made by younger people to at least partially rebalance the impacts of CV-19.

Probably a radical and unattractive thought for many on this forum - but worth thinking about!


----------



## Jake (13 Jun 2020)

I think those are sensible thoughts. Boomers are going to have give some stuff up, as are Gen X , and to some degree Millennials.

I think it will (or should, if austerians can be kept out of decision making) be done more subtly by long term debt finance, with some QE evaporation over time. The benefits of fiat currency are enormous, especially in a situation like this where all countries are pretty much in the same boat (assuming, optimistically, we stop being in the top 5 failing nations at dealing with COVID).


----------



## Trainee neophyte (14 Jun 2020)

Jake":rqmcj4r2 said:


> Science is fine, you just don't understand how it works, very messily.



Science, much like everything else these days, has been appropriated by the people giving the money. Research depends on funding, and funding comes with strings attached. An entirely different issue is how the results of that research, tainted or otherwise, is then presented, propagandised and promoted for reasons that may or may not be honest and fair. A good example might be Al Gore, who managed to become a billionaire through manipulating the green message. He did _not_ make all that money by selling books and videos, by the way.



Jake":rqmcj4r2 said:


> Yes you've relied on these people before. Very non-transparent and they do love to rely on the mainstream Russian propaganda channels like RT and Sputnik. So I'd give them a swerve if that doesn't dent your income too much.


I see what you did there: infer I get paid to troll, raised the "Evil Russia" spectre to frighten the children, and generally made no attempt whatsoever to address the information, but rather attempt to discredit the source. Only The Guardian and other right-thinking sources allowed? As I have said, everyone likes to choose which "facts" are real facts, mostly by not actually addressing the facts themselves. I don't have the resources, time, or enthusiasm to go off and be a roving investigative reporter, so I do it third hand, by trawling the internet. It is clear that both government and traditional media all lie, consistently. Therefore you have to go further into the darker, more dangerous reaches of the universe, which has its own issuez. What I don't know, for certain, is what is truly factual,and what is nonsense made up for the benefit of some individual or group. Just floundering in the soup like everyone else - the only difference may be that I at least try to taste as much of it as I can. It still comes down to taste and personal preference in the end, but you can't accuse me of being a fussy eater, unlike some.


----------



## Rorschach (14 Jun 2020)

Jake":3mbtljn5 said:


> Trainee neophyte":3mbtljn5 said:
> 
> 
> > However, I found this info at a very nice website called lockdownskeptics.org (https://lockdownsceptics.org/2020/06/11 ... e-science/) - do you think they have an axe to grind?
> ...



Alt-right, now we know how deluded you are :roll:


----------



## Chris152 (14 Jun 2020)

Terry - Somerset":1zhfifxj said:


> To balance the pain there may be a very good argument for a tax surcharge on pensioners (for 3-5 years?) to recognise the benefit to them and the sacrifice made by younger people to at least partially rebalance the impacts of CV-19.
> Probably a radical and unattractive thought for many on this forum - but worth thinking about!


Lock em up in their homes for several months and then charge them for the privilege. 
Apart from the alternatives Jake's suggested above, there are probably better pots of excess wealth that could be taxed more heavily without the ethical problem of charging a vulnerable group for the 'favour' society's done them?


----------



## Rorschach (14 Jun 2020)

Hey I get attacked for my views and then you lot want to heavily tax all the old folks for something that isn't their fault! :shock: 

I certainly would not want to tax them, they release their wealth when they die anyway so why make them suffer in their final years? The stress would probably push some into an early grave.

People just need to take responsibility for their own lives and let everyone else do the same.


As an aside, just been reading the rules for shopping starting tomorrow. Almost seems like the shops don't want anyone to come, totally unworkable and will fail after 5 minutes. Yes I do know what I am talking about, I worked in retail for several years.


----------



## Jake (15 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":2c9i3l1a said:


> Alt-right, now we know how deluded you are :roll:



:roll :roll :straightjacket


----------



## Jake (15 Jun 2020)

Trainee neophyte":65baga7d said:


> I see what you did there: infer I get paid to troll, raised the "Evil Russia" spectre to frighten the children



Just a joke about your spatial distance from Macedonia plus the frequency with which you bring up Putinist shill points and sources. As I've said before I think it is actually just really bad information hygiene.


----------



## Andy Kev. (15 Jun 2020)

Jake":1owqiene said:


> Yes it's run by Toby Young who is basically a notorious alt-right troll.



That is one of those instructive posts which says far more about the poster than the content does about its subject.

I defy you to produce one single scrap of evidence which could lead to Toby Young being branded as a "troll". He's certainly a conservative both with a large and small "c" but hardly "right wing" in the pejorative sense of the term and he's certainly not "alt-right". In many ways he is a true liberal, having, amongst other things just founded the Free Speech Union as a response to the increasingly totalitarian tendencies which we regularly see in our universities, media, twattosphere etc. He's also founded a magazine called _The Critic_ which is intended to counter left wing dominance of the public space, something which one might imagine democrats of all political persuasions would most heartily welcome.

Now of course if you don't value free speech, then he must be seen as some kind of enemy.

So, I repeat my challenge: produce one scrap of evidence which could lead to Toby Young being legitimately branded as a troll. (Hint: articles slagging him of (usually in the Guardian) are not actually evidence.)


----------



## Chris152 (15 Jun 2020)

Andy Kev.":3kgsoekf said:


> In many ways he is a true liberal, having, amongst other things just founded the Free Speech Union as a response to the increasingly totalitarian tendencies which we regularly see in our universities, media, twattosphere etc.


That'll be the same kind of 'free speech' mr trump wants to defend against Twitter's fact checks etc on his posts?


----------



## Andy Kev. (15 Jun 2020)

Chris152":1owoarx3 said:


> Andy Kev.":1owoarx3 said:
> 
> 
> > In many ways he is a true liberal, having, amongst other things just founded the Free Speech Union as a response to the increasingly totalitarian tendencies which we regularly see in our universities, media, twattosphere etc.
> ...


Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

Why come up on a thread simply to demonstrate an inability to deal with the point being made? I mean really, why do it?

However, I will draw deep of my well of patience and point out the following: the right to free speech is, or should be, universal. Put very simply (even Trump or Corbyn should be able to understand this):

a. Only very bad people try to put limits on free speech and they tend to be the kind of people who, if left unchecked, go on to build gulags or concentration camps. In other words, the quality of totalitarianism is not constrained by it coming either from the extreme left or from the extreme right.

b. One of the great qualities of the exercising of said right is that it often provides clear examples of the old saw of "give him enough rope and he'll hang himself". Let them all speak: we are capable of judging what they say. Again, it is principally the totalitarians who do not trust our ability to judge; North London, North Korea - no difference really. One of the wisest things said in relation to this came from Abraham Lincoln: You can fool all of the people some of the time, you can fool some of the people all of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. (But then again he was a democrat and champion of free speech so I suppose there's a chance that we can look forward to his statue being torn down.)

c. The reason your post is so abysmal is that it was Tony Young who was under debate and, clearly being unable to cope with that, you chose to attempt to distract by bringing in the matter of Trump. Free speech is not bad because of Trump's (mis)use of it but rather Trump is bad because of what he does with and to free speech (amongst other things). We can all see that.

Did you not say that you once worked as an academic? That is deeply worrying. I sometimes fear for democracy, even for civilisation itself.


----------



## Chris152 (15 Jun 2020)

it was a question ak. you seem to have gone off on one rather than answer it properly.


----------



## Andy Kev. (15 Jun 2020)

Then it was a poor question and it was or seemed to be an example of a typical tactic which is sadly so often employed in what passes for argument these days.

If you want to make a point about Trump and his curious relationship with free speechn then make one.


----------



## Chris152 (15 Jun 2020)

thanks ak


----------



## Setch (15 Jun 2020)

I think Chris was making a point about Toby Young's relationship to free speech, namely that it's great when it's his free speech, but rather less important when it's voicing an opinion he disagrees with.


----------



## Andy Kev. (15 Jun 2020)

Setch":18xakoyc said:


> I think Chris was making a point about Toby Young's relationship to free speech, namely that it's great when it's his free speech, but rather less important when it's voicing an opinion he disagrees with.


Then he was making his point ineptly. Telepathy is a rare quality.

And if that were the point he was trying to make, he would be clearly and demostrably wrong: Toby Young's Free Speech Union is open to anybody of any political persuasion who values free speech. While I cannot claim to have read all his journalism, I have never encountered in any which I have read the least indication that he wants to restrict the right of free speech for anybody else. Quite the opposite in fact.


----------



## Andy Kev. (15 Jun 2020)

In more general terms, I've just been looking at pictures of masses of people queueing at places like Primark. It just seems a bit sad if blind consumerism is all people thought they had to look forward to during the lockdown. "I've got my freedom back! I know what do to: I'll go and buy some tat." Or am I just being too harsh?

OTH I suppose it's a sign of a well off society.


----------



## Droogs (15 Jun 2020)

no Andy not harsh but they are just following our golden haired adonis of a leader's orders to save the economy regardless of "cost" lol


----------



## Andy Kev. (15 Jun 2020)

Droogs,

I think that from the economy's point of view, an outbreak of rampant consumerism will be most welcome and of course the welfare of all of us ultimately depends on how the economy does.

It just struck me as a bit sad from a cultural point of view. That said, I'd be fair play for a criticism of snobbery. Who am I to decry spending one's hard earned at Primark? That said, I think I'd rather see a world where we (re)learned to save and then bought fewer things of high quality made by serious and preferably local craftsmen and women. It's the disposable wear-once-and-forget aspect of consumerism that I think does nobody any good.


----------



## Droogs (15 Jun 2020)

100% agree with you there Andy


----------



## Rorschach (15 Jun 2020)

I would imagine a good proportion of the people wanting to get into Primark are people like my SIL who has 3 children that have outgrown a vast proportion of their clothes in the last 3 months. Saw them today with their trousers at half mast! :lol:


----------



## Trainee neophyte (15 Jun 2020)

I know a thread is getting weird when I start getting privately messages about it - probably time to extract myself before things get out of hand. Again .

I saw a young girl, possibly teenager, on the BBC today talking about how she was going shopping, but was still scared about catching the virus. Complete nonsense, given that whatever method of getting to the shops that she used, including walking, would have been far more dangerous than the risk of any viral infection she might be subjected to. But we must all be scared, all the time, about everything. Russia has hypersonic nuclear weapons, you know. We should probably invade before it's too late.

On that happy note, I shall now go and seek out a sharpening thread - far less contentious. I'm going to try really hard to not look in on this one for a bit, much to everyone's relief, no doubt.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (15 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":1vnb5bjf said:


> I would imagine a good proportion of the people wanting to get into Primark are people like my SIL who has 3 children that have outgrown a vast proportion of their clothes in the last 3 months. Saw them today with their trousers at half mast! :lol:



Did you tell her it's possible to buy things on line?


----------



## Rorschach (15 Jun 2020)

Phil Pascoe":yrsj714w said:


> Rorschach":yrsj714w said:
> 
> 
> > I would imagine a good proportion of the people wanting to get into Primark are people like my SIL who has 3 children that have outgrown a vast proportion of their clothes in the last 3 months. Saw them today with their trousers at half mast! :lol:
> ...



C'mon Phil you are too sensible for a statement like this.


----------



## doctor Bob (15 Jun 2020)

Trainee neophyte":51bhuy10 said:


> I know a thread is getting weird when I start getting privately messages about it - probably time to extract myself before things get out of hand.



Yes I got one too, I couldn't be pineappled to read it and eventually the sender deleted it :lol: :lol:


----------



## Lons (16 Jun 2020)

doctor Bob":2aoo6xor said:


> Trainee neophyte":2aoo6xor said:
> 
> 
> > I know a thread is getting weird when I start getting privately messages about it - probably time to extract myself before things get out of hand.
> ...



Well it definitely wasn't me. :!:


----------



## Garno (16 Jun 2020)

Lons":1z84luwq said:


> doctor Bob":1z84luwq said:
> 
> 
> > Trainee neophyte":1z84luwq said:
> ...



Wasn't me either, I have learnt that the important folk do not think me worthy of a reply so I only reply to messages these days. I think people put my PM's into the junk mail folder


----------



## Rorschach (21 Jun 2020)

Anyone go proper shopping this week? I did, more to people watch than actually buy anything. I was impressed with the systems that had been created and the professionalism of the staff. Everyone super friendly, knew their stuff and very helpful. Didn't witness anyone being rude or being shouted at. 

Sadly though it appeared to be almost as many staff as customers, I could have walked straight into any number of shops they were so empty, those that did have queues were only very short and because the shops themselves were on the smaller side. I got some lunch while out, walked right in and placed my order right away, one person waiting, no one behind me. No one at the tills in the shops I did go into. 

I thought it would be interesting to see how things were going, it was just depressing really.


----------



## Garno (21 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":2ci88pkm said:


> it was just depressing really.



A bit like a lot of your posts


----------



## Lons (21 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":2tsh572k said:


> one person waiting, no one behind me. No one at the tills in the shops I did go into. I thought it would be interesting to see how things were going, it was just depressing really.



I guess the word was out that you were around and sensible people didn't want to risk it. :lol:

We went to Costco on Friday and it was pretty busy but very well controlled with plenty of full trolleys evident and this morning I dropped my wife off at Morrisons which was also very busy.


----------



## Rorschach (21 Jun 2020)

Lons":lvb04z1z said:


> Rorschach":lvb04z1z said:
> 
> 
> > one person waiting, no one behind me. No one at the tills in the shops I did go into. I thought it would be interesting to see how things were going, it was just depressing really.
> ...



Word got around fast then! :lol: 

I was discounting supermarkets/food shops really as they aren't really any different to pre-lockdown. The shops I was talking about were all shops that had opened up in the last week or so, clothes shops, jewellers etc.


----------



## Rorschach (23 Jun 2020)

Bit of knowledge that hasn't made the news (yet). Doc Bob might be interested in this.

Thousands?(didn't get an exact figure but it's a lot) of low grade civil servants are being retrained to cover DWP work in preparation for when the furlough scheme ends. 

This means massive unemployment on the horizon.


----------



## doctor Bob (23 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":287u0hzw said:


> This means massive unemployment on the horizon.



Think this is common knowledge, a lot on furlough don't realise that they have been on good welfare payments for 3 months and were effectively unemployed in March.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (23 Jun 2020)

My wife works for a small (Swedish) bank. The consensus there is that many businesses will attempt to make a go of things but find it impossible for one reason or another and will fold in the autumn.

Pubs, restaurants, cafes etc. - how exactly are they to make money with twice the overheads and half the trade? You'd have be desperate to even try.


----------



## Rorschach (23 Jun 2020)

doctor Bob":1t2zuz54 said:


> Rorschach":1t2zuz54 said:
> 
> 
> > This means massive unemployment on the horizon.
> ...



I think some of us knew this was going to happen but a lot were in denial, especially the MSM who caused all of this. The fact the government is making these preparations though shows that they know what is coming.


----------



## Rorschach (23 Jun 2020)

Phil Pascoe":241iw2km said:


> My wife works for a small (Swedish) bank. The consensus there is that many businesses will attempt to make a go of things but find it impossible for one reason or another and will fold in the autumn.
> 
> Pubs, restaurants, cafes etc. - how exactly are they to make money with twice the overheads and half the trade? You'd have be desperate to even try.



Yes I agree with her (and you).
My post a few days ago about going shopping was to highlight exactly this. If you have as many staff as customers how are you going to make any profits?


----------



## Terry - Somerset (23 Jun 2020)

It was very clear early in lockdown that some being furloughed may ultimately end up jobless. The more thoughtful may have realised that they should have spent some time gaining new and different skills - sadly I suspect most did not.

Furlough is unaffordable long term - a very generous scheme where for many 80% of income, and saving commuting, child care costs etc may have left them financially better off.

The expected relaxation of lockdown is a high risk strategy to at least give most small businesses a chance. With 2M distancing restaurants, pubs, cinemas etc would be limited to around 25% capacity - at 1M they may get to around 70%.

Most businesses will survive at 70% capacity - eg: on most nights most restaurants are trading well below 70% capacity and it is only on 1 or 2 nights a week it would be a constraint.

The new normal may be very different to the old - work from home, online shopping and delivery, investment to reduce complexity and length of overseas supply chains, etc. Behaviours and attitudes may change - live to work, or work to live. This may lead to greater job sharing, reduced hours jobs .

It is a mistake to view the future as a series of negative events - there are opportunities for change which can improve rather than diminish individuals and society. What separates this recession from others is that it was created over just two month, other recessions (2010, 1990s, 1980s) reflected fundamental weaknesses not easily reversed.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (23 Jun 2020)

Terry - Somerset":w73v5nr9 said:


> Most businesses will survive at 70% capacity - eg: on most nights most restaurants are trading well below 70% capacity and it is only on 1 or 2 nights a week it would be a constraint.



Yes, and on most nights they're only paying their way and not making money, and they have carried staff to allow them to work at maximum. You still have to (e.g.) clean a toilet, whether ten people use it or fifty people use it - you have only a fifth of the people to pay them.


----------



## Rorschach (23 Jun 2020)

I am not convinced most businesses could survive even if they managed to get to 70% capacity. I think people saying that have never run a business before.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (23 Jun 2020)

At 70% all day, every day ..............maybe. They need the 100%s to counter the 40%s.


----------



## RogerS (23 Jun 2020)

Terry - Somerset":2f6b5m92 said:


> ....
> The new normal may be very different to the old - work from home, online shopping and delivery, investment to reduce complexity and length of overseas supply chains, etc. Behaviours and attitudes may change - live to work, or work to live. ......



Well, if today is anything to go by, the 'new' normal is the 'old' normal. Needed to send a letter Special Delivery so popped down to the local (very small) town. Every shop open including hairdressers. Groups sitting on benches together, chilling out in the sunshine. 2m ? Dream on 1m? Dream on even further. Not an attempt at any form of social distancing. Not a mask in sight. Covid doesn't exist. Never did. It was a conspiracy. Simply bloody stupid.

Sing along now :

We're riding along on the crest of a (second) wave,
and the sun is in the sky.
All of our eyes on the distant horizon,
Look out for those who'll die.
We'll do the WAILING !
When all the rest around are failing,
We're riding along on the crest of a (second) wave,
And the world was ours.


----------



## thetyreman (23 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":1k6lhwdg said:


> I am not convinced most businesses could survive even if they managed to get to 70% capacity. I think people saying that have never run a business before.



they could only survive by raising prices which is not easy at a time of recession, you can do it but not forever, it's not sustainable.


----------



## thetyreman (23 Jun 2020)

was watching a BBC report today about how covid damages your lungs, for that reason alone it's worth avoiding, people that still think this is a little cold are very ill informed, it causes permanent lung damage in 20-30% of cases, that's quite a high percentage.


----------



## Rorschach (23 Jun 2020)

thetyreman":1je7xd9l said:


> was watching a BBC report today about how covid damages your lungs, for that reason alone it's worth avoiding, people that still think this is a little cold are very ill informed, it causes permanent lung damage in 20-30% of cases, that's quite a high percentage.



Now now, you are taking things out of context there and using it to bolster your case, naughty!

Here is the actual quote, quite a big difference from what you just said.

"In the six-week scans we're seeing, so far I would say between 20% and 30% of patients who have been in hospital appear to show some early signs of lung scarring,"


----------



## thetyreman (23 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":3r776j7t said:


> thetyreman":3r776j7t said:
> 
> 
> > was watching a BBC report today about how covid damages your lungs, for that reason alone it's worth avoiding, people that still think this is a little cold are very ill informed, it causes permanent lung damage in 20-30% of cases, that's quite a high percentage.
> ...



it still doesn't make it any less serious, we're talking about pulmonary fibrosis, still a good reason to AVOID covid, that was my point.


----------



## Rorschach (23 Jun 2020)

thetyreman":enhltcvj said:


> it still doesn't make it any less serious, we're talking about pulmonary fibrosis, still a good reason to AVOID covid, that was my point.



It absolutely does. What you implied is totally different to what that article said.


----------



## Chris152 (23 Jun 2020)

RogerS":3g18lo6h said:


> Well, if today is anything to go by, the 'new' normal is the 'old' normal. Needed to send a letter Special Delivery so popped down to the local (very small) town. Every shop open including hairdressers. Groups sitting on benches together, chilling out in the sunshine. 2m ? Dream on 1m? Dream on even further. Not an attempt at any form of social distancing. Not a mask in sight. Covid doesn't exist. Never did. It was a conspiracy.


Hardly anyone bothering with masks in shops here too - not surprising as they were talked down by our govt from the outset in spite of the wealth of expert opinion stating they're important. It's almost like you're a bit odd if you wear one, slightly embarrassing. As for the 1m, well that's our normal personal space - if people don't follow all the other mitigating precautions it'll be spreading quickly again soon I'd think - especially as much of the UK is already near R1, some above apparently. 
I don't think the British People's Common Sense is going to protect us for very long. Common sense says the sun rises every morning.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (23 Jun 2020)

Some thirty inches from my nose
The frontier of my Person goes,
And all the untilled air between
Is private pagus or demesne.
Stranger, unless with bedroom eyes
I beckon you to fraternize,
Beware of rudely crossing it:
I have no gun, but I can spit.

W H Auden


----------



## Blackswanwood (23 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":1yogiwxe said:


> thetyreman":1yogiwxe said:
> 
> 
> > it still doesn't make it any less serious, we're talking about pulmonary fibrosis, still a good reason to AVOID covid, that was my point.
> ...



The article also says 

“More detailed data from two other earlier coronavirus outbreaks, Sars and Mers, found between 20% and 60% of patients experienced some form of health problem consistent with pulmonary fibrosis.”

The description of pulmonary fibrosis in the article is pretty horrendous.

Pretty much a fair point made by thetyreman.


----------



## Rorschach (23 Jun 2020)

Blackswanwood":2jtqn9y9 said:


> Rorschach":2jtqn9y9 said:
> 
> 
> > thetyreman":2jtqn9y9 said:
> ...



No it really isn't a fair point, are you reading a different article or something? Who cares what happened with SARS or MERS, this isn't either of those.


----------



## Blackswanwood (23 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":2y2cb22e said:


> Blackswanwood":2y2cb22e said:
> 
> 
> > Rorschach":2y2cb22e said:
> ...



I’m reading an article with the headline “Coronavirus: Warning thousands could be left with lung damage“ on the BBC website. Come to think of it even the headline confirms it’s a fair point.


----------



## Rorschach (23 Jun 2020)

Blackswanwood":590pm7tk said:


> I’m reading an article with the headline “Coronavirus: Warning thousands could be left with lung damage“ on the BBC website. Come to think of it even the headline confirms it’s a fair point.



I give up, just stay in your own little world.


----------



## Blackswanwood (23 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":2pfosdun said:


> Blackswanwood":2pfosdun said:
> 
> 
> > I’m reading an article with the headline “Coronavirus: Warning thousands could be left with lung damage“ on the BBC website. Come to think of it even the headline confirms it’s a fair point.
> ...



That’s actually quite a childish response given all I have done is point out someone made a fair point based on medical facts reported by the BBC. You don’t need agree with me but there is no need to be rude.


----------



## selectortone (23 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":sf18lpr0 said:


> I give up, just stay in your own little world.



Oh, the irony. :lol:


----------



## Rorschach (23 Jun 2020)

Blackswanwood":11wlolep said:


> That’s actually quite a childish response given all I have done is point out someone made a fair point based on medical facts reported by the BBC. You don’t need agree with me but there is no need to be rude.



Yep it is childish. But you still don't get it.
Read tyremans statement, then read the article. If you cannot see the glaring mistake (or intentional subterfuge) in what he wrote then I cannot help you.


----------



## Blackswanwood (23 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":2bm1cquc said:


> Blackswanwood":2bm1cquc said:
> 
> 
> > That’s actually quite a childish response given all I have done is point out someone made a fair point based on medical facts reported by the BBC. You don’t need agree with me but there is no need to be rude.
> ...



I don’t see either a glaring mistake or subterfuge. He made his point based on what he had seen on TV. I’ve read the article and you can read it selectively but the summary is that there is a problem for a notable proportion of people who have had C19 with lung scarring aka Pulmonary Fibrosis and this also has been the experience with previous coronaviruses. He’s made a fair point. I’ve no idea what thethremans wider views on lockdown are as I dip in and out of this thread but would hazard a guess from you feeling the need to pick a fight and be so dismissive of his comments that they don’t align with your own arguably dogmatic and ideological view on the matter.

Oh - and just in case you think I’m at the opposite end of the spectrum and thinking we should all stay locked down I don’t. Where we do definitely differ though is that I can respect other people’s views.

Feel free to fire off another of your ripostes in reply - I wont be responding as I’m comfortable enough in my own skin to not need have the last word.


----------



## Rorschach (23 Jun 2020)

Blackswanwood":3e5xor78 said:


> I don’t see either a glaring mistake or subterfuge. He made his point based on what he had seen on TV. I’ve read the article and you can read it selectively but the summary is that there is a problem for a notable proportion of people who have had C19 with lung scarring aka Pulmonary Fibrosis and this also has been the experience with previous coronaviruses. He’s made a fair point. I’ve no idea what thethremans wider views on lockdown are as I dip in and out of this thread but would hazard a guess from you feeling the need to pick a fight and be so dismissive of his comments that they don’t align with your own arguably dogmatic and ideological view on the matter.
> 
> Oh - and just in case you think I’m at the opposite end of the spectrum and thinking we should all stay locked down I don’t. Where we do definitely differ though is that I can respect other people’s views.
> 
> Feel free to fire off another of your ripostes in reply - I wont be responding as I’m comfortable enough in my own skin to not need have the last word.



I am going to try one last time. He wrote:

"it causes permanent lung damage in 20-30% of cases"

The article states:

"20% and 30% of patients who have been in hospital appear to show some early signs of lung scarring"

These are vastly different statements. The first one says that 20-30% of ALL people who get coronavirus will have permanent lung damage.
The article says that a % of those WHO WERE IN HOSPITAL show early signs of scarring.

80% or more of people who contract C19 don't show symptoms, a tiny % of those who actually get it end up in hospital and then a % of those people show early signs of scarring. Can you see the difference now?


----------



## doctor Bob (23 Jun 2020)

RogerS":19l0592g said:


> Terry - Somerset":19l0592g said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



Total opposite in my local town. Is it a northern thing?
Town was dead this afternoon by 3pm, lots of masks and people pooping themselves if you were walking towards them 50 yards away. 
We had a local incident on facebook where a woman called 999 as she entered the underpass to sainsbury's first and someone entered from the other direction and refused to turn around ...... :roll: I would have refused as well, proper mental. Underpass is 2m wide, but I'm happy to walk pass people in the street at a reasonable distance i'e 1m.


----------



## Lons (23 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":2fhjm2nc said:


> Can you see the difference now?



Give it a fff*** rest! :roll: You seize every opportunity to try to shout down anyone who differs from your tunnel vision opinion, I wouldn't wish ill on my worst enemy, usually, but if anyone in your family becomes infected and suffers the lasting lung damage that C19 can cause It would be better if it's you rather than one of the others. You can then honestly speak from a position of personal experience rather than Google cherry picking, though no doubt you'd still find a way to dismiss the cause as something else.



> then I cannot help you.



I think there are more than a few on here wouldn't give you the time of day never mind accept your help, count me in that number!


----------



## doctor Bob (23 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":2w19f7ve said:


> "it causes permanent lung damage in 20-30% of cases"
> 
> The article states:
> 
> ...



In fairness, whether you are for lockdown, against lockdown, want the economy up and running, don't care about economy, whatever you want, the above statement by Roschach does point out the difference in the claim and what the article states.


----------



## Lons (23 Jun 2020)

doctor Bob":2fs6gmwg said:


> Total opposite in my local town. Is it a northern thing?
> Town was dead this afternoon by 3pm, lots of masks and people pooping themselves if you were walking towards them 50 yards away.
> We had a local incident on facebook where a woman called 999 as she entered the underpass to sainsbury's first and someone entered from the other direction and refused to turn around ...... :roll: I would have refused as well, proper mental. Underpass is 2m wide, but I'm happy to walk pass people in the street at a reasonable distance i'e 1m.


I don't think it's just a Northern thing Bob, my niece, a nurse in London is complaining about the numbers of people ignoring distancing and not wearing masks but it is happening around me as well as I already posted re Costco and Morrisons visits on Friday, I was also back in Morpeth on Sunday, loads of people, very few masks, groups of people who clearly aren't close family ( unless they have a lot of siblings :wink: )

There was a party just outside the village on the moor on Saturday night, 20 to 30 "kids" with booze and food and the only distancing observed was to be as close as possible to those of the opposite sex. At least they cleared up their rubbish afterwards.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (23 Jun 2020)

A northern thing? My wife works in Truro and she says it's just as if nothing has happened - even the tramps, drunks and drug addicts are back as there are plenty of of people there now to beg from.


----------



## doctor Bob (23 Jun 2020)

Phil Pascoe":1ynztrii said:


> A northern thing? My wife works in Truro and she says it's just as if nothing has happened - even the tramps, drunks and drug addicts are back as there are plenty of of people there now to beg from.



Maybe it's areas of inbreeding then ................... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :shock:


----------



## RogerS (23 Jun 2020)

doctor Bob":ajmxhekt said:


> Phil Pascoe":ajmxhekt said:
> 
> 
> > A northern thing? My wife works in Truro and she says it's just as if nothing has happened - even the tramps, drunks and drug addicts are back as there are plenty of of people there now to beg from.
> ...



You should know living where you do ! :shock:


----------



## Phil Pascoe (23 Jun 2020)

Unlikely - we're dying out. We're getting swamped with people from England.


----------



## doctor Bob (23 Jun 2020)

RogerS":hgp3ro2e said:


> doctor Bob":hgp3ro2e said:
> 
> 
> > Phil Pascoe":hgp3ro2e said:
> ...



What you heard about Little Hadham then, that fella and his sister was never proved............


----------



## Lons (23 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":22xng03o said:


> 80% or more of people who contract C19 don't show symptoms, a tiny % of those who actually get it end up in hospital and then a % of those people show early signs of scarring.


Yet more quoting subjective opinion as fact. IT BLOODY WELL ISN'T FACT! :roll: The only fact is that they don't know and at least some of them admit that. For every one who states stats they are others with different ones.

There is absolutely no proof that _"80% or more of people who contract C19 don't show symptoms"_, there are studies which suggest anywhere between 5% and 80% and that it's impossible to know without antibody test and even then it will not be accurate, studies also say that many of those asymptomatic at the time can be actually pre-symptomatic and can develop symptoms later.
Other studies suggest that even asymptomatic people can have suffered lung damage though likely less serious and repairable. Read this as an example of only one I could be bothered to link, https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandso ... 2944611623

I'm not saying the sources of your information are wrong but neither can you say with any authority they are accurate, better to wait for the real experts to come to conclusions when there is enough reliable data available to so do, that is a way off yet!


----------



## Rorschach (23 Jun 2020)

Lons":16x3jj9o said:


> Rorschach":16x3jj9o said:
> 
> 
> > 80% or more of people who contract C19 don't show symptoms, a tiny % of those who actually get it end up in hospital and then a % of those people show early signs of scarring.
> ...



Ok, ignore everything I wrote there, I am still correct about tyreman being wrong. :wink:


----------



## Lons (23 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":1ss4ummx said:


> Ok, ignore everything I wrote there,


 That applies to everything you write.


----------



## Rorschach (24 Jun 2020)

Lons":1juelm9y said:


> That applies to everything you write.



You don't seem to be doing a good job of following your own advice there :lol:


----------



## Chris152 (26 Jun 2020)

Can someone help me understand this short article in today's news?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53181525
It says 
'A study of European children with Covid-19 suggests deaths are extremely rare.
Only four of 582 children [in the study] died, two of whom had underlying health conditions.'
That's 0.69% of kids getting it died. I had the impression it was way lower, and I wouldn't think 0.69% constitutes 'extremely rare'?
Apparently 'The researchers say the death rate in children is likely to be "substantially lower" than that observed in the study, because those with mild symptoms would not have been tested or diagnosed at the time', yet it also states 'Symptoms were generally mild and some who tested positive had no symptoms at all'. 
I'm working on the assumption that the ONS's projections that between 5-7% of the population have or have had the disease is about right, far less interested in assertions that we've nearly all had it etc which would obviously reduce the % lots.
This matters to me as I have kids supposed to be returning to school soon - it does seem to me that we don't have a real understanding of how kids relate to the virus.
Is it just a not very helpful study (at least as reported) because it doesn't take account of asymptomatic kids sufficiently?


----------



## Rorschach (26 Jun 2020)

25% of the children had underlying health conditions. I would say that is much higher rate than children in the general population. 50% of the children were admitted to hospital, so they were particularly vulnerable to C19 and had developed severe symptoms.
The article says nothing about how these children were chosen for the study, presumably in order to be picked they had to be showing symptoms severe enough to warrant a test.
Basically there isn't really enough information there to make an informed calculation on the mortality rate amongst children. You get a better idea looking at the confirmed UK cases and deaths in children. 

Going by NHS figures we have 20 deaths under age 19 (no figure on underlying health conditions) 
That is 0.04% of deaths and 0.006% of (confirmed) cases.


----------



## Chris152 (26 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":13qqp1ni said:


> The article says nothing about how these children were chosen for the study, presumably in order to be picked they had to be showing symptoms severe enough to warrant a test.


It does say some (16%) were asymptomatic. 


Rorschach":13qqp1ni said:


> Going by NHS figures we have 20 deaths under age 19 (no figure on underlying health conditions)
> That is 0.04% of deaths and 0.006% of (confirmed) cases.


I prefer those figures - thanks. 
Not sure about the underlying health conditions - I've always wondered what % of us have them!
But yes, I think it's a very vague bit of reporting, and on balance probably not helpful.


----------



## Rorschach (26 Jun 2020)

Chris152":3t5uf0fe said:


> It does say some (16%) were asymptomatic.



You are correct, it does, I missed that, thank you. That probably just adds to what I said that the study isn't very helpful, or rather the information given to us isn't very helpful. 



Chris152":3t5uf0fe said:


> I prefer those figures - thanks.
> Not sure about the underlying health conditions - I've always wondered what % of us have them!
> But yes, I think it's a very vague bit of reporting, and on balance probably not helpful.



I agree, underlying health conditions is a bit vague really. I suffer from hayfever, is that an underlying health condition that I need to be worried about? Stage 4 leukaemia is also an underlying health conditon (UHC), would that make more or less susceptible than the hayfever? It's all a bit silly if we don't have the specifics, but then if we did, would that help? Those UHC could be any one of of thousands of conditions, which would be worrying as we could all be vulnerable, or the UHC could be confined to lets say for arguments sake, heart disease, well then everyone who hasn't got any heart trouble could rest easy and those that did have it could take precautions.


----------



## Andy Kev. (26 Jun 2020)

Chris152":11jw4y01 said:


> Can someone help me understand this short article in today's news?
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53181525
> It says
> 'A study of European children with Covid-19 suggests deaths are extremely rare.
> ...


I think the problem with that is that "rare" is a comparative term. I'm sure it can be given a statistical but nonetheless by definition arbitrary definition e.g. outside +/- two standard deviations of any given sample.

There's also the problem that a relative term can have a degree of meaning conferred upon it in a wholly subjective way e.g. somebody who is hell bent on talking down the threat posed by the virus will very happily settle for less than 1% being rare, while somebody who is determined to talk it up will not be happy with that at all. Stir politics into the mix and the term becomes just a word to be bandied about.

My instinctive and necessarily subjective reaction is to suggest that less than 1% of anything is pretty rare. There wouldn't be much point in telling that to a bereaved parent, though.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (26 Jun 2020)

The BBC article gives a (partial) insight into how the group was selected:

_Researchers led by a team at London's Great Ormond Street looked at 582 children aged from three days up to 18 years living in 25 European countries.

They all tested positive for Covid-19 during the initial peak of the pandemic in April and had been seen at one of 82 specialist healthcare centres for their symptoms._

Certainly in the UK the level of testing was very low and reserved only for those showing positive symtoms. To date in England there have been just 20 deaths with Covid infection for the 0-19 age group.

The proposition that most infected children at the time (April) were either asymptomatic or diagnosed with something trivial at the time (cough, cold, lots of bugs around etc) seems reasonable. Were this not the case deaths amongst children would have been much higher than reported.

The 4 of 582 in the study who died were from a small group of children whose symptoms were bad enough to justify hospital admission in early April. It cannot be applied as a tool to estimate the vulnerability of all children to the virus.


----------



## woodhutt (26 Jun 2020)

doctor Bob":qr1al39d said:


> RogerS":qr1al39d said:
> 
> 
> > Terry - Somerset":qr1al39d said:
> ...



If you'll permit an outsider's viewpoint, I don't believe it's a 'regional thing' but a 'generational thing'. 
Most kids believe they're 'bulletproof' (remember the frightening things we all did when young?). Added to this is the generation born under the sign of Thatcher or later, who then grew up in the 'I, me, mine' era. You can spot them quite easily on the forum. They are the ones with little or no empathy and a belief that their opinions are as valuable as the next persons. ( A fallacy. While entitled to their opinions it is arguable if they are valuable).
Since the outbreak of the pandemic I have watched developments on a daily basis around the world. There is no getting away from the fact that the UK has the fourth highest infection rate and the highest mortality rate per capita in the world. 
Both the UK and the US have suffered badly from either poor or conflicting guidance from the top. Where other countries have got down in the bunker, let the s**t fly over the top and waited until the enemy ran short of ammunition, the UK and US (with some State led exceptions) decided they could stick their heads above the parapet and try to dodge the bullets. Many while standing shoulder to shoulder and failing to wear tin helmets as they did it.
With a full lock down from the word go, enforced where necessary, you might all be sitting down the pub now (which is where I'll be this afternoon).
Rant over.
Pete


----------



## Rorschach (26 Jun 2020)

woodhutt":1t9r4uxw said:


> While entitled to their opinions it is arguable if they are valuable



Thanks for proving your point with your post :wink: :lol:


----------



## woodhutt (26 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":19bk6auw said:


> woodhutt":19bk6auw said:
> 
> 
> > While entitled to their opinions it is arguable if they are valuable
> ...



Strange that you should have selected _this _extract from the post. Perhaps it rang bells?


----------



## Rorschach (26 Jun 2020)

woodhutt":1pqtau68 said:


> Rorschach":1pqtau68 said:
> 
> 
> > woodhutt":1pqtau68 said:
> ...



I spotted your (poorly disguised) dig :roll:


----------



## doctor Bob (26 Jun 2020)

woodhutt":8wbmheqe said:


> Added to this is the generation born under the sign of Thatcher or later, who then grew up in the 'I, me, mine' era. You can spot them quite easily on the forum. They are the ones with little or no empathy and a belief that their opinions are as valuable as the next persons.
> Pete



Wow, so basically your saying anyone born after about 1970 ish is a selfish c___, who's opinion is not as worthy as someone else.
That some opinion, I'll grant you that


----------



## Rorschach (26 Jun 2020)

doctor Bob":2ski6bsz said:


> woodhutt":2ski6bsz said:
> 
> 
> > Added to this is the generation born under the sign of Thatcher or later, who then grew up in the 'I, me, mine' era. You can spot them quite easily on the forum. They are the ones with little or no empathy and a belief that their opinions are as valuable as the next persons.
> ...



I find it funny that the same people who criticise the youth are usually the same people who blame parents for the faults of children. Not realising the irony that they themselves are the parents of the generation they criticise.


----------



## Lons (26 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":16s4lkvl said:


> I find it funny that the same people who criticise the youth are usually the same people who blame parents for the faults of children. Not realising the irony that they themselves are the parents of the generation they criticise.



OK so where on google did you dig up that little _"fact"_.


----------



## woodhutt (26 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":1ibl8c42 said:


> I spotted your (poorly disguised) dig :roll:



Actually, I had no one specific in mind at the time I wrote it but you seem to have taken it personally. This says rather more about you than me.
Believe me, if I wished to criticize you I would do so quite openly. I am too long in the tooth to bother with innuendo and my diplomacy skills diminish annually.


----------



## Trevanion (26 Jun 2020)

I dunno, I think there are tw*ts in every generation along with the decent people in every generation just as it's been for thousands of years, I don't think it's really a new thing at all, just human nature. Some who start out bad in life become excellent people with age, some who start out good in life become terrible people with age.

There's been a lot of complaints lately locally about teenagers vandalising, drinking and taking drugs in the local wildlife park and generally being a nuisance (or generally being teenagers, depending on how you look at things) and they get absolutely demonised and chastised for it. Sure, I'm certainly not suggesting what they do is acceptable in any way but they are simply a product of their own life up to this point, have a chat with them and you'll soon realise that most of them come from problem families with broken homes with little to no encouragement to do anything in life with no one to look up to. So, you've got the crappy home life which has failed them, then they go to school every day and most of the teachers there will discount and largely ignore them because they're one of those "problem" kids so they're pretty much left to their own devices whilst they're there and spent the whole time being told "If you don't do well in school and get into the top universities in the country you won't do well later in life" and if I were living a life like that every day hook me up to the bloody ether right now because any kind of escapism from that daily hell would be bliss.

Something I really want to look into once this crisis has cooled down quite a bit is perhaps seeing if there's any way to get these "problem" kids involved in woodwork/general practical skills somehow maybe through the school, college or youth club program, show them that you really don't need to have X amount of GCSEs or fancy £40k degrees to do well in life, whilst at the same time hopefully instilling a bit of an appreciation for the craft and the time and effort that goes into things that they may think of destroying for fun because they've literally got nothing else better to do. Give them something to aim for I guess? The woodwork certainly helped me immensely, before I got into it I was a pretty impatient short-fused individual who would always throw the first punch even at the slightest annoyance and now I'm like a Zen god.

I dunno, maybe it's a stupid idea and there's not a hope in hell of helping the kids out but someone's gotta try eh?

I guess you could say I grew up in the 'I, me mine' era if it continues past the late ninetys, but I like to think I have a little more empathy for crappy situations than most, or at least I _try_ to sort out the situation in front of me instead of just moaning about it.


----------



## Lons (26 Jun 2020)

Trevanion":6tnope2z said:


> I dunno, I think there are tw*ts in every generation along with the decent people in every generation just as it's been for thousands of years, I don't think it's really a new thing at all, just human nature. Some who start out bad in life become excellent people with age, some who start out good in life become terrible people with age.


 =D> =D>


----------



## Blackswanwood (26 Jun 2020)

Trevanion":mly82unk said:


> I dunno, maybe it's a stupid idea and there's not a hope in hell of helping the kids out but someone's gotta try eh?
> 
> it.



It’s not a stupid idea - and you are right imho that every generation has it’s mix of good and bad.


----------



## woodhutt (26 Jun 2020)

doctor Bob":14e5dtyf said:


> Wow, so basically your saying anyone born after about 1970 ish is a selfish c___, who's opinion is not as worthy as someone else.
> That some opinion, I'll grant you that



OK Bob. I'll put my hands up! I should have qualified my statement to acknowledge that not all those who fall within those parameters are selfish and whose opinions are valueless. I only have to look at my own kids and grand kids to know that. However, it must be admitted that over the past 40 - 50 years there has been a marked upswing in crime (OMG! I see some statistics about to be trotted out :roll: #-o ), particularly against the vulnerable and old. I know that I for one was brought up not to disrespect my elders. How many times have I seen an unruly kid in the street with its parents who are acting anti-socially and thought. "Poor little s*d. Starting life on the back foot". So yes, I do believe that many parents are to blame. 
No, to drag my post back to its original intent it's scenes such as below that fire me up, taken from today's CNN website and headlined "England parties like there's no pandemic". 




_This_ is the kind of behaviour I was railing against.
Pete


----------



## doctor Bob (26 Jun 2020)

woodhutt":35cwfnq8 said:


> _This_ is the kind of behaviour I was railing against.
> Pete



Quite agree Pete, I'm pretty laid back about the whole thing but these scenes really upset me.
I was just against you tarring a couple of generations with the same brush.

A few posts have mentioned drugs ............. I'll be controversial, I loved them growing up, some of the best times ever but in the long term drugs and alcohol are no good. Caught up with me very quickly and cost me very dearly, both in relationships and career. Some people can handle them some can't. 22 years clean and sober  I come from a very stable middle class family, but the attraction was strong and nothing would have stopped me.


----------



## thetyreman (26 Jun 2020)

I'm not christian but do agree with 'thou shalt not judge' which seems to be lost in the modern world we live in now.


----------



## Jake (26 Jun 2020)

Andy Kev.":1ms7s9mk said:


> My instinctive and necessarily subjective reaction is to suggest that less than 1% of anything is pretty rare. There wouldn't be much point in telling that to a bereaved parent, though.



Because it is so subjective, it is difficult. If you were told that you could attend a public event of your choice for free, but that there was going to be a terror attack at it which killed 1 in 100 of the attendees, would you go or not?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (27 Jun 2020)

... Trevanion wrote:
I dunno, I think there are tw*ts in every generation along with the decent people in every generation just as it's been for thousands of years ...

After decades of working in licensed trade, a couple of observations.
1/ There was far, far more vandalism 40 - 50 years ago than there is now. We had a maintenance man whose working week was virtually taken up repairing stuff that had been broken the night before. Indeed, half of mine sometimes was. 
2/ The fights then were much cleaner and easier to deal with - they rarely involved knives, and never the threat of weapons, dirty syringes or anything like that. I remember only a couple of glassing in all those years (up to 2005). One of them was attempted on me - he was an 18st (not long) ex England under 21 No. 8. In my moment of need I laid him out.  If two people started a fight we threw them out before others got involved and let them back in again the following week when they'd apologised. (I was top side of fifty when I last worked in that industry, and my time of coming out on top of fights with people 20 - 30 years younger than me were quickly coming to an end.
There are a lot of elderly people around who pretend they were always saints - they weren't. Useless, unpleasant dickheads exist in all generations.
Rant over for the day.


----------



## Andy Kev. (27 Jun 2020)

Jake":3ciz1l1m said:


> Andy Kev.":3ciz1l1m said:
> 
> 
> > My instinctive and necessarily subjective reaction is to suggest that less than 1% of anything is pretty rare. There wouldn't be much point in telling that to a bereaved parent, though.
> ...


That's a very pertinent question although my answer might not be typical of the population at large.

I can imagine doing my own risk assessment and deciding to attend an event under potential terrorist threat but I admit that that is due to my Army experience and I'm quite happy about that kind of risk management. And it's the sort of risk that we all take. Consider e.g. travel on the London Underground and consider the factors involved in assessing the risk: London has a significant muslim population and opinion surveys show that a significant minority of UK muslims support jihadist attacks. Therefore there is a definite risk of being bombed when using the tube. It's the sort of risk I would usually accept because I like to think however rightly or wrongly that by my behaviour I can lessen the risk to me personally.

A viral threat is an entirely different matter. I have no control over it and short of getting a full blown respirator and noddy suit there are no counter measures which offer sufficiently high levels of security. I have no choice but to live with that lack of security in my day to day environment but would I do something trivial like taking a holiday in e.g. Italy? No. The risk, however small, is just not worth it for a trivial activity.

So it seems to add up to this: Were I to live and work in a place with a significant level of terrorist threat, I know from experience that I will accept that threat because of real life needs but were I to fancy a holiday in a region with a low level of viral threat, I would be unlikely to take the risk for the sake of doing nothing more than indulging myself (and I've lived in areas with relatively high levels of unpleasant tropical disease threat but accepted that because of professional necessity).

Does that answer your question?


----------



## doctor Bob (27 Jun 2020)

Andy Kev.":2avmbe7t said:


> I can imagine doing my own risk assessment and deciding to attend an event under potential terrorist threat but I admit that that is due to my Army experience and I'm quite happy about that kind of risk management.



I don't see what army experience has to do with this, million's of people do this every day? I get that you may feel more able if something was to happen.


----------



## Andy Kev. (27 Jun 2020)

The reason I mentioned my Army experience was that I used to be involved in producing things like threat assessments. I agree with you that many people will follow the same or similar processes according to their own instincts and inclinations without putting a formal name on it. There are also many people who tend not to think and who have a herd mentality and are so potential prey to all kinds of nonsense and there are of course people with ideological and political axes to grind who will blind themselves to various factors. For instance, I am sure that in some circles the very fact that I chose to specifically mention survey results from UK muslims would be shouted down as being racist. To do that would be folly because it would mean ignoring some aspects of reality.

Add in to all that the wilful stupidity which often appears in the media and the establishment and it's a wonder that people can ever make rational decisions at all. When I was in the army I lost time of the number of occasions on which my jaw dropped at reporting in the media of matters of which I knew the facts. As the old saying has it, "Never believe what you read in the papers", to which I would add, "If it's on the BBC, you'd probably be best served by switching channels". Then again, I've become very sceptical over the years.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (27 Jun 2020)

I think most people make intuitive but ill uninformed decisions when it comes to objectively evaluating risk.

Deaths from terrorism in the UK are around 200 in the last 20 years. Deaths on the roads in the same period are approx 60000 (300 times more likely). Yet most individuals are concerned with bombs, kinives and guns, and happily get into a car or cross the road several times a day.

Coronary heart disease kills around 64000 a year in the UK (180 per day). Today a heart attack is a bigger risk than Covid-19. I know they are fundamentally different things - but we go to great lengths to avoid coronavirus, and many do almost nothing as individuals to combat heart disease. 

And finally the the level of acceptable risk relates to the "reward" if the risk is taken. Is a day trip to the beach on a warm sunny day worth the risk of contracting or spreading CV-19. The urge for self-indulgence clearly dominates social responsibility and self-preservation!


----------



## Rorschach (27 Jun 2020)

Terry - Somerset":tvx0tff8 said:


> Is a day trip to the beach on a warm sunny day worth the risk of contracting or spreading CV-19. The urge for self-indulgence clearly dominates social responsibility and self-preservation!



Thing is though, what is the risk? You are outdoors in scorching hot weather. How likely are you to contract C19 in that situation? What would be the infection mechanism?


----------



## Jake (27 Jun 2020)

doctor Bob":2g22mym5 said:


> Andy Kev.":2g22mym5 said:
> 
> 
> > I can imagine doing my own risk assessment and deciding to attend an event under potential terrorist threat but I admit that that is due to my Army experience and I'm quite happy about that kind of risk management.
> ...



Millions of people don't do this every day, they do rationally take much smaller risks. The thought experiment is that is it is known in advance that 1 in 100 attendees will die at the event, to test whether the classification of a 1% risk as small would in fact be subjectively acceptable. It isn't a potential attack, it is one which is going to happen and is going to kill 1 in 100 of the people present.


----------



## Andy Kev. (27 Jun 2020)

Terry - Somerset":1bkehnzm said:


> I think most people make intuitive but ill uninformed decisions when it comes to objectively evaluating risk.
> 
> Deaths from terrorism in the UK are around 200 in the last 20 years. Deaths on the roads in the same period are approx 60000 (300 times more likely). Yet most individuals are concerned with bombs, kinives and guns, and happily get into a car or cross the road several times a day.
> 
> ...


I suspect that none of us will have anything particularly controversial to say about this. I've certainly got no argument with any of that. I suggest that the psychology of it is interesting though. Traffic accident deaths are probably scene as a "legitimate" part of every day life as are deaths from heart attacks. Certainly it would be extremely rare for malice to be involved whereas with terrorist attacks there is 100% maliciousness at the core of it. 

Terrorists naturally rely on the psychological effects of their actions. They know that they will never achieve anything directly by their actions (assuming no access to nuclear or chemical agents). They rely wholly on publicity and the effect that that has in shaping public perception. And with the press being ever ready to happily oblige, their actions will continue. Nonetheless they are morally beyond the pale and these people have to be dealt with.


----------



## Chris152 (27 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":axj4ns9u said:


> Terry - Somerset":axj4ns9u said:
> 
> 
> > Is a day trip to the beach on a warm sunny day worth the risk of contracting or spreading CV-19. The urge for self-indulgence clearly dominates social responsibility and self-preservation!
> ...


I guess on the beach it's people coughing/ sneezing in close proximity to others. Handrails constantly used on the way down to the beach and along the front; keypads and other bits of the machine you use to pay for parking; drinks bottles, ice creams etc bought from a counter (with cash?) - all that rubbish on the beach is coming form somewhere (  ); petrol stations to fuel up for the road trips; public toilets at the beaches; the chippy. Just guessing at examples and don't know the risk levels. All normal stuff, all could be mitigated to varying degrees, depending how seriously people take the threat.

We've now been to the beach a couple of times since full lockdown, shortly after dawn, no crowds, get in the sea without touching anything, get out, come home.


----------



## doctor Bob (27 Jun 2020)

Jake":3cwm0mrs said:


> doctor Bob":3cwm0mrs said:
> 
> 
> > Andy Kev.":3cwm0mrs said:
> ...



Yes sorry Jake I wasn't really reffering to your referenced attack, more just everyday life and threat and how being ex army makes a difference. I'm sure there are a lot of bright army people and also a lot of dumb army people, most of my ex army friends were squaddies and I wouldn't trust their judgement any more than the next man.


----------



## Rorschach (27 Jun 2020)

Chris152":1fytel20 said:


> I guess on the beach it's people coughing/ sneezing in close proximity to others. Handrails constantly used on the way down to the beach and along the front; keypads and other bits of the machine you use to pay for parking; drinks bottles, ice creams etc bought from a counter (with cash?) - all that rubbish on the beach is coming form somewhere (  ); petrol stations to fuel up for the road trips; public toilets at the beaches; the chippy. Just guessing at examples and don't know the risk levels. All normal stuff, all could be mitigated to varying degrees, depending how seriously people take the threat.
> 
> We've now been to the beach a couple of times since full lockdown, shortly after dawn, no crowds, get in the sea without touching anything, get out, come home.



Well coughing and sneezing is unlikely to be a problem in a wide open space like a beach with a sea breeze and scorching sunshine. As they keep telling us it is near impossible to catch it outdoors if you maintain some social distance of around a meter.

All those other things you mention are day to day things that we all do at the moment and are easily mitigated with a bit of hand gel. 

I can't see the problem myself.


As for those who mention the rubbish. I calculate the rubbish to be 66g per person, so not exactly a lot and we don't know if that includes what was put into the bins as the MSM are very good at telling porkies.


----------



## Chris152 (27 Jun 2020)

Yes, I'm sure it should be fine as long as everyone does as they're supposed to. 

As for the rubbish, can't see what's ok about that.


----------



## Rorschach (27 Jun 2020)

Chris152":39xg8npq said:


> As for the rubbish, can't see what's ok about that.



Well what if 99% of the rubbish collected was from the bins? We don't know how much of the 33 tonnes of rubbish was purposely littered.


----------



## Chris152 (27 Jun 2020)

Hadn't considered that possibility. Maybe 100% was in bins and the msm created the photos of carp everywhere in photoshop.


----------



## Trevanion (27 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":1ci53h4a said:


> As for those who mention the rubbish. I calculate the rubbish to be 66g per person, so not exactly a lot and we don't know if that includes what was put into the bins as the MSM are very good at telling porkies.



In real terms, an empty coke can weighs around 12g, so that's 5 coke cans and a few empty packets of crisps in change per person which when put that way, is quite a bit of rubbish.

Whether the numbers included bins I have no idea.


----------



## Rorschach (27 Jun 2020)

Chris152":truvrgwa said:


> Hadn't considered that possibility. Maybe 100% was in bins and the msm created the photos of carp everywhere in photoshop.



I am certain a proportion was dropped by pineapples who don't care. I am sure that the vast majority was from bins though. Living in a coastal area myself I can guarantee a proportion would have been dragged out of the bins by seagulls, they make an awful mess here every bin day.

Any amount dropped on purpose is too much, I am not pro-littering. But I also know that MSM like to make people look as bad as possible to get clicks on their websites.


----------



## Droogs (27 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":3h0r22pv said:


> Thing is though, what is the risk? You are outdoors in scorching hot weather. How likely are you to contract C19 in that situation? What would be the infection mechanism?



This will be why there have been absolutely no cases of Covid-19 anywhere in the middle east or Africa or most of the Indian sub continent with their scorching hot weather, wind and intense sunshine and huge numbers of humanity that have to live outside all the time at all

Once again you show how utterly ignorant you are in how disease spreads and it's impact.


----------



## Jake (27 Jun 2020)

doctor Bob":1x3tsisb said:


> Yes sorry Jake I wasn't really reffering to your referenced attack, more just everyday life and threat and how being ex army makes a difference. I'm sure there are a lot of bright army people and also a lot of dumb army people, most of my ex army friends were squaddies and I wouldn't trust their judgement any more than the next man.



Sure no problem Bob, I appreciate that, the question got twisted in the answer before your post. I reckon Andy answered the wrong question because it is easier to defend from his perspective (as I understand it) of wanting 1 in 100 risks of death to be acceptable.


----------



## Rorschach (27 Jun 2020)

Droogs":10vin3ns said:


> This will be why there have been absolutely no cases of Covid-19 anywhere in the middle east or Africa or most of the Indian sub continent with their scorching hot weather, wind and intense sunshine and huge numbers of humanity that have to live outside all the time at all



I am quite astounded at the sheer stupidity of what you just posted there. Baffling! :shock:


----------



## selectortone (27 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":283y0lca said:


> As for those who mention the rubbish. I calculate the rubbish to be 66g per person, so not exactly a lot and we don't know if that includes what was put into the bins as the MSM are very good at telling porkies.



Well, with that comment any last vestige of credibility you had with me has gone out of the window pal. You're talking out of your rear end. I live in Bournemouth, about ten minutes walk from the beach. I can tell you for a fact, having witnessed the aftermath, that the area between the two piers, and westward towards Sandbanks, a stretch of two or three miles, was like armageddon on Wednesday and Thursday evenings after the 'visitors' departed. Acres of plastic bags, bottles, cans, takeaway cartons, still smouldering barbecues, soiled nappies and toilet paper, boxes and bottles containing urine and faeces. You can fantasise all you like, but I am an eye witness.


----------



## Droogs (27 Jun 2020)

Rorschach. I suggest you enroll at your local college and learn how to read and understand the English language if you find what I wrote in any way baffling. 
You show yourself to be an ignoramus with a highly developed level of sociopathic narcissistic tendencies. I have long given you the benefit of doubt in your rather crude and extremely gauche musings here and in other threads but no more. I wish you all the best in life and may you be lucky enough to experience exactly that which you are prepared to be the lot of others.


----------



## Jake (27 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":1jkjq7h4 said:


> Droogs":1jkjq7h4 said:
> 
> 
> > This will be why there have been absolutely no cases of Covid-19 anywhere in the middle east or Africa or most of the Indian sub continent with their scorching hot weather, wind and intense sunshine and huge numbers of humanity that have to live outside all the time at all
> ...



Whoosh.


----------



## Lons (28 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":2hdfw99h said:


> Terry - Somerset":2hdfw99h said:
> 
> 
> > Is a day trip to the beach on a warm sunny day worth the risk of contracting or spreading CV-19. The urge for self-indulgence clearly dominates social responsibility and self-preservation!
> ...







I really don't believe even you could write that, :roll: if you can't see an issue in situations like in the above pic which were there for all to see around the UK then you're either totally ignorant or posting just to be antagonistic. I'm becoming more convinced that either you really are Jacob doing one of his chameleon acts or one of his offspring acting on his behalf. 

You know damn well that the risk is there. It's reduced if social distancing is observed and less than it would be indoors but it's still there and seeing the huge numbers of people reportedly packing some of the beaches around the country ( or are you saying that's a lie as well?), there is no way that social distancing was observed.

I also read with interest the arguments comparing the risks with heart disease, obesity and driving and don't totally disagree however there is one point overlooked. If you are obese or have heart problems the risk ONLY to yourself and it's your own choice on how or if you mitigate that risk.

If you are driving a car it will be to yourself and perhaps some members of your family / friends in the car, if you have an accident the risk is limited to those people and the other parties involved in the crash so most common are 2 vehicle collisions and as the majority of passenger car journeys apparently have 1 or 2 occupants the fatality risk is limited to a handful of people can't be compared with C19 risk. Fractures from an RTA can't be passed on to other people can they!

If you go on a crowded beach, get infected you are very likely to spread that to many of those you later come into contact with who will also spread it so you putting probably hundreds of people including those frontline workers who look after the patients in hospital at risk.

All members of society should be able to walk the streets without the risk of being infected by the dickh*ads who believe they aren''t going to die if they ignore rules and sound advice but are perfectly happy to pass infection to everyone else and sod the consequences because they don''t give a sh*t..


----------



## Chris152 (28 Jun 2020)

This is good news for Scotland:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53192024
It bothers me that that's not the goal (Covid free) I'm hearing from the govt in England/ UK, I get the impression that high rates of infection and death are being accepted and measures to unlock will build on that rather than the opposite, which is what's needed for public health _and_ the economy. There's a lack of realism in their strategy, it seems very short term thinking. 

At the end of the article it talks of scientists' fears of what's going to happen in winter - does anyone know if substantial measures are now being put in place to deal with the lack of resources (especially people) in case those fears are realised? Or are we just optimistically (naively) hoping it'll go away?


----------



## Rorschach (28 Jun 2020)

Droogs":7qvnglrq said:


> Rorschach. I suggest you enroll at your local college and learn how to read and understand the English language if you find what I wrote in any way baffling.
> You show yourself to be an ignoramus with a highly developed level of sociopathic narcissistic tendencies. I have long given you the benefit of doubt in your rather crude and extremely gauche musings here and in other threads but no more. I wish you all the best in life and may you be lucky enough to experience exactly that which you are prepared to be the lot of others.



You compared the full time lives of people living in Africa/Middle east to an afternoon at the beach as if they are somehow the same.

Yeah I see all the usual suspects jump on the bandwagon as they have found something they can attack me with but I mean honestly, if you really do think the two situations there are the same then lord help you.


----------



## Rorschach (28 Jun 2020)

selectortone":1kmwzfxk said:


> Rorschach":1kmwzfxk said:
> 
> 
> > As for those who mention the rubbish. I calculate the rubbish to be 66g per person, so not exactly a lot and we don't know if that includes what was put into the bins as the MSM are very good at telling porkies.
> ...



Ok, I can go with that, did you take any pictures? Are you disagreeing with my calculation? I was putting forth an alternative view but I suspect your hatred of me will colour your opinion on everything these days so I'll just move on :mrgreen:


----------



## Phil Pascoe (28 Jun 2020)

Why on earth would he take pictures?


----------



## Rorschach (28 Jun 2020)

Chris152":3siyaosq said:


> This is good news for Scotland:
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-53192024
> It bothers me that that's not the goal (Covid free) I'm hearing from the govt in England/ UK, I get the impression that high rates of infection and death are being accepted and measures to unlock will build on that rather than the opposite, which is what's needed for public health _and_ the economy. There's a lack of realism in their strategy, it seems very short term thinking.
> 
> At the end of the article it talks of scientists' fears of what's going to happen in winter - does anyone know if substantial measures are now being put in place to deal with the lack of resources (especially people) in case those fears are realised? Or are we just optimistically (naively) hoping it'll go away?



It'll never go away and C19 "free" is only ever going to be a temporary thing. The lower the infection rate we see now, the higher it will be later on is what I suspect their thinking is. Scotland followed the same basic rules as England and Wales (less strict than Wales actually) and is in a better position because it started with less cases that's all.


----------



## Rorschach (28 Jun 2020)

Phil Pascoe":1bk8sigx said:


> Why on earth would he take pictures?



Seem to be the go-to thing when people are outraged now, take a picture of it and rant on social media :lol:


----------



## Chris152 (28 Jun 2020)

'Coronavirus lockdown: Warning after Ogmore-by-Sea mass brawl' - one of our local beaches:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-53186920
I don't know if they were socially distancing or not.

And on rubbish, again local where 'Increasing amounts of litter could have a "devastating" effect on health, wildlife and tourism in Wales, an environment charity has warned':
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-53193425
All pics photoshopped by msm, obvs.


----------



## Chris152 (28 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":3g53m71b said:


> _The lower the infection rate we see now, the higher it will be later on is _what I suspect their thinking is. Scotland followed the same basic rules as England and Wales (less strict than Wales actually) and is in a better position because it started with less cases that's all.


Who's thinking that? Sounds a bit odd to me. And I'm not sure how many cases anywhere started with - presumably one unless a few were imported at the same time?


----------



## Rorschach (28 Jun 2020)

Chris152":1mzlobwc said:


> 'Coronavirus lockdown: Warning after Ogmore-by-Sea mass brawl' - one of our local beaches:
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-53186920
> I don't know if they were socially distancing or not.
> 
> ...



No some of that is clearly left by pineapples  

As for the brawls, I don't condone violence but it baffles me that the government locked people up for months and then are surprised when tensions are high after.


----------



## Rorschach (28 Jun 2020)

Chris152":gi9kufqr said:


> Rorschach":gi9kufqr said:
> 
> 
> > _The lower the infection rate we see now, the higher it will be later on is _what I suspect their thinking is. Scotland followed the same basic rules as England and Wales (less strict than Wales actually) and is in a better position because it started with less cases that's all.
> ...



The government, just my impression anyway.
Yes we all started with 1 (probably) but when we realised things were bad. As studies are showing it has been spreading for far longer in Europe than we realised, when the UK locked down there were a lot more cases in England than Scotland for example.


----------



## selectortone (28 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":3qrm6f47 said:


> ...I suspect your hatred of me will colour your opinion on everything these days so I'll just move on :mrgreen:



Hatred? Oh good grief, grow up man, we don't know each other from Adam. What is this, break time in the primary school playground? :roll: 

As a resident of Bournemouth who lives close to the beach, I'm telling you that you were entirely wrong to play down the volume of rubbish left by the visitors on two days last week. You are unable to refute that so you accuse me of hatred and ask for pictures? Stop making it up mate.


----------



## Blackswanwood (28 Jun 2020)

Chris152":nxtug3fo said:


> At the end of the article it talks of scientists' fears of what's going to happen in winter - does anyone know if substantial measures are now being put in place to deal with the lack of resources (especially people) in case those fears are realised? Or are we just optimistically (naively) hoping it'll go away?



I think that there are steps being taken Chris. One example is that much more PPE is now being manufactured in the UK so there is far less reliance on an international supply chain. I have seen this in the news but also experienced it having been involved in sourcing PPE for several thousand employees providing key services since March.

That having been said whether it is enough is a good question. I would have expected more scrutiny from the opposition and questions from the press to hold Boris and Co’s feet to the fire.


----------



## Rorschach (28 Jun 2020)

selectortone":2qgn7t88 said:


> Hatred? Oh good grief, grow up man, we don't know each other from Adam. What is this, break time in the primary school playground? :roll:
> 
> As a resident of Bournemouth who lives close to the beach, I'm telling you that you were entirely wrong to play down the volume of rubbish left by the visitors on two days last week. You are unable to refute that so you accuse me of hatred and ask for pictures? Stop making it up mate.



Ok, my apologies. Want to go play football :wink: 

Since you are a local, are you able to answer these questions? Do you know if the 33 tonnes figure quoted was what was picked up from the beach or did it include general litter from bins etc as well? I know someone who works on the bins and they are apparently weighed in at the dump, my guess would be they were not separating the rubbish to calculate what was littered as opposed to disposed of properly. Also what is the state of bins etc on Bournemouth sea front? Are they adequate for the number of visitors you get? I know that has been a problem in some areas including where I live.

Note this does not excuse malicious littering, I will state it again I am totally against that.


----------



## Rorschach (28 Jun 2020)

Blackswanwood":i2w2edu0 said:


> One example is that much more PPE is now being manufactured in the UK so there is far less reliance on an international supply chain. I have seen this in the news but also experienced it having been involved in sourcing PPE for several thousand employees providing key services since March.



Well that is very reassuring! =D>


----------



## Chris152 (28 Jun 2020)

Blackswanwood":2c218hpd said:


> Chris152":2c218hpd said:
> 
> 
> > At the end of the article it talks of scientists' fears of what's going to happen in winter - does anyone know if substantial measures are now being put in place to deal with the lack of resources (especially people) in case those fears are realised? Or are we just optimistically (naively) hoping it'll go away?
> ...


Yes, I saw the adequate PPE news, which is definitely good. But as a punter who knows very little but watches the news, I'm wondering what happens if/ when a winter surge in Covid cases meets the usual NHS-at-breaking-point news that appears each winter now, and what the govt is doing to make sure that's not a much deeper crisis than the last surge.


----------



## selectortone (28 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":30x9ez21 said:


> Since you are a local, are you able to answer these questions? Do you know if the 33 tonnes figure quoted was what was picked up from the beach or did it include general litter from bins etc as well?



I have no idea. The council declared a major incident because much of the infrastructure that normally deals with close to (worst case) half a million visitors on a hot bank holiday was in the process of being reopened after lockdown, including beach-side refuse disposal. This meant that the limited number of bins that were available were quickly overflowing.

What irks us locals is the attitude of the visitors who think it's fine to leave the beach looking like an explosion at a recycling depot (and no, that is not hyperbole) rather than take their litter home - despite many signs politely asking them to do so. If they are able to transport full (ie heavy) containers of food and drink all the way here, surely it's not unreasonable to ask them to take them (in their much lighter and compactable state) back with them. Don't they have dustbins at home?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (28 Jun 2020)

We used to have all night beach parties with usually forty or fifty people back in the '70s and '80s. We always informed the police, the fire brigade and the coastguard, giving the map reference of the large bonfire. In the early morning the fire was extinguished and an area probably about ten times the area we used was scoured for litter - even fag ends. I went to a shop owned by a parish councillor one morning and he told me he'd been asked to check the condition of the beach by some locals (we were local as well) and that he knew when the parties were ours as the beach was always perfectly clean afterwards.

It really isn't that difficult. :?


----------



## Rorschach (28 Jun 2020)

Chris152":1kp1utcn said:


> I'm wondering what happens if/ when a winter surge in Covid cases meets the usual NHS-at-breaking-point news that appears each winter now, and what the govt is doing to make sure that's not a much deeper crisis than the last surge.



That's a worry for certain.

I guess it will all depend on what effect C19 has on the normal winter deaths. If we get winter deaths plus C19 then we are really in the cack and the NHS will almost certainly be overwhelmed.
If however (and this is what I think will happen but I accept it is my biased opinion based on what I have read) C19 is the (major) cause of the winter deaths this year then things won't be too bad and possibly it might be a quieter winter than usual due to the excess deaths already suffered this year.
We will see.


----------



## Andy Kev. (28 Jun 2020)

On a more general note, I have to wonder about the brain dead nature of so many people. How on earth could folk not realise that there would be masses of people on popular beaches at the first opportunity? And having realised that, why on earth would anyone want to go and sit in such a vision of hell on earth? Obviously if it is your idea of fun then the question does not apply, each to his own and all that.

I can only assume that all the people there were incapable of working out what the likely scenario would be.

I'm prepared to accept that I'm a bit weird in reacting almost allergically to anything which might be prefixed with the word "mass" and so I tend to always head in the opposite direction to the crowds. I do hope I'm not alone in this as it would make me officially weird.


----------



## Rorschach (28 Jun 2020)

Andy Kev.":3em9pzer said:


> I'm prepared to accept that I'm a bit weird in reacting almost allergically to anything which might be prefixed with the word "mass" and so I tend to always head in the opposite direction to the crowds. I do hope I'm not alone in this as it would make me officially weird.



Well you might not like my company but I am in total agreement, I can't stand big crowds like that, I also hate beaches in the hot weather, indeed I hate most places in the hot weather.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (28 Jun 2020)

Winter crisis - one way around the problem is to use the Nightingale hospitals for all CV19 cases, and leave the rest of capacity for normal demand.

The Nighting gale hospitals were set up specifically to deal with Covid and do not have all the other hospital facilities which more general admissions may require. It would also minimise the risk to other "normal" patients and staff of cross infection.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (28 Jun 2020)

I don't know why that wasn't done from the day they opened.


----------



## Rorschach (28 Jun 2020)

Phil Pascoe":1jabhphm said:


> I don't know why that wasn't done from the day they opened.



Not enough cases to justify their use.


----------



## Jake (28 Jun 2020)

They aren't as good as a proper ICU, and they didn't have the staff.


----------



## Chris152 (28 Jun 2020)

Jake":1e4xxabn said:


> ... they didn't have the staff.


This has to be the real issue now? Probably too late to address it for what may come next, I still wonder what the plan would be.


----------



## Rorschach (28 Jun 2020)

Chris152":26xnfebd said:


> Jake":26xnfebd said:
> 
> 
> > ... they didn't have the staff.
> ...



Likely not nice. If things do get bad, there will be much more suffering than there was the first time around. The monumental balls up of the economy over this means that if infection rates rise, tough, the hospitals are already going to be full of all the patients who are suffering now because services were cut. 
I would wager nightingale hospitals would be opened up quite literally as somewhere for you to go to die as painlessly as possible, little to no treatment available, minimal staff on hand.

Another lockdown won't happen, it can't happen. But as I said, I don't think it will be needed. Cases will rise but not to an excessive level.

Before I get attacked as usual, yes this is all my opinion, yes I might be wrong, but we'll see shall we :wink:


----------



## Lons (28 Jun 2020)

Chris152":19yc649s said:


> Jake":19yc649s said:
> 
> 
> > ... they didn't have the staff.
> ...


Maybe plan to bring in the military medics? I don't know the numbers available but it is a possibility you would think.



> Rorschach wrote:
> this is all my opinion, yes I might be wrong,



That's better, you're learning. :wink:


----------



## Droogs (28 Jun 2020)

Lons are you aware that the military's medical units are expected to be staffed by volunteers from the NHS. Just over 2/3s of the wartime manpower of the RAMC is to be manned by members of the reserve (previously the TA medical squadrons who are current NHS employees). Apart from combat medics who are not trained in anyway for hospital service the forces in peace-time have less than 1500 qualified nurses.


----------



## Lons (29 Jun 2020)

Droogs":23a52ge4 said:


> Lons are you aware that the military's medical units are expected to be staffed by volunteers from the NHS. Just over 2/3s of the wartime manpower of the RAMC is to be manned by members of the reserve (previously the TA medical squadrons who are current NHS employees). Apart from combat medics who are not trained in anyway for hospital service the forces in peace-time have less than 1500 qualified nurses.



I didn't know Droogs, I've never been involved in the military and hadn't done any research just wrongly assumed there would be enlisted medical staff. 
I know better now though so thanks for that.


----------



## Andy Kev. (29 Jun 2020)

Droogs":2nohj8rn said:


> Lons are you aware that the military's medical units are expected to be staffed by volunteers from the NHS. Just over 2/3s of the wartime manpower of the RAMC is to be manned by members of the reserve (previously the TA medical squadrons who are current NHS employees). Apart from combat medics who are not trained in anyway for hospital service the forces in peace-time have less than 1500 qualified nurses.


All true … but (and it is a huge "but"), I don't think that anyone can seriously doubt that the mil. med. services are infinitely better managed than NHS personnel and being military, flexibility and adaptability belong to their defining characteristics. I would also suggest that while they are not specifically trained for hospital service (although I believe that they do attachments to A & E departments), they are fluent in the "language" of medical care and it would take very few NHS pers (and as you point out there are enough of those with some military experience) per military unit to very rapidly get them up and running. 

I also find it hard to imagine that there is a _fundamentally _massive difference between a military hospital in e.g. Afghanistan and a typical NHS Hospital. Sterile is sterile whatever the medical facility. I can't imagine it taking a trained medic too long to adapt from treating battle casualties to dealing with infected and infectious patients. I reckon that there would be voices from the higher echelons of the NHS talking up the difficulties of such a step but that would be because they have an interest in making it look as if they are uniquely capable of doing certain things.

In any event, the idea of the Nightingale Hospitals in a pandemic is surely an excellent one. There has been widespread reporting that normal NHS treatment has ground to a halt because of the pandemic. Surely it would have been better to get the Nightingales up and running with a number of NHS personnel detached to them to work with the mil meds so that all covid cases could have been sent directly there and all the while normal treatment would have carried on in NHS hospitals, possibly at lower rates of activity but nonetheless still in action. I think that has to be the default plan for any future pandemic.

We will have to wait for the results of an enquiry/review of what has happened but I'd be amazed if NHS management and Whitehall didn't come out of it looking very bad indeed. (Actually I wouldn't be surprised because there are enough tw*ts in the establishment prepared to stifle the truth in any crisis.)


----------



## Andy Kev. (29 Jun 2020)

Rorschach":3e8wnr1q said:


> Andy Kev.":3e8wnr1q said:
> 
> 
> > I'm prepared to accept that I'm a bit weird in reacting almost allergically to anything which might be prefixed with the word "mass" and so I tend to always head in the opposite direction to the crowds. I do hope I'm not alone in this as it would make me officially weird.
> ...


You might be mixing me up with the people you have been rowing with. I haven't got involved in those disputes and haven't actually got a strong view one way of the other of being in your company.

FWIW I think that it is very hard to judge the "tone" in which things are said on the internet, so you get people getting very hot and bothered about people with whom they would probably get on in real life. I'd be surprised if that didn't apply to you and your critics.


----------



## Jake (30 Jun 2020)

Andy Kev.":3rqt7ig5 said:


> All true … but (and it is a huge "but"), I don't think that anyone can seriously doubt that the mil. med. services are infinitely better managed than NHS personnel and being military, flexibility and adaptability belong to their defining characteristics.



I don't doubt that its well run, most of the public sector is despite the flak it gets (and the private sector largely hides from behind lesser transparency requirements). It is helped by having £500m to spend on primary care and management (with the NHS providing the secondary care budget) and a much higher staffatient ratio than in the NHS. No begrudging any of that from me. 



.gov.uk":3rqt7ig5 said:


> The DMS is staffed by around 11,200 service personnel (7,600 regular and 3,600 reserve) and 2,200 civilian personnel and provides healthcare to 135,360 UK Armed Forces personnel (as at 1 Oct 2018: The UK armed forces quarterly service personnel statistics).



That's not far off 1:10, whereas the NHS is more like 1:45.


----------



## Andy Kev. (1 Jul 2020)

It seems to me that two aspects of the NHS have to be considered quite separately. One is the actual medical treatment, which generally seems to be pretty good and can probably hold its head up amongst the medical services of all developed nations.

The other is the management/organisation/logistics/procurement which like much of the public sector seems to be capable of improvement (to put it mildly). The private sector tends to be different in that if e.g someone signs a contract for the supply of bog rolls at prices greatly in excess of what it would cost to buy them from the supermarket, that person's head is highly likely to roll.

As for crisis management, it might even make sense to say, "OK, we don't demand this of the NHS, so we'll develop a contingency plan based on lessons learned from this pandemic and task and equip the mil. med. services with initial implementation with a view to quickly establishing a hybrid NHS/mil set up. No role for NHS Managers but NHS doctors to take the lead in clinical matters." 

One of the beauties of such an approach is that this rapid response would be regularly exercised by the forces - they like doing exercises. We would end up with a ready-to-go response with the NHS only having to bother about what it is good at i.e. clinical treatment.

Incidentally, you may have missed my invitation on p 40 of this thread to you to provide some sort of evidence for your assertions about Toby Young.


----------



## Rorschach (1 Jul 2020)

Jake":1dchc6oq said:


> .gov.uk":1dchc6oq said:
> 
> 
> > The DMS is staffed by around 11,200 service personnel (7,600 regular and 3,600 reserve) and 2,200 civilian personnel and provides healthcare to 135,360 UK Armed Forces personnel (as at 1 Oct 2018: The UK armed forces quarterly service personnel statistics).
> ...



That number is way off the mark, a large proportion of military doctors and nurses work within the NHS during peacetime. A family member is currently being treated by a surgeon who is a Lt. Col in an NHS hospital and we have lots of RN doctors and particularly nurses here too.


----------



## rafezetter (1 Jul 2020)

Rorschach":12f4ohim said:


> Trainee neophyte":12f4ohim said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder how much those with no skin in the game want everything shut down for their own safety, at the expense of everyone else, with no consideration of the consequences
> ...



TB - I'm pretty sure every tax payer has skin in the game; do I need to elaborate any more ?

However rorschach's "still wrong " streak is alive and well.

As a self employed person who's entire business is inside peoples homes, so far I have lost about £4,000 in revenue not to mention eating into my hard sacrifice savings (no holidays for years, and scant few takeaways or nights out, last year I had maybe 4 or 5 "nights out" where I went to the cinema then had a cheap meal someplace after) ; yet as you have noticed I've been very vocal about keeping the lockdown.

I'm probably down by about £6,000 so far - peanuts for most people I'm sure, but for me this year was going to be my best, most profitable year, and while I'm not dead yet, the pickup will be slower, because there's going to be less money around for the kind of work I do.

As for the lockdown "not working" I'm pretty certain there are people who have recently contracted C19 in Leicester who would disagree.

Eaten any Walkers Crisps recently rorschach?

It's also interesting that you say "Their jobs will either continue after this is over, while they complain about how awful the country is now after lockdown"....

Because iirc not so long ago you said how the lockdown was causing all manner of doom and gloom and jobs and businesses the world over are all going to collapse around thier ears and this was the reason why the lockdown should be lifted wholesale.

As MikeG said - regularly your posts aren't even consistent with EACH OTHER. 

It's clear that you seemingly understand that BOTH are true (I could be wrong), but you only ever make posts giving ONE SIDE of that equation, whichever one fits the agenda of that post.


----------



## rafezetter (1 Jul 2020)

Chris152":y831e1p2 said:


> Rorschach":y831e1p2 said:
> 
> 
> > you can't save people from C19, you can only delay.
> ...



Yes.

I think l that rorschach beleives that the entire human race will contract C19 at some point in the coming months / next year and that it's a complete inevitability we can't do ANYTHING about.

I'm pretty sure "resigning to the fate of a pandemic" ceased when medical science realised that vaccines were an actual thing that worked; googe-fu says "in 1796 by Edward Jenner for Smallpox" - so err 224 years ago. Yeah. I'm shaking my head here too why rorschach thinks modern medicine isn't up to the task.

Maybe he hasn't heard of them, maybe "rorschach" is actually several different people making conflicting posts; which would go some way towards explaining his (her/they/them?) constant vassilating on the subject or he's just being argumentative for teh lulz, I honestly can't tell anymore.


----------



## rafezetter (1 Jul 2020)

Rorschach":2qjzqn8p said:


> I think you will find most of the world has been concentrating on making sure their health systems are not overloaded (that danger has long passed, indeed it never became much of a danger). Countries are now realising this is not a big deal and are starting to open up. Italy is open for tourism next week, Spain in a few weeks.




Oh wow - where do I even begin?

1 - didn't become a danger BECAUSE OF THE LOCKDOWN.
2 - "not a big deal" well depends on who you ask, ask MikeG (if he wasn't ignoring you), he's got some choice words for you, but in general "BECAUSE OF LOCKDOWN" is the defacto answer here, there and pretty much every other place as well.
3 - Italy may well be "open for tourism" - but then Leicester was "open for business" and look what happened there just this week.

4 - NZ no longer C19 free - much to the embarassment of the PM

5 - I'm pretty certain that once tourism starts up again en masse, there will be more outbreaks - I'd like to be wrong, but you know "coz people being people" is a pretty safe bet.

What's your comments on the Leicester situation rorschach - what's your comments going to be if one of those people dies as a result?

Maybe I'll point a member of the family in your direction and you can have a face to face with the relative of someone who died needlessly from C19 because you think the lockdown is a waste of time. That would be interesting to watch.


----------



## Chris152 (1 Jul 2020)

I saw this on Fb earlier, and thought it pretty sobering.






Imagine you were born in 1900.

When you're 14, World War I begins and ends when you're 18 with 22 million dead.

Soon after a global pandemic, the Spanish Flu, appears, killing 50 million people. And you're alive and 20 years old.

When you're 29 you survive the global economic crisis that started with the collapse of the New York Stock Exchange, causing inflation, unemployment and famine.

When you're 33 years old the nazis come to power.

When you're 39, World War II begins and ends when you're 45 years old with a 60 million dead. In the Holocaust 6 million Jews die.

When you're 52, the Korean War begins.
When you're 64, the Vietnam War begins and ends when you're 75.

A child born in 1985 thinks his grandparents have no idea how difficult life is, but they have survived several wars and catastrophes.

Today we have all the comforts in a new world, amid a new pandemic. But we complain because we need to wear masks. We complain because we must stay confined to our homes where we have food, electricity, running water, wifi, even Netflix! None of that existed back in the day. But humanity survived those circumstances and never lost their joy of living.

A small change in our perspective can generate miracles. We should be thankful that we are alive. We should do everything we need to do to protect and help each other.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (1 Jul 2020)

Being a pragmatist rather than a dreamer I prefer debates to be informed by facts and data, not subject to guesses, opinions, bias etc.

There is clear evidence that CV-19 has a normal transmission rate of 2.5-3.0. At the start of the outbreak before lockdown the number of infected was doubling every 3 days. Asserting that somehow it has run its course and there is now no more risk is profoundly complacent or foolish or ignorant.

Suggesting that there is no threat to the NHS does not bear any scrutiny. Public dismay at the events in care homes would be trivial compared to the consequences of the NHS being overwhelmed. 

The virus impacts particularly on the elderly and vulnerable. Those who are younger and healthier have very much less severe symptoms (generally). We do not have perfect knowledge by any means - but relying upon personal bias and guesswork does not help identify a solution.

We use knowledge to define the future strategy to combat the virus, and minimise economic damage. At the extremes:

- back to business as usual - let it rip - get through it and over it
- lockdown maintained - unaffordable and/or unreasonable burden 

For communities or societies to work either policies need to have a balanced regard for all groups, or a police state or dictatorship prevails and enforces policy.

I prefer the former which demands tolerance of differing views. Whilst personally I may find the idea of care homes (gods waiting room) and all they entail repugnant, I fully accept my views are not universally shared. Equally if I go back 40 years I would fully understand the dilemma facing young adults who are quite likely at the start of career, family, financially stretched etc.

The policies adopted MUST have some regard for the needs of both groups!


----------



## Rorschach (1 Jul 2020)

Chris152":3klr54px said:


> In the Holocaust 6 million Jews die.



You make some very good points in your post Chris but it would be remiss of me not to point this out. Almost as many non-Jews were killed in the holocaust, best estimates today are at 11 million total deaths (of which approx 6 million were Jews). We do the world a great disservice to not acknowledge this.


----------



## Chris152 (1 Jul 2020)

Rorschach":2lky23et said:


> Chris152":2lky23et said:
> 
> 
> > In the Holocaust 6 million Jews die.
> ...


Just to be clear - they're not my words, copied and pasted from the FB post. And you point is fair.


----------



## Andy Kev. (1 Jul 2020)

With ref to Chris's FB quote above: on the one hand we need to learn from history but on the other people who have been through difficult times want their children and grandchildren to have easier lives.

The problem seems to be that for many people enjoying easy lives (the vast majority) there is an incomprehension of history or an unwillingness or inability to learn from it.

One of the reasons I'm bothered about the kind of people who seem to have hijacked the BLM movement (probably mostly from SWP-type organisations and Momentum) is that any perusal of 20th century history shows that in moral, ethical and democratic terms you can't get a piece of paper between them and Hitler's brownshirts in the 30s. I realise that for many that will be an outrageous assertion but one only has to read the books.

The bottom line is that extremism coupled to the will to forbid is a very bad thing indeed and the target for a civilised, democratic society has to be tolerance of the views of others. As that French bloke had it, "I may not agree with what you say but I am prepared to defend to the death your right to say it". If you can't or won't sign up to that, I find you worrying. 

(The "you" is directed at no one individual on here but is meant generally.)


----------



## doctor Bob (1 Jul 2020)

Chris152":1gp890us said:


> A child born in 1985 thinks his grandparents have no idea how difficult life is, but they have survived several wars and catastrophes.



Where did you get that from? Do you think everyone aged 35 or younger doesn't know 2 world wars happened? Most of the people I know aged 35 and under went to school and were taught history and know these things. Most of your posts Chris are very good but this is just facebook nonsense.


----------



## Chris152 (1 Jul 2020)

doctor Bob":9okdn2h8 said:


> Chris152":9okdn2h8 said:
> 
> 
> > A child born in 1985 thinks his grandparents have no idea how difficult life is, but they have survived several wars and catastrophes.
> ...


It was the general sentiment of the post that I thought was good, Bob - not whether a detail like that was accurate. And tbh, while both my parents were alive in WW2, I haven't really got a clue how bad their experience of it was. For me, it was a few tales about doodlebugs and the sounds of bombs landing. And dad cruising about in the North Sea. They didn't talk about it much. I don't think most of us today, under or over 35, have much of a clue. Maybe that's just my experience tho.


----------



## Lons (1 Jul 2020)

doctor Bob":3k3qzlff said:


> Where did you get that from? Do you think everyone aged 35 or younger doesn't know 2 world wars happened? Most of the people I know aged 35 and under went to school and were taught history and know these things. Most of your posts Chris are very good but this is just facebook nonsense.


I learned about them during history lessons and from my parents and grandparents Bob but that's a totally different thing to being involved in them. Of course younger people know they happened but the further away in time they get the less important they seem to be to later generations.

I didn't read Chris's post as that they literally didn't know about them and doubt he would have meant it that way.

Have you had a bad day Bob? You seem a bit grumpy. :wink:

EDIT My post crossed with your reply Chris and that's what I see as well.


----------



## Rorschach (1 Jul 2020)

Just because those of us living now didn't suffer in the same way as our parents/grandparents doesn't lessen or invalidate the suffering we are going through now.

If you go with that logic you could say our grandparents shouldn't complain because they didn't live through the civil war or the black death or the Roman occupation. We can learn and empathise with history, but it doesn't lessen the problems of the present.


----------



## doctor Bob (1 Jul 2020)

Come on chaps, everyone knows that the current generation has it easy. Crikey when I was growing up in the 70's I knew it was easy compared with the 20's, 30's, 40's and 50's, christ they didn't even have flares, choppers or tape recorders. Like wise my son knows how tough the 70's were as I've told him about black and white TV, and neighbours coming to our house to use our telephone because we were right posh  , Don't be going posting facebook rubbish or I shall start calling Chris "Karen".


----------



## Phil Pascoe (1 Jul 2020)

Andy Kev.":2bmpv719 said:


> ... As that French bloke had it, "I may not agree with what you say but I am prepared to defend to the death your right to say it".




"That French bloke" actually didn't say it.


----------



## doctor Bob (1 Jul 2020)

Lons":3cwhsuo7 said:


> Have you had a bad day Bob? You seem a bit grumpy. :wink:



Not really mate, it's all going very well :lol: I think I'm just a bit blunt sometimes on the net. In real life I'm the complete opposite, proper pussy cat cat.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (1 Jul 2020)

doctor Bob":1wsmapy5 said:


> ... christ they didn't even have flares ...



Bring back Loons and Afghan coats, I say!


----------



## Chris152 (1 Jul 2020)

doctor Bob":36462ww5 said:


> Don't be going posting facebook rubbish or I shall start calling Chris "Karen".


My kids told me about 'Karen' a couple of days ago, i'd not heard it before. Funny old world, eh?


----------



## doctor Bob (1 Jul 2020)

Phil Pascoe":1sth3fh3 said:


> doctor Bob":1sth3fh3 said:
> 
> 
> > ... christ they didn't even have flares ...
> ...



You what ............ when did they go out of fashion?


----------



## Nigel Burden (1 Jul 2020)

That brings back some memories. My loons were so tight they were indecent. I remember my brother sitting in the bath to shrink his drainpipes to get them skin tight.

Nigel.


----------



## Blackswanwood (1 Jul 2020)

Nigel Burden":3glfzxxx said:


> That brings back some memories. My loons were so tight they were indecent. I remember my brother sitting in the bath to shrink his drainpipes to get them skin tight.
> 
> Nigel.


Wasn’t that an advert for Levi 501’s?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (1 Jul 2020)

We spent the summers swimming in them.


----------



## Lons (1 Jul 2020)

Rorschach":o7mi81uc said:


> Just because those of us living now didn't suffer in the same way as our parents/grandparents doesn't lessen or invalidate the suffering we are going through now.
> 
> If you go with that logic you could say our grandparents shouldn't complain because they didn't live through the civil war or the black death or the Roman occupation. We can learn and empathise with history, but it doesn't lessen the problems of the present.


I don't think anyone said that!


----------



## Lons (1 Jul 2020)

doctor Bob":3jvrb2fz said:


> Lons":3jvrb2fz said:
> 
> 
> > Have you had a bad day Bob? You seem a bit grumpy. :wink:
> ...


Off topic 'cos I'm too lazy to look for the thread, there's a company in Cramlington, Northumberland renting out dog exercise fields for £15 an hour, advertising on facebook. I don't know if they're successful but it's a good catchment area.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (1 Jul 2020)

Around here they're £9.


----------



## woodhutt (1 Jul 2020)

Surprised to read the E111 described as 'for emergencies only', perhaps things have changed.
Back in '81 we were resident in Belgium. Our daughter, then aged four, was diagnosed as needing a tonsillectomy and ear grommets inserted. This was not an emergency operation but the local hospital produced an E111 form which we completed, the op was performed and that was that.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (2 Jul 2020)

I am mid/late 60s.

And I have had it very easy compared to parents and grandparents. The current virus crisis is the first time I have been materially bothered by events.

I was alive during Suez crisis, Cuba, Vietnam war, various middle east conflicts etc. Similarly civil unrest, miners strike, IRA, 1980's unemployment. None of these affected me personally, nor any of my family and close friends.

I have been fortunate. But expectations and the nature of difficult has changed. Most young people can no longer expect to easily own a home, most families need two incomes to get by, final salary pensions are no more. 

More fundamentally the sense of freedom enjoyed by youth in the 60s and 70s is being replaced by prospects of climate change, overpopulation, increasing regulation and degradation of personal freedoms.

I would dearly like to like another 50 healthy years, but given the choice of being born in the 1950's or 2000's, I would go for the age of opportunity every time!


----------



## Andy Kev. (2 Jul 2020)

Chris152":gugtco77 said:


> It was the general sentiment of the post that I thought was good, Bob - not whether a detail like that was accurate. And tbh, while both my parents were alive in WW2, I haven't really got a clue how bad their experience of it was. For me, it was a few tales about doodlebugs and the sounds of bombs landing. And dad cruising about in the North Sea. They didn't talk about it much. I don't think most of us today, under or over 35, have much of a clue. Maybe that's just my experience tho.



With that you touch on one of the difficulties of how we deal with history. I think that one of the problems is that we tend to deal with it alsmost as a series of headlines. To do more than that requires either a professional or lay interest in the subject, direct experience of events of being close to someone who is prepared to relate those events.

Consider how we perceive the holocaust. From my teen years on I formally knew that it was a morally bad thing. However, my exposure to it was entirely from black and white images on the telly e.g. as part of _The World At War_. Then when I was 19 I met a Jewish girl who I quite fancied (got nowhere though: she was far too well brought up). We never discussed the holocaust but the next time I saw the usual images of cattle trucks on the telly, it suddenly hit me that had she been born in the wrong place at the wrong time, she could have been amongst those people being shoved onto the trucks. That led to me reappraising and changing my views on the holocaust, something which, incidentally, led me to conclusions other than the simplistic ones which one often hears but that is another matter.

As another example, consider the state of the UK in the 70s: winter of discontent, miners' strike etc. Amazingly there are a lot of people who's ideas would inevitably lead us to walk that road again and that revolves around events that happened less than 50 years ago!

It's difficult to conclude what this all adds up to. FWIW my response is that there are a very few unbreakable principles according to which we should test the behaviour of others, both now and in the past. If we wish to go beyond that then we must be very careful with our sources i.e. the books for any one issue are written by people who are pro-, contra- or as even-handed as they can be. It seems to me that most folk, most of the time, take a relatively superficial interest in events (fair enough: they have lives to lead) and secondly tend not to weigh up views with which they currently disagree in a fair and balanced manner.


----------



## Andy Kev. (2 Jul 2020)

Phil Pascoe":1ytl5mzv said:


> Andy Kev.":1ytl5mzv said:
> 
> 
> > ... As that French bloke had it, "I may not agree with what you say but I am prepared to defend to the death your right to say it".
> ...


Really? :shock: 

I have to write "that French bloke" because I can never remember his name. Who was it then? (I'm now guessing that it might have been some ancient Greek.)


----------



## Rorschach (2 Jul 2020)

Lons":1s25aofn said:


> Rorschach":1s25aofn said:
> 
> 
> > Just because those of us living now didn't suffer in the same way as our parents/grandparents doesn't lessen or invalidate the suffering we are going through now.
> ...



No but it seemed the general sentiment of that facebook post Chris posted and I have heard other people (mentioning no names) put forth similar views on here before.


----------



## Blackswanwood (2 Jul 2020)

That French bloke ... It’s claimed to have been said by Voltaire but from memory turned out to be what some academic interpreted he’d said when writing his biography. In actual fact he made some other odd comment ... or was that Eric Cantona?


----------



## doctor Bob (2 Jul 2020)

Lons":2625vxf9 said:


> Off topic 'cos I'm too lazy to look for the thread, there's a company in Cramlington, Northumberland renting out dog exercise fields for £15 an hour, advertising on facebook. I don't know if they're successful but it's a good catchment area.



I think we are going £8 for 1/2hr, 15 for 1hr. We have a great catchment area. The field is now looking fantastic, put in about 20 play areas, digging pit, weave poles.
The great thing is we can do even more in future, split it up, clean up the natural pond, wooded area.
Hopefully put a replacement building up next year for indoor dog training. This is my retirement project to keep income coming in and ease me away from the main business.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (2 Jul 2020)

Andy Kev.":3qcr84np said:


> Phil Pascoe":3qcr84np said:
> 
> 
> > Andy Kev.":3qcr84np said:
> ...



Voltaire. (Candide for A level French  )


----------



## Phil Pascoe (2 Jul 2020)

To sum up everything nicely ...........................

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=773105449481218


----------



## Chris152 (2 Jul 2020)

Return to school in September. 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-53253722
Bubbles. 
At the moment a bubble consists of two families meeting. Within two months, bubbles with representatives from tens or hundreds of families will be meeting and mixing - our local has about 250 per year group, classes of about 30. So imagine a bubble of just 30, kids who can't take account of any 2 or 1 metre rule in the classrooms, spending their days and weeks together. If two test positive, the bubble could be sent home - by the time that's happened, I'd think many in that bubble could have it. And all kids doing gcse and a-levels (which is all comp year groups except years 7 and 8 ) will effectively have no bubble apart from the whole year group bubble, as they have to keep changing groups according to subject. Massive exposure to others, no significant social distancing.
Lunch time. How to feed 1500 kids (as an example, not remotely unusual) without letting bubbles get mixed up, yet still provide food at lunch time.
Transport to and from school. In bubbles? 

We still seem to be coasting along at 150-200 deaths per day, thousands of new cases. I understand the importance of education, and think it really important kids get back to it. But a much better plan is needed if it's to happen safely.


----------



## Rorschach (2 Jul 2020)

And what's your plan?


----------



## Rorschach (2 Jul 2020)

woodhutt":284feswc said:


> Surprised to read the E111 described as 'for emergencies only', perhaps things have changed.
> Back in '81 we were resident in Belgium. Our daughter, then aged four, was diagnosed as needing a tonsillectomy and ear grommets inserted. This was not an emergency operation but the local hospital produced an E111 form which we completed, the op was performed and that was that.



You were resident.


----------



## Nigel Burden (2 Jul 2020)

Blackswanwood":1efsgra5 said:


> Nigel Burden":1efsgra5 said:
> 
> 
> > That brings back some memories. My loons were so tight they were indecent. I remember my brother sitting in the bath to shrink his drainpipes to get them skin tight.
> ...



I seem to remember something like that now you say.

Nigel.


----------



## Robbo3 (3 Jul 2020)

Andy Kev.":3dauqyea said:


> As that French bloke had it, "I may not agree with what you say but I am prepared to defend to the death your right to say it".



According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Quotations under Voltaire,
"Attri, in SG Tallentyre, The Friends of Voltaire (1907)


----------



## Andy Kev. (3 Jul 2020)

Robbo3":wxbns27i said:


> Andy Kev.":wxbns27i said:
> 
> 
> > As that French bloke had it, "I may not agree with what you say but I am prepared to defend to the death your right to say it".
> ...


Thanks for nailing it.

As for "that French bloke": I've only ever heard of five Frenchmen (Napoleon, Voltaire, Descartes, Cantona and de Gaulle) and for some reason I have a sort of mental block on the names of Voltaire and Descartes. That said, if I were really pushed I might be able to come up with the names of a couple of French rugby players but it would be a struggle.

Edit: and Robespierre (a sort of 18th century Jeremy Corbyn, if memory serves) and Alexandre Dumas who wrote books which could be a bit tedious but the plots were usually OK. I'm sure one or two other names will pop up during the course of the day but I don't think I'll bore the forum with them. I wonder if there were any famous French inventors? They seem to have confined themselves to hot air balloons and photography.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (3 Jul 2020)

In The Friends of Voltaire, Hall wrote the phrase: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" as an illustration of Voltaire's beliefs. This quotation – which is sometimes misattributed to Voltaire himself – is often cited to describe the principle of freedom of speech. - Wiki.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (3 Jul 2020)

You've forgotten the most famous Frenchman of all time - Serge Blanco.


----------



## Chris152 (3 Jul 2020)

Rorschach":1vak0yfj said:


> And what's your plan?


I think there's two ways to answer that question.

First, what's my plan to get through this in spite of the govt's plan. I'm still working on that, it's tricky as my plan has to find ways around the problems in the govt's plan. 

Second, what's a better plan for the govt to propose. That's a tricky one, for sure. It's fairly easy to come up with a solution for kids from homes with lots of resources ('blended learning' along the lines of what I hear some universities are planning - limited contact, most work done online). But that doesn't do much for kids that don't have those resources at home. And it fails to answer schools' child-minding role so parents can work full-time, and it can only offer limited social control. 

Shorten the school day and teach half groups in two shifts, allowing distancing? Alternate days for half groups? Requisition other public buildings to allow teaching to take place with adequate social distancing? Make return to school optional so those with resources can go for a more blended approach to schooling and allow those who can't full access to school? 

I don't know, definitely difficult. But just announcing all kids back to full-time and full curriculum in 2 months fails to take account of reality, a deadly virus that challenges our way of life and takes lives in their tens of thousands. The govt's advice consists essentially of 'back to school' and 'bubbles' - now sort it out, head teachers.


----------



## Rorschach (3 Jul 2020)

Chris152":nkev0xn8 said:


> Rorschach":nkev0xn8 said:
> 
> 
> > And what's your plan?
> ...



On the surface some good ideas there except for something you pointed out in your original post on the subject. Children cannot social distance. Around the immediate area (within 1/2 mile) I live are 7 schools, I see a lot of school children over the course of a day. From what I have been told the schools are staggering lessons and learning times at the moment so I see children heading to school mornings and afternoons and alternate groups leaving late morning late afternoon. The children head to school individually but when they leave they gather in large groups, especially those who only school in the morning so have the afternoon to spend time with their friends.

The only way to socially distance children is to keep them at home and as I think we would all agree that simply is not a practical long term solution for a whole host of reasons I won't go into now. Children need to go to school, they will not socially distance, they might spread the disease. 

Efforts should be made for vulnerable teachers and if you have vulnerable family members, keep them away from your children (remember I am still in favour of shielding for the vulnerable, I have never been against that). Otherwise though, get the kids to school.


----------



## Chris152 (3 Jul 2020)

They stand a much better chance of socially distancing if there's space for them to do so, and kids can socially distance in school (especially the older ones), as has been happening already with reduced class sizes. And kids gathering after school as you describe happens outdoors which, as you pointed out, is way way safer. There's no absolute answer, but there are ways of significantly mitigating the risks beyond huge bubbles.


----------



## Rorschach (3 Jul 2020)

Chris152":38fbu6iu said:


> They stand a much better chance of socially distancing if there's space for them to do so, and kids can socially distance in school (especially the older ones), as has been happening already with reduced class sizes. And kids gathering after school as you describe happens outdoors which, as you pointed out, is way way safer. There's no absolute answer, but there are ways of significantly mitigating the risks beyond huge bubbles.



You are right space would help, but are those spaces being cleaned after every use? 
I am not just talking about getting together and just chatting after school, they are hugging, kissing, scuffling, fighting sharing things around. They are being kids.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (3 Jul 2020)

I've just heard a member of the police on the radio saying the police aren't well placed to enforce any regulations/laws/advice ............ because the government have not made clear which are which (Quite correctly - I did suggest this was done a long while ago). Every time they come out with another tranche of regulations/laws/advice there are hundreds of thousands more people who just shrug and think I don't know ......... and I really don't give a toss anymore.


----------



## Chris152 (3 Jul 2020)

Yes, I think the govt's messaging's getting confused. To stick with my current obsession (schools), the education minister on tv this week saying it's not a question of 1m or 2m, it's a question of reducing transmission points - yet the govt is still insisting on social distancing. The result is people make of it what they will, which i'd think isn't a terribly good way of dealing with a pandemic.


----------



## Rorschach (3 Jul 2020)

Phil Pascoe":1smosmd2 said:


> I've just heard a member of the police on the radio saying the police aren't well placed to enforce any regulations/laws/advice ............ because the government have not made clear which are which (Quite correctly - I did suggest this was done a long while ago). Every time they come out with another tranche of regulations/laws/advice there are hundreds of thousands more people who just shrug and think I don't know ......... and I really don't give a toss anymore.



My personal view is that leaving ambiguity in the regulations is actually a very pragmatic solution.

Creating laws is difficult and time consuming. Badly written laws have lots of loopholes and interpretation and precedents are set using those loopholes. If they made everything law and prosecuted those who break it you would fill the courts with those fighting it creating havoc and potentially creating precedents in law that go against something you wanted to achieve. Remember as well, plenty of people already don't give a toss about the law.

By creating ambiguity you cause problems but you also create natural solutions. People who don't follow laws won't follow regulations or advice either. People who are law abiding will follow the regulations and advice regardless of if they are legally enforceable and people who aren't sure will generally err on the side of caution and follow it just in case. Therefore you get the desired outcome with minimal hassle.

Think of it like this, you have a piece of land and you want to stop people parking on it. If you put up signs with charges and fines you need to make them legally perfect otherwise you open yourself to litigation, you also need to pay someone to enforce it and they need to act with in the law as well for the same reason.
Regardless of the signs you put up, people will park there and then you have to fight to get money from them causing all sorts of trouble. Law abiding people though will not park there, or will pay the money.
However if you just put up a sign saying "No Parking", which has no legal clout at all, 3 things will happen. The people who break the law will park there, as always. The people who follow the law will not park there and the people who aren't sure if it is legal or not will probably err on the side of caution and stay away. No enforcement, no legal hassle and you are in the same position you were at the start of my scenario.


----------



## Lons (3 Jul 2020)

Chris152":38z5bdo6 said:


> And it fails to answer schools' child-minding role so parents can work full-time, and it can only offer limited social control.


Anyone collecting kids from school will be well aware of just how many are met by grandparents so that is a huge issue for working parents of young children who up until now have relied on them to ferry kids to and from school then care for them until they get home from work. 
Those ageing carers are likely to be classed as vulnerable and will be unavailable or putting themselves at substantial risk.


----------



## Andy Kev. (3 Jul 2020)

Phil Pascoe":2cmjhm9d said:


> You've forgotten the most famous Frenchman of all time - Serge Blanco.


I had indeed forgotten the great Monsieur B. Good job they only produced on of him.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (3 Jul 2020)

Rorschach":3gtc62f4 said:


> ... People who don't follow laws won't follow regulations or advice either...



No, but people who don't follow advice usually obey laws.


----------



## Rorschach (3 Jul 2020)

Phil Pascoe":eqzp11he said:


> Rorschach":eqzp11he said:
> 
> 
> > ... People who don't follow laws won't follow regulations or advice either...
> ...



We'll have to disagree on that one.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (3 Jul 2020)

That children should return to school ASAP is unarguable. It is also the case that:

- children very rarely suffer serious consequences from infection
- the incidence of infection in the general community is low (1 in 2000)
- there will need to be some exceptions - eg: those particularly vulnerable
- for many children school is a place of safety compared to the home (sadly)
- many children do not have access to internet, computer etc
- many teachers need training to provide online support 
- teenagers are more tightly monitored in a school than left free to roam
- schools provide care for younger children - parents can resume work

The Leicester lockdown has demonstrated that central government is incapable of controlling local outbreaks - they do not have a personal awareness of local contacts, behaviours, ethnic mix, local transport infrastructures, jobs, etc etc. They may have the capacity to find raw data - but only local knowledge and understanding can make that sing.

Local outbreaks require local leadership, informed, supported and guided by central government data and expert knowledge. Local leadership in Leicester has been woeful.

Local authorities, governing bodies, head teachers need to work out the best local solutions. They cannot expect central government rules to cover detailed actions for all circumstances. Criticism about the detail is either an attempt at political point scoring, or foolishly destructive. It actually achieves almost nothing! 

"Solutions not problems" and "glass half full not half empty" would be a far more productive attitude.


----------



## Chris152 (3 Jul 2020)

Terry - Somerset":3916fbe2 said:


> That children should return to school ASAP is unarguable. It is also the case that:
> 
> - children very rarely suffer serious consequences from infection
> - the incidence of infection in the general community is low (1 in 2000)
> ...


Well that's that all sorted then


----------



## lurker (3 Jul 2020)

I know that it’s a big if, but if it’s possible that the government can learn lessons then the dogs dinner they have made in Leicester might just be worthwhile.

Apparently they would not release data to the local authorities because a bit of paperwork about data protection wasn’t signed. This week, every LA has signed up so that’s a tiny logjam cleared. Maybe!!


----------



## Phil Pascoe (3 Jul 2020)

I find it a little odd that we can have a Data Protection act and a Freedom of Information act. One or the other ceases to apply at some point, which makes it pointless  .


----------



## Jake (3 Jul 2020)

Terry - Somerset":21in86u4 said:


> Local authorities, governing bodies, head teachers need to work out the best local solutions. They cannot expect central government rules to cover detailed actions for all circumstances. Criticism about the detail is either an attempt at political point scoring, or foolishly destructive. It actually achieves almost nothing!
> 
> "Solutions not problems" and "glass half full not half empty" would be a far more productive attitude.



All potential solutions involve more cost. It's all very well saying local govt should sort it out, but they have been stripped to the bone on funding and do not have resources and are not being given them. If central govt is going to devolve responsibility to local govt, it needs to provide them with the funds to pay for solutions.


----------



## Jake (3 Jul 2020)

Phil Pascoe":cvn2kfmh said:


> I find it a little odd that we can have a Data Protection act and a Freedom of Information act. One or the other ceases to apply at some point, which makes it pointless  .



Kind of amusing but also completely missing the point of the two but never mind, kind of amusing.


----------



## Rorschach (3 Jul 2020)

Jake":yvo9a47g said:


> All potential solutions involve more cost. It's all very well saying local govt should sort it out, but they have been stripped to the bone on funding and do not have resources and are not being given them. If central govt is going to devolve responsibility to local govt, it needs to provide them with the funds to pay for solutions.



Keep stripping, when you see how much waste, corruption and damage our local council does with the money it does get the only solution is to keep going.


----------



## Chris152 (3 Jul 2020)

Pubs in Engerland can open from 6am tomorrow (Saturday).
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ ... EJiCWEHRYI
Wetherspoons, keen that nobody overdoes it, won't be opening til 8am.


----------



## doctor Bob (3 Jul 2020)

Chris152":1dhxgy8h said:


> Wetherspoons, keen that nobody overdoes it, won't be opening til 8am.



Loath them with a passion, singlehandedly made drinking in the morning acceptable.


----------



## Lons (3 Jul 2020)

Rorschach":3hzgb420 said:


> Jake":3hzgb420 said:
> 
> 
> > All potential solutions involve more cost. It's all very well saying local govt should sort it out, but they have been stripped to the bone on funding and do not have resources and are not being given them. If central govt is going to devolve responsibility to local govt, it needs to provide them with the funds to pay for solutions.
> ...



That's about the only thing in months I've agreed with Rorschach on! :lol:

Certainly Northumberland CC are very adept at bleating but exceptionally poor at managing resources though experts when it comes to deflecting blame when it goes t*ts up. The millions they waste on hairbrained schemes which later are swept under the carpet is eye watering.


----------



## Jake (3 Jul 2020)

OK so if central government isn't supposed to do it, because it's patronising or something, and local government can't do it because it's shockingly wasteful and corrupt and terrible, we're a bit - what's the word - sunked. Private sector ain't going to do it. So depression worse than GFC it is. 

Or we just grow up.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (4 Jul 2020)

There are 32000 schools in the UK. In my opinion, were the response to CV-19 managed centrally, it would almost certainly require a large, costly, probably ineffective bureaucracy to manage the detail. It seems right that the response is managed locally to meet local circumstances.

Not all changes needed to education need lots of extra money - but they do require organisation - eg: staggered start times, staggered lunch breaks, staggered lesson change over times, etc.

Some changes - eg: provision of IT for the disadvantaged, training for teachers to become proficient technology users etc - will need more cash.

Since 2010 total local authority spending has been reduced by approx 20% - council tax has increased but this has been more than offset by reductions in central funding. This is 2% pa - most businesses would cope fairly easily (albeit unhappily) with this level of income reduction.

The government have also announced £4.3bn extra funding for local authorities - approx an extra 9% on their total spend of around £50bn.

Whether this funding is adequate is (in my mind) an open question given the demands that have been placed upon them.


----------



## Rorschach (4 Jul 2020)

Lons":1dhvecw5 said:


> Rorschach":1dhvecw5 said:
> 
> 
> > Jake":1dhvecw5 said:
> ...




Wahey! :lol: 

A friend told me that WCC relaid the roads for social distancing, wider pavements etc. They ripped it up 10 days later and put the old system back in place.


----------



## Lons (4 Jul 2020)

doctor Bob":1171enay said:


> Chris152":1171enay said:
> 
> 
> > Wetherspoons, keen that nobody overdoes it, won't be opening til 8am.
> ...



May have facilitated it Bob but they're a business and wouldn't be doing so if there wasn't a demand. Nobody forces punters in there to drink themselves silly. 

I'm not a fan of either Weatherspoons or unlimited drinking hours btw but would also suggest that the explosion of very cheap booze in supermarkets possibly had at least as much to do with drinking issues than Weatherspoons.
Just my opinion and I have no personal experience whatsoever, I think I've been into their premises only a couple of times and in any case I wouldn't consider drinking alcohol during the day even while abroad on holiday where I've regularly seen pints being downed along with breakfast.

This pic was recently posted elsewhere by a friend and seems pretty apt to me especially given that the pubs are now open.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (4 Jul 2020)

Very apt .......... but fake.


----------



## Lons (4 Jul 2020)

Phil Pascoe":2dmdybsc said:


> Very apt .......... but fake.



Yeah didn't say it was authentic Phil and tbh I never checked but it still is relevant. 

A lot will be happening this weekend, have just seen pictures of caravan & motorhome convoys heading to the tourist hotspots and apparently clogging up the parking spots at motorway services, good luck to them, we've got a damn expensive motorhome just sitting there but won't be using it until things settle down. 
I mentioned a while ago that people are like sheep and thick as pigsh*t, haven't seen much that changes that opinion.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (4 Jul 2020)

Thankfully from an infection point of view Cornwall had July weather in June. We're now having drizzle, rain and winds that are typical for August - we lit the stove last night.


----------



## Blackswanwood (4 Jul 2020)

Lons":1yxgv3xr said:


> A lot will be happening this weekend, have just seen pictures of caravan & motorhome convoys heading to the tourist hotspots and apparently clogging up the parking spots at motorway services, good luck to them, we've got a damn expensive motorhome just sitting there but won't be using it until things settle down.
> I mentioned a while ago that people are like sheep and thick as pigsh*t, haven't seen much that changes that opinion.



With respect that's a tad harsh isn't it Lons? While I'd rather staple my eyelids to a wall than have a holiday in a van I'd have thought it's possible to do it and be relatively safe and harmless to others?

There are some selfish and thoughtless people out there definitely ... and possibly they do end up congregating but I think we're a long way off people in general being sheep and thick as pigs*t.


----------



## Lons (4 Jul 2020)

Phil Pascoe":139wsdv8 said:


> Thankfully from an infection point of view Cornwall had July weather in June. We're now having drizzle, rain and winds that are typical for August - we lit the stove last night.


Same here Phil however all the poor weather will do is drive them into the pubs and shops where infection spreads more easily. If it's anything like our local towns people are congregating and acting as if the virus doesn't exist, social distancing isn't happening and masks are as rare as hens teeth.

I'm from the North East, we don't light the stove until it's down to minus 10.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (4 Jul 2020)

If we waited til it was 0c we'd light it about three times a year.  It gets lit more often because of the damp than the cold. 99% today.


----------



## RogerS (4 Jul 2020)

Lons":ynlj26oh said:


> Phil Pascoe":ynlj26oh said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



Pah! Minus 10 ? Minus 10 ? You soft wussies over there on the East Coast


----------



## Lons (4 Jul 2020)

Blackswanwood":2tn7fnrb said:


> Lons":2tn7fnrb said:
> 
> 
> > A lot will be happening this weekend, have just seen pictures of caravan & motorhome convoys heading to the tourist hotspots and apparently clogging up the parking spots at motorway services, good luck to them, we've got a damn expensive motorhome just sitting there but won't be using it until things settle down.
> ...



Not really in general terms Blackswanwood from what I see happening around here, maybe not as much in your area but I can only speak for what I see but of course it is just my opinion.

Holidaying in a van can mean pretty much anything you want it to from a tiny ancient caravan or battered old transit to top of the range large motorhomes or twin axle caravans that have all mod cons which are expensive enough to need a mortgage. 
Ours is 7.5m and very comfortable indeed and as I tow a little car as well we have full mobility if we want it with the benefit of being able to go away at very short notice for just a few days or a few weeks. We've done a fair amount of travelling to far flung places by the usual methods so have plenty of experience to compare with however it very definitely isn't for everyone, especially those who like to just go and lie on a beach in the sun which I personally find more than a little boring.

Going back to those flocking to sites it isn't safe as the majority will use the site toilet block facilities rather than their own, if they have them and if that isn't risky then what is? Many will also flock to the shops and the pubs with similar risks. If they maintain social distancing and wear masks when appropriate then fair enough but I very much doubt it from comments made on the relevant media groups leading up to this re opening.


----------



## Chris152 (4 Jul 2020)

I think I saw a pic of yours (or at least a detail) a while back, Lons. If I had one of those I'd be happy to travel in it now, I think. When the kids were young we were so close to buying one, taking a year off and travelling Europe. Never did, maybe one day...


----------



## Blackswanwood (4 Jul 2020)

Lons":1lbjwnke said:


> Not really in general terms Blackswanwood from what I see happening around here, maybe not as much in your area but I can only speak for what I see but of course it is just my opinion.
> 
> Holidaying in a van can mean pretty much anything you want it to from a tiny ancient caravan or battered old transit to top of the range large motorhomes or twin axle caravans that have all mod cons which are expensive enough to need a mortgage.
> Ours is 7.5m and very comfortable indeed and as I tow a little car as well we have full mobility if we want it with the benefit of being able to go away at very short notice for just a few days or a few weeks. We've done a fair amount of travelling to far flung places by the usual methods so have plenty of experience to compare with however it very definitely isn't for everyone, especially those who like to just go and lie on a beach in the sun which I personally find more than a little boring.
> ...



Apologies Lons - I should have just said I've no experience of caravan or motorhome holidays - I wasn't seeking to imply there is anything wrong with it - I'm just a big fan of a proper bed. (I hope I've not just dug a bigger hole for myself and you'll tell me motorhomes have them!)

I'm in North Yorkshire (so we have our fair share of tourists and day trippers) and have probably seen a few instances of stupidity from people but on balance think behaviour is much more weighted towards common sense being applied to stick to the spirit of the rules/how we have been asked to behave. 

Another factor that influences the way I am looking at things is what I've seen through work. I'm responsible for some major sites across the UK that have stayed open providing a key service as not all staff can work form home for either their own or business operational reasons. Back in March I expected we were going to have a nightmare getting employees to stick to the rules. Not so, they self police and to a large extent have made it easy. I'd add to that they've also shown great empathy for those less fortunate through things like donating to charity the money they save through not commuting if working from home.

The other side of the coin - my son is in the police and he can tell some interesting stories based on the way the less responsible have behaved. Some relate to the less fortunate but there are others that just show how arrogant and self centred some people are. 

I know from your posts (and respect that) you have concerns about us unlocking too early - while far from comfortable with it my view is that we cannot stay as we have been. I don't dispute though that we need people to be thoughtful of how their actions may impact others.

Apologies again if you felt I was being disparaging of caravans and motorhomes - that wasn't my intent.

Cheers.


----------



## Lons (4 Jul 2020)

Blackswanwood, you have absolutely no reason to apologise for anything whatsoever, I read your post correctly I think and understood what you were saying. We live in a rural location as well but are within easy striking distance of large conurbations where without question the way I described people is there in plain view for all to see, unfortunately.

I don't really think lockdown should or could be continued as I'm realistic enough to realise there's got to be a way forward, I do however believe it should have been implemented sooner and enforced better then perhaps we could have been out of it more quickly, I'm just frustrated at the way it's been handled and at the apparent lack of concern for the vulnerable by some people and expecting a rise in infection rates.

We love North Yorks and have been around the area many times, I have family close to Kirbymoorside as well.
BTW our motorhome has 2 electrically operated drop down double beds, memory foam mattresses and everything :lol:


----------



## Phil Pascoe (4 Jul 2020)

You're welcome to the memory foam mattresses. I rejoiced the day I persuaded my loved one to get rid of ours. Memory foam pillows lasted one night.  I'd sooner sleep on the ground.


----------



## Lons (4 Jul 2020)

Phil Pascoe":y7zsfw7v said:


> You're welcome to the memory foam mattresses. I rejoiced the day I persuaded my loved one to get rid of ours. Memory foam pillows lasted one night.  I'd sooner sleep on the ground.


 :lol: :lol: We're all different.

We're very happy with ours Phil, they've improved over the years, the one at home is layers of sprung base and other foams just zipped together and much cooler than our previous one, we even have an extra layer we can change if we wanted a firmer mattress. The ones in the motorhome are composite as well. I prefer an ordinary pillow to memory foam but the missus swears by hers.


----------



## Lons (4 Jul 2020)

Chris152":cur7jfpc said:


> I think I saw a pic of yours (or at least a detail) a while back, Lons. If I had one of those I'd be happy to travel in it now, I think. When the kids were young we were so close to buying one, taking a year off and travelling Europe. Never did, maybe one day...


We had intended taking it to Europe for a month or so this summer but that's on hold for a while. As you'll know it's hardly camping out these days and the weather doesn't matter too much when there's full central heating.
The mutt loves it and panics when we're getting ready to go in case we leave her behind.


----------



## Andy Kev. (5 Jul 2020)

With ref. to the discussion on the quality of local councils: I've often wondered whether or not political parties should be banned from contesting council elections. I realise that this will find immediate disfavour with those who are keen on political ideologies but it seems to me that local councils are about keeping things running and working and solving problems in a sensible way as they arise.

I also wonder if the hefty salaries which local government positions attract can be conducive to people who have "vision" (definitely the last thing you need at local level) and so embark on money squandering schemes.

I imagine the optimal state of affairs lies somewhere between the two positions.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (5 Jul 2020)

Conversely I've known people who've stood in the past as Independents who were basically communist - they knew that if they told the electorate their political persuasions they'd never get elected. (This possibly applies to the other end of the political spectrum as well, but I've not personally know any.) My mother always argued we should vote for Independents in local elections but I prefer to know what I'm voting for.


----------



## Chris152 (5 Jul 2020)

'It is "crystal clear" that drunk people are unable to socially distance, the chair of the Police Federation said as pubs reopened on Saturday.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53296689


----------



## Andy Kev. (5 Jul 2020)

Phil Pascoe":3cdflx8t said:


> Conversely I've known people who've stood in the past as Independents who were basically communist - they knew that if they told the electorate their political persuasions they'd never get elected. (This possibly applies to the other end of the political spectrum as well, but I've not personally know any.) My mother always argued we should vote for Independents in local elections but I prefer to know what I'm voting for.


I think you could make it a legal requirement for candidates to list any previous political affiliations they may have had. If the rule was, say, that nobody who has been a member of a political party in the last 10 years may stand for election and a candidate declared that he/she had been e.g. a communist in their youth, it would then be up to voters to decide whether that just represented youthful silliness or if a dangerous loony was trying to get elected.


----------



## Rorschach (5 Jul 2020)

Chris152":1dzcewb1 said:


> 'It is "crystal clear" that drunk people are unable to socially distance, the chair of the Police Federation said as pubs reopened on Saturday.'
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53296689



Did anyone honestly think they would be able to?
We have got to let this spread a bit more before the winter flu season kicks in.


----------



## Chris152 (5 Jul 2020)

Rorschach":1wiv0c40 said:


> Chris152":1wiv0c40 said:
> 
> 
> > 'It is "crystal clear" that drunk people are unable to socially distance, the chair of the Police Federation said as pubs reopened on Saturday.'
> ...


No, you're right - I think it's part of the uk's cunning plan. One most of the rest of the developed world seems to have missed.
Not sure what the advantage of giving the virus a running start into the flu season is tho. The men and women in white coats with pens sticking out their breast pockets seem to keep telling us to avoid the virus, not spread it about.


----------



## Andy Kev. (5 Jul 2020)

This may be of general interest: the other day an Italian chap told me what was going on in his home area in northern Italy. It appears that the cases occurring now are less serious than in the first days. This makes sense because if a virus is to be successful as a surviving organism, it is generally a bad evolutionary tactic for it to kill most of its hosts. As a rule the deadlier strains tend to die out as they tend to die with their hosts. It's worth remembering that the virus doesn't care if you die enough, it just needs you as a reproductive facility and if it doesn't kill you, it will do better.

This latter development was probably reinforced by the most serious cases being isolated in hospital. Irrespective of the whether the patient died or was cured, that strain of the virus is not coming out of hospital with them. If the same has happened in the UK, the masses of people happily jostling in each other's company are likely to cause a new spike in the number of cases but we can perhaps be optimistic of a lower rate of lethality and so we will move more in the direction of herd immunity which is obviously desirable in the long run.


----------



## Rorschach (5 Jul 2020)

Spreading it now among the young is the best long term strategy IMO. In the winter the hospitals are always full of old people, the last thing we want is more C19 then, it's bad enough now.

Spread it among the young now while we have space in the hospitals for those that do get a bad case and let us reach herd immunity which will protect everyone come winter time.


----------



## Lons (5 Jul 2020)

Rorschach":2y1jiwad said:


> Spreading it now among the young is the best long term strategy IMO. In the winter the hospitals are always full of old people, the last thing we want is more C19 then, it's bad enough now.
> 
> Spread it among the young now while we have space in the hospitals for those that do get a bad case and let us reach herd immunity which will protect everyone come winter time.



Hmm... Don't know where you get that fact from as it seems that there is no evidence to date that those who have had C19 and recovered are immune going forward, plenty of theories but the real fact is that they don't Know. You of course do. :lol: :wink:


----------



## Rorschach (5 Jul 2020)

Lons":1q4j3spf said:


> Rorschach":1q4j3spf said:
> 
> 
> > Spreading it now among the young is the best long term strategy IMO. In the winter the hospitals are always full of old people, the last thing we want is more C19 then, it's bad enough now.
> ...



Has there been a single documented case of reinfection?


----------



## Lons (5 Jul 2020)

Rorschach":1a3euyv9 said:


> Has there been a single documented case of reinfection?



*Irrelevant!* 
Where is your evidence that a person is immune. You failed yet again to state it is only your opinion and instead stated as if it is a fact. :roll:
I repeat something I said in response to one of your other statements. THEY DON'T BLOODY KNOW - YET

EDIT:
I'll add something else to that. How do you know that none of those who were infected initially without symptoms didn't later catch it a second time. You don't know,and neither does anyone else


----------



## Terry - Somerset (5 Jul 2020)

Thd medical jury is still out as regards infection giving subsequent immunity.

If infection provided no immunity there would be an ever increasing body of evidence (repeat cases) as time passes. There has been the occassional reported reinfection but so small in number that it may be due to testing errors.

As a betting man (I'm not) I would put money on the proposition that infection provided a significant level of immunity, at least for a few months.

Whether immunity is short term or indefinite - months, years or lifelong - we simply don't know.


----------



## Rorschach (5 Jul 2020)

Lons":3ouqn6bm said:


> Rorschach":3ouqn6bm said:
> 
> 
> > Has there been a single documented case of reinfection?
> ...



My evidence that people are immune after catching is that there have been 11.5 million confirmed cases and we zero confirmed cases of re-infection. If that changes and we start to see cases of reinfection then I will change my opinion. As I think you will find I did say it was my opinion in the first post. :mrgreen: 

Think about this though, if infection doesn't cause immunity, what do we do? Herd immunity doesn't work then and neither does a vaccine.


----------



## Lons (5 Jul 2020)

Rorschach":x4r1h8sb said:


> Lons":x4r1h8sb said:
> 
> 
> > Rorschach":x4r1h8sb said:
> ...



In the post I responded to you very clearly did not say it was only your opinion and you stated it in a manner that suggested it's a fact when what you have said above is not evidence it's only stats and even those can be questioned as there is every reason to believe they are not accurate. Presumably you had at least a rudimentary education and know how to phrase your sentences accordingly. :wink: 

Your last sentence is just deflection tactics, I made no comment whatsoever regarding what could work and won't, I repeat because you seem to have reading or understanding issues - THEY DON'T YET KNOW. If they don't then you don't either, end of! :roll:


----------



## Rorschach (5 Jul 2020)

Lons":1iqz59zb said:


> In the post I responded to you very clearly did not say it was only your opinion and you stated it in a manner that suggested it's a fact when what you have said above is not evidence it's only stats and even those can be questioned as there is every reason to believe they are not accurate. Presumably you had at least a rudimentary education and know how to phrase your sentences accordingly. :wink:
> 
> Your last sentence is just deflection tactics, I made no comment whatsoever regarding what could work and won't, I repeat because you seem to have reading or understanding issues - THEY DON'T YET KNOW. If they don't then you don't either, end of! :roll:



In the post I said "Spreading it now among the young is the best long term strategy IMO" You know that IMO means "In My Opinion" right? 

Then I asked you a question, which you have not answered yet :wink: Has there been a single documented case of reinfection?


----------



## rafezetter (5 Jul 2020)

Rorschach":q5ya9et4 said:


> Spreading it now among the young is the best long term strategy IMO. In the winter the hospitals are always full of old people, the last thing we want is more C19 then, it's bad enough now.
> 
> Spread it among the young now while we have space in the hospitals for those that do get a bad case and let us reach herd immunity which will protect everyone come winter time.



Sure - but lets not forget your willingness to let all the old people die - makes me wonder if you've had the courage to say that to any people around you with elderly parents.

Having said that - does "herd immunity" actually exist?

I'm "immune" from the cold I had last time, but not the next. It's documwnted that many viruses mutate every 6 months give or take, so "immunity" to one strain provides little benefit against another.

While it's also accpeted that there are multiple strains of influenze and "common colds" around at the same time, will C19 follow the same pattern? Who knows.

"past performance is no guarentee of future performance" etc etc.

In light of that "Herd Immunity" seems to be a crutch being used to support unsubstantive viewpoints.

There's also another thing to consider which those talking "let's all catch it" have failed to remember - the more people it goes through the more chances it had to mutute into something else - whether it changes to something less lethal "because that makes sense" is pure nonsensical speculation.

It might go through someone who already has Hepatitus, or Polio or any one of the dozens of viruses that still exist in parts of the world and then merge to create a super virus - WE DO NOT KNOW - so the more people it goes through the greater the chances of a "super lethal" outcome as well as a "less lethal" mutation.

Can a virus be mutated by what we consider to be harmful bacteria? If so that opens even more possibilities.

Pretty sure viruses don't have te ability to CHOOSE how they mutate, it could be that the virus mutates into something far more deadly and that branch of mutuation kills ALL it's hosts and thus dies out, leaving the remaining microbes to mutate either following the same path or a different path.

There's a fact most people don't know about genetics and evolution, 99% of ALL SPECIES that has EVER existed on earth are EXTINCT. 99%.

So the hundreds of millions we have now are just a 1% sample of mutations. This proves that "evolution" can take many forms and speculation that the virus would somehow "know" which mutation works and which doesn't and it's therefore preferable for all the other microbes to follow it's mutation "path" is just.... ludicrous in the extreme.


----------



## Blackswanwood (5 Jul 2020)

From what I have read there is an emerging picture that those recovered have developed some form of immunity. There has however in everything I have read also been a caveat that it is too early to tell and any immunity could well be short lived. Someone was punting a theory on here earlier that the virus is mutating which if true could mean any immunity will be overcome?

Bottom line for me is we don’t know and so betting on a herd immunity strategy for the young is foolhardy as it creates a significant risk of spreading to those in higher risk groups.

Others may feel differently which proves Boris and Co are damned if they do or don’t as everyone has a view (including me) based on homespun wisdom!

Cheers


----------



## Lons (5 Jul 2020)

> "Rorschach" In the post I said "Spreading it now among the young is the best long term strategy IMO" You know that IMO means "In My Opinion" right?
> Then I asked you a question, which you have not answered yet :wink: Has there been a single documented case of reinfection?


I didn't read that as being applicable to your last sentence in which I case apologise, if that was your intention so will give you the benefit of the doubt on that one. Perhaps you need to start all your posts with a disclaimer that what you write is always in total only your opinion. :lol:

There isn't a definitive answer. Think about what I did say


> How do you know that none of those who were infected initially without symptoms didn't later catch it a second time. You don't know,and neither does anyone else


It's an unknown but possible variable which may or may not be true but if it is then there could be potentially large numbers who could have contracted C19 more than once.

*I repeat again :roll: I don't know, they don't know and neither do you.*


----------



## rafezetter (5 Jul 2020)

Rorschach":jc7dnwzs said:


> Lons":jc7dnwzs said:
> 
> 
> > Rorschach":jc7dnwzs said:
> ...



Rorschach - It's generally accepted that your "immunity" will last 6 months. That's all you get, SIX MONTHS (see my post above as to why). Seeing as we are only in month 7 or 10 (depending on whether you agree China had isolated cases back in august and managed to keep it quiet) - your "there have been no re-infections thus "herd immunity" works is based on no FACTS of any kind.

As usual.

I'm beginning to wonder if all your posts are because deep down you are scared whitless and are clinging to these theories to placate that fear, to convince yourself "herd immunity" works, despite all documented scientific evidence that it doesn't save you from THE NEXT MUTATION.

My personal experience has it that there are only three reasons why people cling to irrational and false beleifs; optimism without proof, ignorance and fear.

There's enough evidence around to rule out ignorance, so for you it's either optimism without proof or fear, and optimism without proof is normally quashed with actual proof (at least for those intelligent enough to understand), which we have plenty of, so that leaves just one possibility left, and we all know how fear can twist a mind.

Either that or you're simply a straight up "Karen" - the new word that's being used to describe those people who cannot be reasoned or rationed with, no matter how true or factual the arguments are, they just won't have it; they are right and you are wrong, no matter what you say.

You've been likened to a "troll", but a troll is someone who actually DOES know the facts, but is saying the opposite to be bloody minded and cause a reaction for thier own lulz; A "Karen" however is just plain stupid.

Now considering as I said a huge swathe of factual evidence has been placed in front of you, and you've read it, because you've quoted it, yet still cling to your viewpoint that the lockdown was unnecessary (how about Texas and Nevada eh?), and "herd immunity will get us through" and "the lockdown is killing the vulnerable" even though the numbers of suicides are TINY compared to Covid deaths - 500,000 covid deaths compared to a few hundred suicides etc etc - I'm changing my personal viewpoint, you're not a troll, just a Karen who refuses to accept FACTS.

Infact far as I can tell the only thing you've said that is true is that the lockdown is hurting businesses - but when the alternative is weighed up against deaths, most of us have chosen HUMAN LIFE over MONEY, and yet you have loudly and repeatedly declared the opposite.

As I said I wonder if you've had the courage to air these views to everyone in your social circle; I'll bet everything I own (or will inherit) that you have not, when I was a kid we used to say "all mouth and no trousers".

Edit - yes yes "I said it was my opinion" - this is true, but that DOES NOT get you out of jail rorschach, because a person who keeps an opinion (and continues to spout it) even when it contravenes all accepted knowledge and FACTS, then they become something else. A "Karen".

We are not discussing religion here, where there are no provable "facts" one way or another (we'll leave out the compelling evidence of evolution to one side for now) - we are discussing the situation where the facts are immutable, the lockdown prevented the worlds health services from being overwhelmed and reduced the numbers of cases drastically or as you say "it wasn't a big deal / it never came to anything", while completely and wilfully ignoring the latter was BECAUSE of the former, not in spite of it.

You also continue to tout "Herd immunity" for C19 despite it having no basis or proof other than it has worked for previous viruses of ENTIRELY DIFFERENT STRAINS, and also ignoring that "herd immunity" only works FOR THAT PARTICULAR STRAIN OF VIRUS, and WHEN it mutates we are back to square #1, which is why influenza and the "common cold" keeps coming round every 6 months. The chances of this being the same situation for C19 - "LIMITED HERD IMMUNITY" is basically 100%.

So while it's your opinion, and you're entitled to it, it has all the gravitas and factual basis of someone saying "the earth is flat".

Oh and.... The state of Florida reported 11,458 cases of COVID today. Just Florida.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (5 Jul 2020)

I have been keeping out of this because of the intransigence of the thinking here - it just makes people froth at the mouth and slam on the table if they read something that goes against what they "know" to be true.

I am not an epidemiologists, so here are the words of quite a good one: https://usa.greekreporter.com/2020/06/2 ... idis-says/



> Dr. Ioannidis: 0.05% to 1% is a reasonable range for what the data tell us now for the infection fatality rate, with a median of about 0.25%. The death rate in a given country depends a lot on the age-structure, who are the people infected, and how they are managed. For people younger than 45, the infection fatality rate is almost 0%. For 45 to 70, it is probably about 0.05-0.3%. For those above 70, it escalates substantially, to 1% or higher for those over 85. For frail, debilitated elderly people with multiple health problems who are infected in nursing homes, it can go up to 25% during major outbreaks in these facilities.


...


> In terms of numbers of lives lost, so far the COVID-19 impact is about 1% of the 1918 influenza. In terms of quality-adjusted person-years lost, the impact of COVID-19 is about 0.1% of 1918 influenza, since the 1918 influenza killed mostly young healthy people (average age 28), while the average age of death with COVID-19 is 80 years, with several comorbidities.


...


> Globally, the lockdown measures have increased the number of people at risk of starvation to 1.1 billion, and they are putting at risk millions of lives, with the potential resurgence of tuberculosis, childhood diseases like measles where vaccination programs are disrupted, and malaria. I hope that policymakers look at the big picture of all the potential problems and not only on the very important, but relatively thin slice of evidence that is COVID-19.



There is more in the article - I have been selective for brevity, to avoid a huge cut&paste.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (5 Jul 2020)

I commented after a newspaper article that I had read that there were supposedly two different strains of the virus, and a lady professor replied that by now there are probably hundreds of identifiably different mutation.


----------



## rafezetter (5 Jul 2020)

Trainee neophyte":3nd8edvn said:


> I have been keeping out of this because of the intransigence of the thinking here - it just makes people froth at the mouth and slam on the table if they read something that goes against what they "know" to be true.
> 
> I am not an epidemiologists, so here are the words of quite a good one: https://usa.greekreporter.com/2020/06/2 ... idis-says/
> 
> ...



Starvation can be dealt with IF the countries most at risk are willing - China is a hugely wealthy country so can afford to subsidise food from sources other than direct farming. India has the same ability; India has been accepting money from western nations for decades such that it does have enough money to help prevent starvation deaths, *there are plenty of shops with food on the shelves (and in warehouses). * I live with a person from Chenai who has been keeping me updated with whats going on in India and the Govt is doing very little to either prevent C19 from spreading or the additional strain on it's already struggling health system and food shortages - meanwhile the military and people in prominent positions are well fed. 

It's all back down to the age old question "what price is a human life?"

Most western countries have MORE FOOD THAN THEY CAN SELL and have had for decades, as someone said for the last 30/40 years at least we've had the global pandemics of death by starvation AND obeseity AT THE SAME TIME.

This is not a covid pandemic situation, C19 just just forced it and other issues to the front of the queue where people can't ignore it anymore.

Feel free to talk to the multitude of dictator style African govts and warlords about feeding thier people with the hundreds of millions they have had in aid money from western countries.

All the people at risk of starvation have ALWAYS only been a few meals away from it anyway because of thier govts spending policies.

It's also a bit rich a Greek person saying this, who's no doubt benefitted from the govt spending systems which was guarenteed to put it's people in the poor house, but no-one complained at the time because everyone was happy not paying taxes and getting high value pensions paid by the govt.

(edited for the hard of understanding.)


----------



## Trainee neophyte (5 Jul 2020)

rafezetter":33dgfb2w said:


> China is a hugely wealthy country so can afford to subsidise food from sources other than direct farming.



I'm sorry, but I have no idea what "indirect farming" might be. Do you mean importing food? But everyone is on lockdown - supply chains are failing. I was reading today about seed potatoes being thrown away, because there is no market: every kilogram of seed potatoes = 20kg or more of produce in the shop after harvest, and many, many tons of seed potatoes are being destroyed. Mountains of meat has been thrown away (animals killed and buried), because the system is broken. But India can just import more food from elsewhere? Phew!


rafezetter":33dgfb2w said:


> It's also a bit rich a Greek person saying this, who's no doubt benefitted from the govt spending systems which was guarenteed to put it's people in the poor house, but no-one complained at the time because everyone was happy not paying taxes and getting high value pensions paid by the govt.


 In what way does financial skullduggery twenty years ago in Greece impact Covid19 lockdown today, worldwide? How about we discuss what the nice epidemiologist says about the cost of lockdown, the necessity of lockdown, and if it might be better taking nuanced, more targeted approach? 

By discuss, I mean make an attempt to be nice to each other, and consider the topic at hand.

Give it a whirl - it might be fun. Not agreeing with you does not mean that I want to destroy every thing you stand for. It is not an attack on the very basis of your existence. I just have different ideas about how necessary economic activity is to continued human existence. No biggie.


----------



## Rorschach (5 Jul 2020)

Is rafezetter ranting about nonsense again? :roll: :lol:


----------



## Andy Kev. (5 Jul 2020)

Perhaps "indirect farming" means apple scrumping.


----------



## RogerS (5 Jul 2020)

Trainee neophyte":1mfsxj6b said:


> ..... In terms of quality-adjusted person-years lost, ....



Is that another way off saying 'old people don't matter' ? Who's next ? People who wear glasses ?


----------



## Garno (5 Jul 2020)

RogerS":zqpczl7x said:


> Is that another way off saying 'old people don't matter' ? Who's next ? People who wear glasses ?



I hope not, I'm already on the vulnerable list, if word got out I was a glasses wearing old git as well I would get strung up :shock:


----------



## Trainee neophyte (6 Jul 2020)

RogerS":2oqz11jp said:


> Trainee neophyte":2oqz11jp said:
> 
> 
> > ..... In terms of quality-adjusted person-years lost, ....
> ...



It's what happens when you let bureaucrats loose with statistics. Or as Wikipedia says:


> The quality-adjusted life year or quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) is a generic measure of disease burden, including both the quality and the quantity of life lived.[1][2] It is used in economic evaluation to assess the value of medical interventions.[1] One QALY equates to one year in perfect health.[2] QALY scores range from 1 (perfect health) to 0 (dead).[3] QALYs can be used to inform personal decisions, to evaluate programs, and to set priorities for future programs.



Economics: the dismal science.


----------



## RogerS (6 Jul 2020)

Trainee neophyte":3ufaceym said:


> RogerS":3ufaceym said:
> 
> 
> > Trainee neophyte":3ufaceym said:
> ...



Exactly my point, TN. Thin end of the wedge. Not that that bothers at least one person on this forum.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (6 Jul 2020)

RogerS":1qqaxwej said:


> Exactly my point, TN. Thin end of the wedge. Not that that bothers at least one person on this forum.



I agree it is unpleasant, but you still have to make these calculations. You can't just say it's not fair, so everyone should have all the resources they need regardless of the cost, because there aren't enough resources. It's back to the infinite growth on a finite planet thing: eventually you will run out of stuff, and someone has to make awful decisions. The people in the USA who despise anything socialised like to refer to this kind of thinking as "death panels", which is intentionally emotive, but exactly what happens - someone has to decide the cost/benefit of any treatment. In a perfect world we would all be rich enough to afford the best possible private healthcare, but we can't. This started out looking at the costs involved in lockdown - who pays, who gains, and is it fair, and correct. At least, that's how I understand it, anyway. 

I am currently burning through my savings because I have almost no income, due to government decree. Eventually I will run out of savings, and then what? Borrow money to buy food? Sell my home? How much should I pay to keep Lons feeling secure and safe? We need numbers, and we need a cost/benefit analysis. At what point do I refuse to take part in the charade? When I am bankrupt and destitute? When I have burned through my savings, but before I lose my home? What are your thoughts?


----------



## Rorschach (6 Jul 2020)

Trainee neophyte":21ufndg9 said:


> I am currently burning through my savings because I have almost no income, due to government decree. Eventually I will run out of savings, and then what? Borrow money to buy food? Sell my home? How much should I pay to keep Lons feeling secure and safe? We need numbers, and we need a cost/benefit analysis. At what point do I refuse to take part in the charade? When I am bankrupt and destitute? When I have burned through my savings, but before I lose my home? What are your thoughts?



I can almost guarantee you that the majority of people who are calling for lockdown etc to continue are people who have a steady income such as a pension and are relatively unaffected by the economics of all this. I've asked people before to put their cards on the table in terms of their age and living situation, they have not done so, I suspect they are ashamed to let it be known that they are old, rich (or at least comfortable) and scared of dying so they think everyone else should suffer to protect them.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (6 Jul 2020)

From today's Times -

Thirty-five thousand more people could die of cancer next year because of the impact of coronavirus, expert modelling has suggested.
Research by Health Data Research UK, the national institute for health data science, warned that the overwhelming focus on Covid-19 was likely to cause 18,000 excess cancer deaths. It said that this could almost double to 35,000 in the worst-case scenario.
It said that urgent referrals for cancer care had dropped and that treatments had been delayed or cancelled ...


----------



## Rorschach (6 Jul 2020)

Phil Pascoe":yq94dzpg said:


> From today's Times -
> 
> Thirty-five thousand more people could die of cancer next year because of the impact of coronavirus, expert modelling has suggested.
> Research by Health Data Research UK, the national institute for health data science, warned that the overwhelming focus on Covid-19 was likely to cause 18,000 excess cancer deaths. It said that this could almost double to 35,000 in the worst-case scenario.
> It said that urgent referrals for cancer care had dropped and that treatments had been delayed or cancelled ...



Sadly I think stories like this will only become more common.

I mentioned it here before (I think) but a family members cancer treatment suffered due to C19. What should have been a fairly small operation to remove a carcinoma was turned into a much bigger operation that almost (and could yet) cost them their arm. The operation has now been done but it was much more invasive than it would have been and they also now need several weeks of radiotherapy that would not have been required.


----------



## RogerS (6 Jul 2020)

This is an interesting article from the NY Times comparing deaths due to Covid-19 and historical deaths due to other diseases and events. Of course, the naysayers will argue that the stats are selective. But that would be missing the point. One stat is notable and that is the comparative death rate for Sweden which, as we all know didn't lockdown as much as we did. 

It is a truly ostrich-like blinkered stance to say that we should not have gone into lockdown and that we should just have sat back and let Covid rip. Our death rates would have been horrendous, the NHS in total meltdown, NHS staff decimated. Cancer treatents ? Forget it for many years.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... story.html


----------



## ScaredyCat (6 Jul 2020)

Rorschach":2re60iuw said:


> I can almost guarantee you that the majority of people who are calling for lockdown etc to continue are people who have a steady income such as a pension and are relatively unaffected by the economics of all this. I've asked people before to put their cards on the table in terms of their age and living situation, they have not done so, I suspect they are ashamed to let it be known that they are old, rich (or at least comfortable) and scared of dying so they think everyone else should suffer to protect them.



That's a pineapple tonne of assumption , right there. 

I'm not scared of dying, I'm scared of being the one that ends up killing my wife because I get infected if I have to mix with morons who don't understand social distancing and who refuse to wear a mask - or those that deny it's even a problem. You only have to look at what happened when the pubs opened - Jesus ******* christ - if you're that desperate for a drink, you have a problem. 

.


----------



## Rorschach (6 Jul 2020)

You miss one key point Roger, infections were falling before lockdown started.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/0 ... -lockdown/

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/new ... e-lockdown

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... kdown.html


----------



## Lons (6 Jul 2020)

Trainee neophyte":3uvnk018 said:


> How much should I pay to keep Lons feeling secure and safe?



I think you perhaps are spending far too much time in the close proximity of your pigs fella. :wink: 
As you live in foreign climes you almost certainly are paying absolutely zilch towards keeping me or any other UK resident safe, if you elect to live in Greece and be bound by Greek law then complain about that rather than the actions of a country you are not a resident in, you can't have it both ways.
If your government aren't giving you £10k or £25k handouts and interest free / low interest loans, rates holidays etc. either move back to the UK where they have done or keep your mouth firmly zipped. :roll: 

As an aside, I'm not especially vulnerable apart from age but my wife is so I isolate to protect her, after all following a lifetme working in the NHS from the age of 18 caring for patients of all ages she deserves to be given a chance to enjoy her retirement although you and Rorschach suggest otherwise. 
I am very fit with no underlying issues, yes I have pensions in a addition to the state pension ( which is one of the worst in the developed world ) but I paid into those over a lifetime of salaried work and my own business and saved as much as I could so that is and always has been my money earned by planning and prudent action, you're not the only one who has gone through difficult times and as a taxpayer I'm also contributing to the huge cost of the lockdown in the UK and will for the rest of my life as are my family but you are not so I'd strongly suggest you join a Greek forum and spout your cr*p on there. As I said once before, typical bloody farmer!



> Rorschach wrote:
> I've asked people before to put their cards on the table in terms of their age and living situation, they have not done so, I suspect they are ashamed to let it be known that they are old, rich (or at least comfortable) and scared of dying so they think everyone else should suffer to protect them.


Absolute bullsh*t, several of us including me have clearly spelled out our situation while you have not and have flatly refused saying that people would be able to recognise who you are from what you do. What are you so afraid of pal? Easy to hide behind a keyboard an make accusations while admitting you have done pretty well out of the government ( taxpayers ) handouts.
Come out of the cupboard and let people see who you really are. Maybe a Butler sprog, or as Rafezetta said just a "Karen"...... He's far too kind I would be much more blunt than that


----------



## Rorschach (6 Jul 2020)

Lons":w0wjivl8 said:


> Absolute bullsh*t, several of us including me have clearly spelled out our situation while you have not and have flatly refused



I think you need to go back a few pages, I put my cards out when talking to woody :wink:
(Around the 8th June on this thread)


----------



## ScaredyCat (6 Jul 2020)

The actual report https://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.02090.pdf says it used the "least compromised data" 

It also says...

"This paper does not prove that the peak in fatal infections in England and Wales preceded lockdown by several days. " and

"it will never be possible to be certain about timings, given the severe biases in clinical data other than deaths and fatal disease duration."

edit for 'conclusion'
.


----------



## RogerS (6 Jul 2020)

Rorschach":f88f0frz said:


> You miss one key point Roger, infections were falling before lockdown started.
> 
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/0 ... -lockdown/
> 
> ...




Um, no. All those articles do is confirm the view that we entered lockdown a week too late.


----------



## Rorschach (6 Jul 2020)

RogerS":315u9a9s said:


> Rorschach":315u9a9s said:
> 
> 
> > You miss one key point Roger, infections were falling before lockdown started.
> ...



:shock: What? How on earth do you get to that conclusion?


----------



## RogerS (6 Jul 2020)

Rorschach":2qoaopu0 said:


> RogerS":2qoaopu0 said:
> 
> 
> > Rorschach":2qoaopu0 said:
> ...


----------



## Rorschach (6 Jul 2020)

You clearly don't understand the mathematics involved here.


----------



## Lons (6 Jul 2020)

Rorschach":1lpurs9b said:


> Lons":1lpurs9b said:
> 
> 
> > Absolute bullsh*t, several of us including me have clearly spelled out our situation while you have not and have flatly refused
> ...



No you didn't, half a hand of cards isn't enough when you accuse others of not doing so. I can't be bothered but in the event of your convenient memory loss will happily find the post where you declined to give details of your work giving the reason I stated. I repeat what are you so scared of?

Your father must have left you pretty scarred which is sad but your comment that you wouldn't leave your kids with your sister in law as well as the numbers of people you upset on here gives an inkling into your character. 
Are you just unlucky that so many people find you obnoxious or could it be perhaps that you just are! :wink:

I'll respond to your forthcoming excuses in a few hours time when I get back as I need to finish cutting the grass. For someone who says he's never stopped working during the lockdown you seem to have plenty of time to waste on the internet, curious!


----------



## Trainee neophyte (6 Jul 2020)

Lons":3h9d2wxi said:


> As you live in foreign climes you almost certainly are paying absolutely zilch towards keeping me or any other UK resident safe,



I quite unfairly pulled your name out of the hat based on the amount of noise, but everyone insisting that no economic activity is allowed to take place is forcing the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind. Forget my tawdry little lack of income; think about every person in the world who is not able/allowed to conduct business because of the virus. Every one of them dipping into savings, selling assets, just to survive. Where will that wealth end up? Who currently has the money to buy, when so many are selling? 

I don't get any government support, but if I did, I would still get to pay for it, for the next three generations, should I live that long. The longer this goes on, the bigger the effect will be on inflation. Remember the 70s? Right now I am struggling, but in 18 months everyone will be losing out. We live in interesting times. The quicker we get back to "normal", the fewer of the 1.1 billion people "at risk of starving" will actually die. Hopefully.


----------



## Rorschach (6 Jul 2020)

Lons":2xiw6zt8 said:


> No you didn't, half a hand of cards isn't enough when you accuse others of not doing so. I can't be bothered but in the event of your convenient memory loss will happily find the post where you declined to give details of your work giving the reason I stated. I repeat what are you so scared of?



What would make you happy then, what do you NEED to know? You gonna do the same, post your full name and address in a public forum?


----------



## Terry - Somerset (6 Jul 2020)

I broadly agree with TN views - however uncomfortable we may individually find it.

Resources and money are finite. We need to decide how they are deployed. As an individual we do this - is a holiday more impotant than a new bandsaw, food for the kids or a few pints down the pub etc.

Nations (and businesses) have exactly the same issue. Leaving aside the illusion of "magic money trees", all need to live within their means. For an individual normally the constraint is pay or pension, a nation has other options - particularly taxation (complex).

It would also be wrong to assume that money is the only consideration - morality, emotion, sentiment etc come into play.

Governments across the world put a value on individual lives to allow prioritisation of (say) road safety improvement projects, or rail vs air vs road safety investment. That is the easy bit - the evaluation may have regard for reductions in journey times, pollution, environment, communities etc.

For CV-19 I do not believe it can simply be a case of minimise risk to life at any cost. We need to be aware of the price paid for so single minded an approach - other impacted issues - eg: cancer treatments, morality, imposing debt upon future generations, economic growth which bears on hunger, poverty etc etc.

It is unsurprising that for some, selfish personal needs overwhelmingly dictate the response. It would be far better to accept that tolerance of a compromised solution is far more likely buy-in from all groups.


----------



## woodhutt (6 Jul 2020)

I read today that, based on studies in Spain, the evidence suggests that "herd immunity" is a non-starter as only 5% of those who had recovered from Covid had developed antibodies, the remaining 95% being susceptible to re-infection.
To quote The Lancet on this subject:
"In light of these findings, any proposed approach to achieve herd immunity through natural infection is not only highly unethical, but also unachievable."
Pete


----------



## Lons (6 Jul 2020)

Rorschach":2vsuizf6 said:


> Lons":2vsuizf6 said:
> 
> 
> > No you didn't, half a hand of cards isn't enough when you accuse others of not doing so. I can't be bothered but in the event of your convenient memory loss will happily find the post where you declined to give details of your work giving the reason I stated. I repeat what are you so scared of?
> ...


You're the one who said "cards on the table", I've posted what I do, what I did for a living and pretty much most other things and my email address and location are very easy to find as is proven by the numbers of enquiries I get direct for machine manuals. 
I don't NEED anything from you and don't especially want to know you as I find your general views offensive and crass but if you aren't prepared to put up then I respectfully suggest you shut up. 
I repeat, what are you so scared of that you can't divulge details of your work?


----------



## Rorschach (6 Jul 2020)

woodhutt":24rsx8f6 said:


> I read today that, based on studies in Spain, the evidence suggests that "herd immunity" is a non-starter as only 5% of those who had recovered from Covid had developed antibodies, the remaining 95% being susceptible to re-infection.
> To quote The Lancet on this subject:
> "In light of these findings, any proposed approach to achieve herd immunity through natural infection is not only highly unethical, but also unachievable."
> Pete



That's very interesting. Clearly though widespread reinfection is not happening, or we have not seen it yet. 
If 95% of those infected are susceptible to reinfection then it's a very worrying outlook as a vaccine is no help. What on earth do we do going forward, lockdown no matter how long won't make it go away, too many essential services need to be carried out and even if we could carry out say a complete one month lockdown in the UK where everyone gets a month of rations and then never leaves their house, what about the rest of the world? They can't do that.


----------



## Rorschach (6 Jul 2020)

Lons":1b2zb5ov said:


> You're the one who said "cards on the table", I've posted what I do, what I did for a living and pretty much most other things and my email address and location are very easy to find as is proven by the numbers of enquiries I get direct for machine manuals.
> I don't NEED anything from you and don't especially want to know you as I find your general views offensive and crass but if you aren't prepared to put up then I respectfully suggest you shut up.
> I repeat, what are you so scared of that you can't divulge details of your work?



Giving out your email address privately is not quite the same as posting your name and home address for all the world to see is it? :roll: 
Anyway, you don't like my views, that's fine, I won't lose any sleep. Please feel free to ignore me, block me, whatever you fancy really, no one is forcing you to engage with me. I'm going to stop replying to your comments now, have a good evening


----------



## Lons (6 Jul 2020)

Rorschach":387222gi said:


> Lons":387222gi said:
> 
> 
> > You're the one who said "cards on the table", I've posted what I do, what I did for a living and pretty much most other things and my email address and location are very easy to find as is proven by the numbers of enquiries I get direct for machine manuals.
> ...


That's not what I said, read it properly. :roll: 


> I'm going to stop replying to your comments now, have a good evening


Thank you, on second thoughts maybe that's exactly what you need to do.


----------



## Lons (7 Jul 2020)

Have just watched a prog on BBC2 ( Mon 6th at 11.30 pm ) called *Italy's Frontline , a doctors diary*, maybe worth a watch on catch up tv for anyone interested. Powerful stuff.


----------



## doctor Bob (7 Jul 2020)

As was Britains cancer crisis on BBC1, lots of young and middle age people losing their lives and savings. Theropies stopped mid way through, one lady spending £250k to have private treatment stopped by NHS. The effects and deaths will be considerable.
Difficult balancing act, but it seems like cancer care just stopped, so I suppose it wasn't a balance at all.
For me with parents who are 87, I know they have had a wonderful life and I will be devastated when they die, but would I (I know they wouldn't) put them before a young woman with 3 kids and potentially years of forefilling life ahead of them, NO. 
Very easy to have the caring attitude for instant death (days and weeks) and forget about the long term deaths over the next few years. Seems selfish and unthought through.
Please (general broadcast) don't start frothing at the mouth, it gets people no where and just stops me responding, also I will not respond to pointy finger accusations, be rational and nice :lol:


----------



## doctor Bob (7 Jul 2020)

My sister is a diagnostic radiopgrapher, she works on a breast screening unit, Stopped and moved to the front line.
Reckons there were 18 radiographers fighting to do an xray due boredom. 
She says it was like having one bus and 18 drivers.


----------



## Chris152 (7 Jul 2020)

woodhutt":189h0zr4 said:


> I read today that, based on studies in Spain, the evidence suggests that "herd immunity" is a non-starter as _only 5% of those who had recovered from Covid_ had developed antibodies, the remaining 95% being susceptible to re-infection.
> To quote The Lancet on this subject:
> "In light of these findings, any proposed approach to achieve herd immunity through natural infection is not only highly unethical, but also unachievable."
> Pete


Pete - this is how the BBC is reporting that study:

'The study of more than 60,000 people estimates that around just 5% of the Spanish population has developed antibodies, the medical journal the Lancet reported.
Herd immunity is achieved when enough people become infected with a virus to stop its spread.
Around 70% to 90% of a population needs to be immune to protect the uninfected ...
"Despite the high impact of Covid-19 in Spain, prevalence estimates remain low and are clearly insufficient to provide herd immunity," the study's authors said in the report.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-53315983

So if I'm reading it right, it's not 5% of those who have had the virus and recovered but 5% of the total population. The latest i've heard in the Uk is that between 5 and 8% of us have or have had the virus, so maybe it's similar in Spain? 5-8% seems to equate to about 60 000 deaths in the UK, which makes achieving 70-90% of the population with antibodies without a vaccine an ethical problem for the herd immunity solution, I'd think.


----------



## RogerS (7 Jul 2020)

Chris152":2jy7cb9w said:


> woodhutt":2jy7cb9w said:
> 
> 
> > I read today that, based on studies in Spain, the evidence suggests that "herd immunity" is a non-starter as _only 5% of those who had recovered from Covid_ had developed antibodies, the remaining 95% being susceptible to re-infection.
> ...



A very good point, Chris. I'll emphasise it for those who are hard of understanding. To achieve 'herd immunity' implies many extra 100,000's of deaths.. That's OK according to Rorscharch since 85% of deaths are in the over-65's and we don't count any more.


----------



## Chris152 (7 Jul 2020)

doctor Bob":1ihg54gp said:


> Very easy to have the caring attitude for instant death (days and weeks) and forget about the long term deaths over the next few years. Seems selfish and unthought through.


I think the problem is, either way (serious lockdown or no lockdown) we're going to continue to suffer heavily. (We seem to be almost at the 'back-to-normal' stage in the UK.)
If we fail to lock down efficiently the virus seems set to continue spreading and killing - the early estimates of 500 000 sounds about right to me given the death rate we've experienced for % population infected. Which I'd think would lead anyway to a situation in which little in the NHS functions properly for rather a long time, and clearly the economy won't be functioning properly either as families are hit repeatedly by deaths and much of the nation descends into a state of gloom, despair and fear. 
If we stay in significant lockdown, the economy continues to be seriously damaged with all the negative consequences on our health etc that would follow. But at least we can wait to see what vaccine/ therapeutic treatments are developed, if any.
I think there's a naive optimism and arrogance that most of us share as human beings - that somehow we can control everything. The reality is we're stuck between a rock and a hard place. But it does seem to me holding the virus at bay while we wait for solutions is the best way to go.


----------



## Rorschach (7 Jul 2020)

doctor Bob":31wcbaxk said:


> My sister is a diagnostic radiopgrapher, she works on a breast screening unit, Stopped and moved to the front line.
> Reckons there were 18 radiographers fighting to do an xray due boredom.
> She says it was like having one bus and 18 drivers.



Anecdotally I can confirm a similar situation. The family member I have mentioned before had their cancer treatment delayed by 12 weeks, this despite the fact the South West has seen very few cases and our local hospital was like a ghost town. Before the OP they needed to have a CT scan, they weren't given an appointment, they were asked when they would like it as the schedule was open, they were the only person on the list to have a CT scan that week!
The staff went in on a Sunday to do the scan, I think it was a team of 2 or 3 people who ran the machine, they went in, did the scan, cleaned up and went home again as they no more work that week :shock:


----------



## Rorschach (7 Jul 2020)

RogerS":2x437tkj said:


> A very good point, Chris. I'll emphasise it for those who are hard of understanding. To achieve 'herd immunity' implies many extra 100,000's of deaths.. That's OK according to Rorscharch since 85% of deaths are in the over-65's and we don't count any more.



I didn't say it was OK, I said it was inevitable, big difference. I'd love it if we lived in a world where no one got sick and no one died, but that isn't reality.


----------



## doctor Bob (7 Jul 2020)

Chris152":81b960bb said:


> doctor Bob":81b960bb said:
> 
> 
> > Very easy to have the caring attitude for instant death (days and weeks) and forget about the long term deaths over the next few years. Seems selfish and unthought through.
> ...



Thank you, a calm response, appreciated.
I have a picture in my head of some posters on here, red in the face shouting at the laptop, working out how to get one upmanship in insults. I liked Mr Grimsdale he had a great mind and a lot of banter, he never got shouty, his assets were the abnility to get people frothing at the mouth without him (rarely) losing his cool. Much more reasoned debate with him. It really is no point in having debates discussions with shouty angry people who just accuse people of being thick or hard of understanding, as all that implies is they believe there opinion is better and you are to stupid to understand why they are right. Then you get the ones who send you PM's, just odd behaviour.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (7 Jul 2020)

Mr Grimsdale he had a great mind and a lot of banter, he never got shouty, his assets were the ability to get people frothing at the mouth without him (rarely) losing his cool. Much more reasoned debate with him ...

I think you and I are thinking of a different Mr. Grimsdale. :?


----------



## selectortone (7 Jul 2020)

Trainee neophyte":8rogtg8o said:


> I'm sorry, but I have no idea what "indirect farming" might be. Do you mean importing food? But everyone is on lockdown - supply chains are failing. I was reading today about seed potatoes being thrown away, because there is no market: every kilogram of seed potatoes = 20kg or more of produce in the shop after harvest, and many, many tons of seed potatoes are being destroyed. Mountains of meat has been thrown away (animals killed and buried), because the system is broken.



That report related to US states like Idaho that supply potatoes for hundreds of thousands of fast food restaurants, which have been shut during lockdown. The same applies to the meat referred to. I know you love a good panic, but the system isn't broken, supply chains are not failing.


----------



## Woody2Shoes (7 Jul 2020)

doctor Bob":18shfbe7 said:


> My sister is a diagnostic radiopgrapher, she works on a breast screening unit, Stopped and moved to the front line.
> Reckons there were 18 radiographers fighting to do an xray due boredom.
> She says it was like having one bus and 18 drivers.



The great difficulty is that the 'new normal' for cancer screening and treatment - and all other medical diagnostics/treatments, including dentistry for example - now has to be 'covid-safe' to avoid the situation where lots of healthy, productive, young(ish) healthcare professionals fall sick (and recover/die/suffer-long-term-after-effects) as has been the case in the UK/Italy/Spain/elsewhere.

A medic who could see/treat ten people a day will perhaps only be able to "safely" see/treat five people a day (and probably at a greater PPE cost than previously). The economics/productivity of healthcare provision has now been altered by Covid.

If you look at the contract tracers there's probably 1000 drivers for every bus at the moment!


----------



## Woody2Shoes (7 Jul 2020)

selectortone":3qhdqo8k said:


> Trainee neophyte":3qhdqo8k said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sorry, but I have no idea what "indirect farming" might be. Do you mean importing food? But everyone is on lockdown - supply chains are failing. I was reading today about seed potatoes being thrown away, because there is no market: every kilogram of seed potatoes = 20kg or more of produce in the shop after harvest, and many, many tons of seed potatoes are being destroyed. Mountains of meat has been thrown away (animals killed and buried), because the system is broken.
> ...



I think it's fair to say that our food production systems were broken long before Covid came along!


----------



## ScaredyCat (7 Jul 2020)

As a side note, when did we move from "There's a 1 in 4 chance that someone you know will get cancer" to "You have a 1 in 2 chance of getting cancer"? 

I noticed this on an advert for donations last night.

.


----------



## Rorschach (7 Jul 2020)

ScaredyCat":3a6ecift said:


> As a side note, when did we move from "There's a 1 in 4 chance that someone you know will get cancer" to "You have a 1 in 2 chance of getting cancer"?
> 
> I noticed this on an advert for donations last night.
> 
> .



If you live long enough you are almost certain to get cancer of some form, I am struggling to find the story I read now but all men will get prostate cancer eventually, but usually they die of something else before it becomes an issue.
So I guess as we are living longer they are changing their adverts to reflect this.


As a side note of my own, I just heard on the BBC news headlines that for the second week in a row now nationwide deaths are below the 5 year average, hmmmm now I wonder who said that would happen :wink:


----------



## Lons (7 Jul 2020)

doctor Bob":10juf3hs said:


> As was Britains cancer crisis on BBC1, lots of young and middle age people losing their lives and savings. Theropies stopped mid way through, one lady spending £250k to have private treatment stopped by NHS. The effects and deaths will be considerable.
> Difficult balancing act, but it seems like cancer care just stopped, so I suppose it wasn't a balance at all.
> For me with parents who are 87, I know they have had a wonderful life and I will be devastated when they die, but would I (I know they wouldn't) put them before a young woman with 3 kids and potentially years of forefilling life ahead of them, NO.
> Very easy to have the caring attitude for instant death (days and weeks) and forget about the long term deaths over the next few years. Seems selfish and unthought through.
> Please (general broadcast) don't start frothing at the mouth, it gets people no where and just stops me responding, also I will not respond to pointy finger accusations, be rational and nice :lol:


Certainly won't be me Bob, the only time I get red faced is during strenuous exercise and no froth gets near my mouth unless it's on top of a fashionable coffee. :lol: 

I agree with much of the above, remember that despite being accused of wanting to protect life at all cost that is not what I meant or believe. There are very different balancing acts and nothing is ever black and white. I just have an opposite view to yours regarding lockdown in that I think it should have been sooner, and very firm then perhaps we might have come out of it quicker as well. There is little doubt it was handled badly, information was sketchy and confusing along with the usual political digs from all sides that always happen however no matter which political party was in office the outcome would just as likely have been chaotic.

I do think that comparing your parents with a young woman and 3 kids is a red herring as unless you were to stand them together and say "either you or you is going to die now" and you can't do that. :roll: Perhaps if the woman had terminal cancer but if so she's going to die anyway and if she was treated in hospital at the height of the pandemic then she would quite possibly be infected while there and die. That happened to the mums of 3 of my friends btw.
Would you stand in front of your parents and say you have to die so my business can thrive? Maybe you would but I seriously doubt it, I couldn't as I would find a way to survive hard times but not the guilt of killing my parents. Is that analogy any more silly than yours?  

People screaming about loss of income to protect the old and that the country will be in debt for generations have been happy enough to contribute to that debt by claiming free £10k / 25k handouts, rate holidays, grants, interest free loans whilst still being allowed in many cases to work and earn, I consider that to be hypocritical, had I still been in business I'd have taken them as well just wouldn't have screamed about the consequences. The old they are protecting, many living hand to mouth on a poverty line state pension got nothing from the state apart from the extremely vulnerable in receipt of a weekly food parcel, They are not shouting they're just happy to be alive as is their right after a lifetime of work and contribution to the economy. Caring is what is supposed to make us human but inevitably the greed and self preservation traits surface for all to see.

As far as staff being seconded to the front line and underused, again not a black and white argument as in some areas including parts of the north east they were much busier than that and very close at times to being at the limit. I have family working in Newcastle RVI who took the first 2 C19 patients in the UK so I also get info first hand.
Not all cancer and other treatments were cancelled either, at least not in my area though most were and not all appointments cancelled by the NHS, many were cancelled by patients themselves who were scared of catching the virus while in hospital. My wife was one of those though not a cancer sufferer and they were right to be worried as the nature of their illness makes them vulnerable whatever their age. Same applies to referrals as people were scared to go to the doc but that's a different argument and some blame can be directed at media hysteria.

I also have family working in various medical capacities in other N.E. hospitals, a niece who's a GP in Cheltenham and another a specialist nurse in a London hospital so am hearing very different stories to yours. 
There's no easy answer and we all look at it differently and are influenced by our own circumstances but whatever happens going forward is going to be a mess for all of us.

Good to see that you at least, unlike others are astute enough to look at other income avenues going forward, hope the mutt project is successful.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (7 Jul 2020)

I think herd immunity is the only answer - the issue is how do we get there:

- let it rip, quick solution, NHS overwhelmed, morally very very questionable
- vaccine, not available yet, if/when it will be "engineered" herd immunity 
- permanent lockdown measures - no herd created and not sustainable
- accept moderate level of transmission/death, moderate return to "normality"

The minimum size of the herd depends on the rate of transmission. For CV-19 this was about 2.5 in the UK. To hold the number of infected people in a community stable requires 60% of the population to be infected. Changes in behaviours (eg: distancing) may reduce this to 2 .0 or less if sustained. Note that measles is far more infectious and would require ~90% immunity!

Problem is that we do not have all the answers to make an informed choice. 

The most vulnerable may already have been infected so mortality will be reduced in the future. Virus may have mutated to the point that it is no longer as dangerous - if a virus kills its host then the virus dies with them!

Vaccine may be available within six months, or maybe never. 

Treatments to minimise the impact of CV-19 are emerging but it is not clear how much more improvement can be expected. As an aside - AIDS was originally a death sentence, it is now (mostly) treatable with an appropriate drugs regime.

Strict lockdown will not stop the virus but it would be economically very costly and need to be in place almost indefinitely - years or even decades. Unworkable in any other than a police state or dictatorship.

So we are by default effectively following a middle path of accepting some fatalities whilst trying to re-open the economy. Behaviours have changed somewhat so the rate of transmission may be somewhat lower than its "natural" state in the UK. For now this seems a reasonable strategy until the unknowns can e nailed down.


----------



## doctor Bob (7 Jul 2020)

Lons":10nlku3u said:


> As far as staff being seconded to the front line and underused, again not a black and white argument as in some areas including parts of the north east they were much busier than that and very close at times to being at the limit. I have family working in Newcastle RVI who took the first 2 C19 patients in the UK so I also get info first hand.



My sister lives in Bradford ..............


----------



## Droogs (7 Jul 2020)

I do have to say that this missed cancer treatment problem seems to have been due to decisions made by the NHS Trusts or government in England as up here in the far North, my chemo started the day after lockdown and has continued all the way through. Infact I have my last radiotherapy session tomorrow afternoon . During this whole time the cancer unit has been working at full normal capacity and has cancelled no treatment.

So bear in mind if people have been let down south of the border, then it is due to bad management and not the need of the NHS system


----------



## doctor Bob (7 Jul 2020)

Droogs":2uoyh4yg said:


> Infact I have my last radiotherapy session tomorrow afternoon . During this whole time the cancer unit has been working at full normal capacity and has cancelled no treatment.



Good to hear and wish you all the best.


----------



## Rorschach (7 Jul 2020)

Droogs":30ytbx4f said:


> I do have to say that this missed cancer treatment problem seems to have been due to decisions made by the NHS Trusts or government in England as up here in the far North, my chemo started the day after lockdown and has continued all the way through. Infact I have my last radiotherapy session tomorrow afternoon . During this whole time the cancer unit has been working at full normal capacity and has cancelled no treatment.
> 
> So bear in mind if people have been let down south of the border, then it is due to bad management and not the need of the NHS system



Some good news. Hope everything has been successful!


----------



## Trainee neophyte (7 Jul 2020)

selectortone":3j803x8z said:


> Trainee neophyte":3j803x8z said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sorry, but I have no idea what "indirect farming" might be. Do you mean importing food? But everyone is on lockdown - supply chains are failing. I was reading today about seed potatoes being thrown away, because there is no market: every kilogram of seed potatoes = 20kg or more of produce in the shop after harvest, and many, many tons of seed potatoes are being destroyed. Mountains of meat has been thrown away (animals killed and buried), because the system is broken.
> ...


A funny thing about food: consumers don't buy it as a discretionary purchase, only as and when they are feeling flush. Food is eaten daily, by almost everyone, all the time. If they don't buy their potatoes at a restaurant, what will they eat instead? If less food is grown for domestic consumption in the USA, will they all go on much-needed diets, or will they Import from elsewhere, once a shortage becomes apparent? Also remember that food can't be turned on and off, like a factory production plant: cull your herd, and it can take years to get production levels back up.

I am expecting food price increases over the next year, but not in anything I produce, unfortunately. This will hit the poorest countries hardest, as always. Don't forget that a quarter of the world's pigs were culled in China, locusts are running riot across Africa and into the far east, and China has yet another crop crisis with the armyworm. 

If you tot up the damage caused by biological factors in China over the last couple of years, you might think someone was out to get them.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (7 Jul 2020)

Lons":1dlez42p said:


> Would you stand in front of your parents and say you have to die so my business can thrive? Maybe you would but I seriously doubt it, I couldn't as I would find a way to survive hard times but not the guilt of killing my parents. Is that analogy any more silly than yours?



This is exactly the kind of calculation that Roger objects to, with good reason, but which _must_ be made because of finite resources. This is precisely the reason that mad metrics such as "quality adjusted life-year" exist. It's a really grubby, unpleasant fact of life, but exists none the less, because the nhs doesn't have unlimited, endless staff,resources, money, beds etc. No healthcare system in the world is perfect, and cost-benefit decisions have to be made every day. Otherwise, every nations' healthcare would be fully funded, and tax rates would be far, far higher. We, the people, make exactly that choice when we choose our left/right, big/small, high tax/low tax governments. Just nobody sells it in such stark terms as "my parents or your business". Maybe we should - it would be more honest.


----------



## Lons (7 Jul 2020)

Trainee neophyte":3jlm99xt said:


> Lons":3jlm99xt said:
> 
> 
> > Would you stand in front of your parents and say you have to die so my business can thrive? Maybe you would but I seriously doubt it, I couldn't as I would find a way to survive hard times but not the guilt of killing my parents. Is that analogy any more silly than yours?
> ...


So to throw it back at you your parents are standing in front of you and you say " mum and dad, I know you sacrificed much to give me a decent upbringing and start in life" ( may or may not have funded university ) "but I've decided that to save my business" ( as I don't have the nouse to diversify or find other ways to make a living ) "you have to die as the price for that. bye folks and thanks but your efforts mean little and I choose economics."

I'm very pleased my kids have a much more balanced view but I'll make allowances for the fact that you're a Martian. :lol:


----------



## Lons (7 Jul 2020)

Trainee neophyte":2becinnz said:


> A funny thing about food: consumers don't buy it as a discretionary purchase, only as and when they are feeling flush. Food is eaten daily, by almost everyone, all the time. If they don't buy their potatoes at a restaurant, what will they eat instead? I


That's a very sweeping statement and not entirely true IMHO, at least not in the UK. You state that as if everyone eats in restaurants, they don't! The ones that do either can afford to or are happy stuffing their credit cards to the limit.
There are huge numbers of people who simply don't have enough money to do so as when housing and energy costs have been paid what's left goes almost exclusively on food, once you've taken the druggies, smokers, drinkers and good for nothings out of those numbers you'll find the rest buying cheap fruit and veg, potatoes by the sackful and making their own and family's meals.

Maybe it's different in Greece and certainly true of the tourist trades but the Greek families I met when on holiday made huge family meals at home for extended family, we even were invited to one of them. Of course I have only limited experience and don't pretend to know what they do. 
Reading between the lines suggests correct me if I'm wrong, that your produce is sold to hotels and restaurants rather than the local Joe public.


----------



## Blackswanwood (7 Jul 2020)

Rorschach":1a9c4br6 said:


> As a side note of my own, I just heard on the BBC news headlines that for the second week in a row now nationwide deaths are below the 5 year average, hmmmm now I wonder who said that would happen :wink:



I wouldn’t read too much into that as pre C19 it was already running lower. None the less it’s good news. I asked an actuary about it earlier and she had a list of factors that will be in play including fewer road accidents. She also pointed to the potential for a swing in the other direction in coming months as a result of treatment gaps as per the BBC last night.


----------



## doctor Bob (7 Jul 2020)

Some of these analogies make the ones on the brexit thread look sensible.


----------



## Rorschach (7 Jul 2020)

Blackswanwood":22trzfga said:


> Rorschach":22trzfga said:
> 
> 
> > As a side note of my own, I just heard on the BBC news headlines that for the second week in a row now nationwide deaths are below the 5 year average, hmmmm now I wonder who said that would happen :wink:
> ...



Certainly there are a lot of factors. Road deaths is not one I would factor though, for a start road use is back up and has been for at least a month, road use is possibly even higher since people are avoiding public transport. On average 34 people a week die on the roads but it's heavily swayed toward winter as you might expect, I was unable to find figures for this time of year but we can safely say it is less than 34 per week, at a guess probably half that.

Our average deaths were lower before C19 and I have heard doctors talking about the "harvesting effect", I mentioned it here before in greater detail. It is certainly something that could explain both pre C19 low numbers and now the same happening again.


----------



## Lons (7 Jul 2020)

doctor Bob":2bsyseqt said:


> Some of these analogies make the ones on the brexit thread look sensible.


You started it Robert, :wink: and I did say is mine as silly as yours - it was meant to be. :lol: But be fair, the brexit thread was rarely sensible.


----------



## doctor Bob (7 Jul 2020)

Lons":1vzdfnk6 said:


> doctor Bob":1vzdfnk6 said:
> 
> 
> > Some of these analogies make the ones on the brexit thread look sensible.
> ...



You justify your crazy analogies however you want. Seen it done hundreds of times on the brexit thread, one participant was an expert at nonsensical analogies, you'll struggle to beat him :wink: 
see if you can get jumping out of an aeroplane with or wiothout a parachute...............


----------



## Lons (7 Jul 2020)

doctor Bob":35s6im69 said:


> You justify your crazy analogies however you want. Seen it done hundreds of times on the brexit thread, one participant was an expert at nonsensical analogies, you'll struggle to beat him :wink:
> see if you can get jumping out of an aeroplane with or wiothout a parachute...............


That's all gobbledegook to me Bob, haven't a clue what you're talking about. :?


----------



## RogerS (7 Jul 2020)

Bobble struggles with analogies almost as much as he does with hyperbole.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (8 Jul 2020)

Lons":etpsj6xt said:


> Trainee neophyte":etpsj6xt said:
> 
> 
> > A funny thing about food: consumers don't buy it as a discretionary purchase, only as and when they are feeling flush. Food is eaten daily, by almost everyone, all the time. If they don't buy their potatoes at a restaurant, what will they eat instead? I
> ...



I appear to have worded it poorly. My point is that people eat food every day, regardless of the source. It doesn't matter if they eat at a restaurant or at home - they still eat, roughly the same number of calories (although if they are like me, they may make more of a pig of themselves when at a restaurant). This was in reply to the suggestion that destroying seed potatoes in the USA was purely an issue of restaurants not needing so many potatoes, because of the lockdown, and therefore not a reason to panic. I am of the opinion that reduced food production in one sector will put strain on another sector, because the sum total of required daily calories will be roughly similar, regardless of where the food is bought. I think we are in agreement there.



Lons":etpsj6xt said:


> Reading between the lines suggests correct me if I'm wrong, that your produce is sold to hotels and restaurants rather than the local Joe public.


Selling olive oil to Greeks is on a par with taking coals to Newcastle - they all have their own trees in the family. We do sell some to Athenians, but not a lot. Olive oil is for export.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (8 Jul 2020)

Lons":r60qz3mi said:


> So to throw it back at you your parents are standing in front of you and you say " mum and dad, I know you sacrificed much to give me a decent upbringing and start in life" ( may or may not have funded university ) "but I've decided that to save my business" ( as I don't have the nouse to diversify or find other ways to make a living ) "you have to die as the price for that. bye folks and thanks but your efforts mean little and I choose economics."
> 
> I'm very pleased my kids have a much more balanced view but I'll make allowances for the fact that you're a Martian. :lol:



Why so angry? Why so certain you know everything about me, and my incompetent business acumen?

Every time you voted for the lower tax party, you voted to kill someone's mum. Are you the staunchest Labour voter ever? If so, I might be able to understand your logic. Otherwise, why can you not grasp the concept of there not being an infinite amount of resources? There should be a hospital bed and sufficient staff, to treat every single person in the world, all at the same time, just in case everyone gets ill on the same day. Obviously that would be silly, so decisions are made based on projected needs and likely scenarios. Budgets are trimmed, resources allocated, and mismanagement and mistakes will occur, which must, by definition, cost lives. Or do we live in some bizarre world where everything is perfect? According to the BMJ one third of care home deaths over the past few months were due to failures in care, not Covid19. Is that my fault, because I am cruel, and Martian?

Oh, and I have run my business for nearly 20 years, I have no debt, and I have income from 5 unrelated sources. I am now moving in to a sixth. How much more diversification would you like? I also have no access to government largess and safety nets, and my "old age pension" will be laughably small, and probably not paid in any event. I will need to fund it myself, which is why I dislike spending savings today when they should be for the future.


----------



## Andy Kev. (8 Jul 2020)

TN,

I agree with your line of argument here. The higher up a decision making chain one gets, the less possible it is to produce finely adjusted, tailor made solutions to problems. Therefore various factors are taken into account, the biggest one being the amount of money available. You hospital beds point is a good one. How does the govt. calculate the number of beds to have in a hospital? I imagine that it turns on the size of the population in the catchment area plus a consideration of historical levels of demand. That gives a figure X. The first question is probably, "Can we afford X?" If the answer is "No" then the number actually installed might be X - Y. If the coffers are full, it might be X + Z, with Z being a bit of slack to be taken up in emergencies.

One of the reasons the country was ill-prepared for the current crisis was that despite studies having been made, previous govts. of all colours had not allocated the spending for a "what if" scenario and kept their fingers crossed that it would not occur while they were in office. If we are lucky a contingency plan will be developed in the light of current experience - and guess what: it won't turn on touchy-feely considerations either and nor should it at that level. I imagine that the cost of damage done to the economy will be measured against the cost of counter measures e.g. getting the Nightingale Hospitals up and running, maintaining stocks of PPE etc. The accountants will calculate and a budget will be allocated.

An "acceptable" level of deaths will be arrived at. This must be done and it is the sort of planning where for once I have sympathy for the decision makers (assuming they're competent which is perhaps unlikely given what we know of NHS management and the civil service).

What we cannot do is make blanket, 100% provision. No nation can sustain that. In fact the only time that you enjoy that level of care is when you are a babe in the arms of your mother.

I would add one thing: those who are a bit worried about the dangers potentially posed by various kinds of catastrophe should not unconditionally place their fates in the hands of the state. If you're bothered about a future and seriously lethal pandemic, buy PPE (including respirators) for all of your family and keep an emergency supplies cupboard well stocked. A cheaper and more traditional alternative is to keep a bottle of whisky and a revolver in the study for when symptoms appear. Your choice.


----------



## Rorschach (8 Jul 2020)

Some very sensible stuff in those last few posts, it will be interesting to see the responses.


----------



## doctor Bob (8 Jul 2020)

Lons":2stg25ue said:


> doctor Bob":2stg25ue said:
> 
> 
> > You justify your crazy analogies however you want. Seen it done hundreds of times on the brexit thread, one participant was an expert at nonsensical analogies, you'll struggle to beat him :wink:
> ...



Not to worry, just ramblings of an silly person, allowed Roger to have a dig anyway :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Blackswanwood (8 Jul 2020)

TN - I agree the principle of needing to cut our cloth to what we can afford is one it would be illogical to reject. I think that this has become a bone of contention misses the point though - it's not just economic factors in play in reaching the decision.

I reach the conclusion every time I dip into this thread that just as in wider society we are not going to reach agreement on where the line should be drawn or how this then relates to how we can respond to the situation we are in. Reading back there is more agreement than immediately jumps out including your point (needing to cut our cloth) and not carrying on blindly with the country in full lockdown. We all have nuanced views on the non-economic factors though (and some I suspect are just in the discussion for the sport). When we jump to the extremes to make the point (stark choices?) any room for compromise is gone.

My feeling is that the best achievable answer is going to be one that the majority feel least uncomfortable with as there isn't an answer that everyone will feel comfortable with. I doubt we will uncover it in this forum though and if we do think we have it's hardly valid as we're a) not in power (unless you are Boris in disguise :lol: ) and b) as a bunch of blokes interested in woodworking we're not representative of the UK electorate.

Rorschach - on the issue of the mortality rate you may well be right on those attributable to road accidents. My view is though (and I'm not going to list all the other examples I was given) we just don't know at this point in time. The ONS data gets restated and there are currently delays in deaths being registered. Whatever the answer is hopefully the number of people dying is falling. I don't think the statistical phenomenon of harvesting changes anything - C19 has still caused a significant spike in excess mortality.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (8 Jul 2020)

Blackswanwood":13cm0u1q said:


> Rorschach - on the issue of the mortality rate you may well be right on those attributable to road accidents.



It's all a bit counter-intuitive: : https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00210-0



> How the next recession could save lives
> Death rates have dropped during past economic downturns, even as many health trends have worsened.
> 
> In 1922, a pair of sociologists at New York’s Columbia University were poring over 50 years of US economic and mortality data, when they noticed a surprising result. Lean times in the country’s history didn’t correspond with more deaths, as they expected. In fact, the opposite was true. More people — babies included — died when the economy prospered1.


----------



## Woody2Shoes (8 Jul 2020)

Meanwhile, the Indonesians are (I was going to say single-handedly, but that would probably be inaccurate...) making up for any Covid-related deficit in the human population:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/10/worl ... -boom.html


----------



## selectortone (8 Jul 2020)

Trainee neophyte":2kn63s32 said:


> ...This was in reply to the suggestion that destroying seed potatoes in the USA was purely an issue of restaurants not needing so many potatoes, because of the lockdown, and therefore not a reason to panic. I am of the opinion that reduced food production in one sector will put strain on another sector, because the sum total of required daily calories will be roughly similar, regardless of where the food is bought. I think we are in agreement there



The characteristically doom-laden assertion was that the system is broken and that supply chains are failing, which they aren't. But hey, let's get on social media and whip up the great unwashed masses into another totally pointless round of panic buying and self-fulfilling shortages.


----------



## Lons (8 Jul 2020)

TN
Let me just put the record straight.


> Why so angry? Why so certain you know everything about me, and my incompetent business acumen?


* I'm not at all angry and very rarely indeed do I ever get to that state. I'm very laid back normally.
* I know very little about you, never really said I do and don't particularly want to know. You'll find it was Rorschach who demanded that "people put their cards on the table".
* Remember that you suggested that you were funding lockdown for my benefit and named me in that post even though not addressed to me and whilst knowing very little about my circumstances so it's a bit rich to to dish it out but not happy when the reverse happens. You did say that your post was poorly worded so I'll reciprocate and offer you an apology for that specific bracketed phrase which included "nouse".

You responded to an analogy which we all know is silly but started initially by Doc Bob when he compared parents v young mum with kids, I threw it back at you and your response that reads as if anyone who isn't a Labour voter has killed someone's mum isn't a valid answer and just as silly. BTW I'm a floating voted and certainly not dyed in the wool as far as any political party is involved however I'd suggest you don't introduce politics into the thread or Nev will lock it.

Where did I ever suggest that resources are not finite or that the cost of lockdowns is not horrendous? The fact that our views differ is just that, difference of opinion you're entitled to yours as I am to mine. I've been around long enough in hugely competitive commercial environments and 18+ years in my own business to have a firm understanding of the situation.

Good to hear that you acted prudently and saved, many of us did the same over a lifetime of work and we'll all suffer in the same way after all it's difficult to generate additional income once you've retired and on fixed income. FYI I didn't have fat cat, final salary pensions before it's suggested by certain people, I just invested every penny I could spare when I could and if I was struggling I couldn't.



> Selling olive oil to Greeks is on a par with taking coals to Newcastle


On a lighter note you might be surprised how much foreign coal was sold into Newcastle.


----------



## Chris152 (8 Jul 2020)

Lons":2x1hvc9e said:


> Where did I ever suggest that resources are not finite or that the cost of lockdowns is not horrendous? The fact that our views differ is just that, difference of opinion you're entitled to yours as I am to mine.


I don't think anyone's arguing for either extreme (continued complete lockdown or let it run through the population uninhibited), are they? Both seem to lead to terrible outcomes. The question is how we strike a reasonable balance, what constitutes 'reasonable' and why.
I tend far more toward caution in relation to spread of the disease and waiting to see if we can develop a vaccine and/ or treatments - reopening of the economy should happen in so far as it can be done safely (I think the current situation in England is not achieving that properly, time will tell). If it's not done safely, both the economy and health will suffer again significantly.


----------



## rafezetter (8 Jul 2020)

Trainee neophyte":2hxegeyk said:


> rafezetter":2hxegeyk said:
> 
> 
> > China is a hugely wealthy country so can afford to subsidise food from sources other than direct farming.
> ...




Did I say "Indirect farming"? No I didn't, that's your interpretation so please don't try to attribute something to me about a statement *I did not make* you've been such a good chap thus far, no I'm not being facecious. "not direct farming = STOCKPILES. I'm pretty sure *checks*, yes I clarified my statement by saying "food on shelves", whether they be shop shelves or warehouse facilities, or do you think that the western world are the only countries to have stockpiles of food in warehouses?

Ahh see - you know they do, because apparently it's being "destroyed" - maybe have a go at them for destroying good food instead of picking at my bones?

Who's feeding the Indian and Chinese elite? Or the militaries for that matter, where's THAT food coming from eh? Sure as eggs is a form of protein that it's coming from SOMEWHERE, and that there's more than enough to give subsistance rations to those at risk from starvation.

Think if things were that bad the world would just turn its back? Planes do still work you know, the military can airdrop food parcels if it got that bad.

Please don't join the queue of people trying to twist my words for thier own agenda, truth be told your farm sounds idyllic and I've entertained ideas of a visit, I've spent time on a farm before and a day on a farm sounds more appealing than a day in the gym for a fitness regime, not that I imagine you'd agree; I digress.

- Greece - ok where to start - how about "Greeces situation wouldn't be so bad if the Govt had had a bit more humility after the country collapsed". Greece was offered a huge bailout, but instead of learning lessons and accepting things had to change, they didn't, at least not nearly enough to be worth a damn, and actually had the sheer nerve to get snarky at being asked to REPAY the LOAN, which was made extremely clear to them it was a LOAN before they got it, maybe Greece had no intention of repaying it or changing thier way of life and just wanted someone else to pick up the bills, who knows? So here they are in the middle of a serious crisis because their already fragile infrastructure is collapsing again because of the loss of tourism - don't get me wrong, I DO feel for the people, I really do - Greece is a place I've often wanted to go and dive thier waters - but as is oft said, "the people get the govt they choose, one way or another". Greece was in such dire straits when the country collapsed they had the perfect opportunity for MAJOR political and social reform and they CHOSE, directly or indirectly, mostly not to, make of that what you will.

Food is out there, in huge quantities, such that people in western countires are still able to overeat and buy fast food - India is a NATO ally and could ask for food help if it wanted to, and China is so rich what they can't get from asking, they could BUY if they CHOSE TO.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (8 Jul 2020)

Greece had no intention of repaying it? Greece didn't have snowball's chance in hell of repaying it.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (8 Jul 2020)

Yup, we're all so wealthy ........
https://www.usdebtclock.org/world-debt-clock.html


----------



## rafezetter (8 Jul 2020)

Rorschach":39e1krf1 said:


> Is rafezetter ranting about nonsense again? :roll: :lol:



I am assuming you have me on ignore - which puts your "he's talking nonsense again" post into a poor light, because everything I wrote was factually correct, which is more than can be said for some of yours.  whoops!

Putting people on ignore is fine, but putting them on ignore, then making posts about what they have written based on a second hand interpretaion is foolish, because it opens yourself up for ridicule when making a stupid post that's entirely inaccurate, like now.

But hey-ho - I prefer to know my adversaries movements, it makes it easier to cut them off at the knees when I see them coming.


----------



## rafezetter (8 Jul 2020)

Phil Pascoe":3uqgvwrz said:


> Greece had no intention of repaying it? Greece didn't have snowball's chance in hell of repaying it.



C'mon - what did I say? oh yes... no INTENTION.

I have a mate, he owes me a shade over £12,000, yes twelve THOUSAND pounds, so far I've not seen much of it, because of his circumstances, but his INTENTIONS are clear, he fully INTENDS TO REPAY.

His reality is he cannot repay to any great degree - just like Greece's - but my point was that going by how Greece reacted _*several times*_ I'm not certain even if they had had the ability they would not have done so WILLINGLY and unreservedly.

Just like so many other people with loans large and small, they get the loans then spin it out with minimum payments until they are either FORCED by a court (and sometime not even then) or declare bankruptcy and walk off laughing.

When it comes to money, INTENT and ABILITY are not the same thing Phil as well you know.

I might be misreading the intent of your post, but it comes across as combative.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (8 Jul 2020)

Ok. I should have quoted "Maybe Greece has no intention of repaying it." Combative? It was merely a statement of fact.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (9 Jul 2020)

About Greece: the system collapsed when they had €90 billion of debt, and were unable to borrow more on the open market. Normally, for both businesses and countries, if you can not service your debt, you are declared bankrupt, and you cannot have access to more debt, because which lender would be that stupid? In Greece's case, the ECB would be _that_ stupid. Greece now has €240billion in debt, and is now "fixed". That €240 billion is not in Greece -it went to French, German and Spanish banks. The Greek bailout was actually a eurozone bank failure rescue plan, paid for by 11 million mostly poor people. However, he who controls the narrative controls the thinking, and profligate, greedy Greeks got exactly what they deserved. Who got €150 billion extra is not to be discussed.


----------



## Andy Kev. (9 Jul 2020)

Trainee neophyte":4wze8yix said:


> About Greece: the system collapsed when they had €90 billion of debt, and were unable to borrow more on the open market. Normally, for both businesses and countries, if you can not service your debt, you are declared bankrupt, and you cannot have access to more debt, because which lender would be that stupid? In Greece's case, the ECB would be _that_ stupid. Greece now has €240billion in debt, and is now "fixed". That €240 billion is not in Greece -it went to French, German and Spanish banks. The Greek bailout was actually a eurozone bank failure rescue plan, paid for by 11 million mostly poor people. However, he who controls the narrative controls the thinking, and profligate, greedy Greeks got exactly what they deserved. Who got €150 billion extra is not to be discussed.


I'm sure that it's hardly controversial to point out that Greece has historically not had much of an economy. Had it been left alone, it would have been fine-(ish). However, it applied for and got EU membership. When it wanted to join the Euro it paid Goldman Sachs to cook the national books so that it looked like the country met the criteria i.e. the Greek govt committed serious fraud. Helmut Kohl was warned by officials that there was no way on earth that Greece could ever be economically fit to join the currency. He heard the advice and declared that politics took precedence over economics. That truly was a serious crime.

Then the inevitable happened. Greece was basically a criminal enterprise in those terms (meaning the system as opposed to the citizenry) with corruption and misuse of public funds being hard wired into the system but the worst criminal of the lot was the EU, principally in the form of Kohl. When the chickens came home to roost, Greece got hammered for its past sins and the more recent sins of Brussels. It certainly wasn't an innocent victim but Brussels showed itself in its true colours.

You're right about the where the money went and that means that European taxpayers picked up the bill for Kohl's political crime. It has however to be borne in mind that sooner or later Greece would have been found out. It just happened sooner because it had lied its way into the single currency. I wonder if there's a Greek playwright around to present the story as the greatest ever Greek Tragedy.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (9 Jul 2020)

rafezetter":3hsz5al0 said:


> Did I say "Indirect farming"? No I didn't, that's your interpretation so please don't try to attribute something to me about a statement *I did not make* you've been such a good chap thus far, no I'm not being facecious. "not direct farming = STOCKPILES.


Thanks for clarifying - I was, I thought, pretty clear that I didn't understand what you meant by "not direct farming", but I apologise unreservedly if you take exception to my wording. 


> Please don't join the queue of people trying to twist my words for thier own agenda, truth be told your farm sounds idyllic and I've entertained ideas of a visit, I've spent time on a farm before and a day on a farm sounds more appealing than a day in the gym for a fitness regime, not that I imagine you'd agree; I digress.



Wouldn't dream of trying to twist your words - any confusion can be happily attributed to a lack of reading comprehension on my part.

I agree that there is enough food in the world, but it just needs distributing more efficiently. Allegedly free market economics is the most efficient form of conducting business, so as soon as we get some of that, it should all get better.

In the meantime, food is priced as a commodity, not as a manufactured product (I.e. you don't work out your production costs,add a margin for profit, and sell at that price), so the price is controlled by the futures market. Supply shocks will see an increase in prices, regardless of whether or not there are actually shortages. Add to that the astonishing increase in the money supply, and I am very confidant that food will be significantly more expensive soon. I don't foresee empty shelves - Venezuela had plenty of well-stocked supermarkets it was just that no one could afford the food. Only later did producers stop bothering to produce. I don't think things will become as bad as that, but I believe food prices will move up substantially. It's one of those prediction things - I could be completely wrong. We shall have to wait and see.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (9 Jul 2020)

In the UK we spend around 8-9% of household income on food at home. Round this up to say 12% to cover food eaten out.

Food is a minor part of total personal spend - we spend (averagely) far more on putting a roof over our heads (mortgage, rent, council tax, utilities) or motoring. Many spend a similar amount on "incidentals" - mobile phone, broadband package, season ticket etc

A lot of food is wasted and for many (including me) significant reductions in cost could be made simply by changing diet slightly.

If food production is impacted by the virus, costs of food may increase. Does it matter in the UK - not much except at the bottom of the eonomic tree.

But it will matter in less fortunate parts of the world where food spending may 30, 40, 50% or more of income - assuming there is an income!


----------



## Droogs (9 Jul 2020)

TN your reply to Rafezetter, you said that food needs to be distributed more efficiently, I would argue the case is that food needs to be distributed more effectively. It is the hyper efficiency tunnel vison of the global capitalistic system that makes it so brittle and susceptible to breakdown in times like these. Our modern supply chains really do not have enough slop to take up the slack when needed. This is not just for food but nearly all products and will only get worse as Bezos and his ilk gain more control


----------



## Andy Kev. (9 Jul 2020)

This from today's Daily Telegraph might be of interest to TN:

_British demand for holiday homes and property in Greece has rocketed by more than 200 per cent following the British Government’s relaxation of travel restrictions, according to local and international real estate officials.

Greece ranked as the hottest search destination in Europe, next to Spain, France, Portugal and Italy, according to data released this week from the UK’s biggest property marketplace, Rightmove.

“Greece is really bouncing back,” Piers Williams, of estate agent Chestertons Ionian, told Telegraph Travel. “Interest has surged by some 200 per cent and it is increasing significantly as the dust continues to settle from the [Covid-19] pandemic.”
_


----------



## Phil Pascoe (9 Jul 2020)

It might of course have gone from one to three.


----------



## Rorschach (10 Jul 2020)

Been almost a month now since (most) shops were allowed to re-open, and 6 weeks (ish) since the first of the protest marches plenty of time for a spike in cases to start to show (assuming you believe lockdown was responsible for the fall in cases). Has anyone who spoke out about those events changed their views on them or of lockdown in general?


----------



## Andy Kev. (10 Jul 2020)

Droogs":19ic9hte said:


> TN your reply to Rafezetter, you said that food needs to be distributed more efficiently, I would argue the case is that food needs to be distributed more effectively. It is the hyper efficiency tunnel vison of the global capitalistic system that makes it so brittle and susceptible to breakdown in times like these. Our modern supply chains really do not have enough slop to take up the slack when needed. This is not just for food but nearly all products and will only get worse as Bezos and his ilk gain more control


That's an interesting point. IMO the "just enough, just in time" concept has always been an accident waiting to happen and in terms of logistics it can clearly only function under optimal circumstances. It was obviously developed as one more tool on the road to maximising profit. One of the things that baffles me about the business world is the way that many of its corporate practitioners always seem to be easy prey to the latest faddish nonsense.

It seems to lead to managers putting in (fad-driven) systems but doing precious little management. The rise of call centres in far away countries which often led to mutual incomprehension due to accent/dialect differences on the part of the called and the callers springs to mind. Every possible scenario was catered for which was fine until a caller came up with a problem that hadn't been catered for. Then you needed a problem solver with the power to take decisions i.e. some sort of manager but they never seemed to exist, presumably because they were too expensive.

IMO the worst offenders were banks which is odd: why do organisations which make such ridiculous profits need to go in for minor cost saving projects?

The poor old citizen consumer tends to be adrift between the global capitalists you mention at one extreme and statist politicians who interefere far too much in real life at the other. The world would be much better if we could just turn down the drive for profits and the mania for governance at the same time. In other words, do away with both the neocons and the hard left.


----------



## RogerS (10 Jul 2020)

Andy Kev.":1qsqcuah said:


> .....
> .... Every possible scenario was catered for which was fine until a caller came up with a problem that hadn't been catered for. Then you needed a problem solver with the power to take decisions i.e. some sort of manager but they never seemed to exist, presumably because they were too expensive.
> .....



They put in scripts that the call-handler has to follow. Very, very little room for them to manoeuvre or go outside that script. So if you have a problem that is outside the script (as you mention) then that is a problem. Compounded by cultural issues...which is why many call-handlers don't want to pass you onto a manager because in their culture, they never like to say No. And/or they will lose face. And/or will lose a bonus/affect their prospects etc. If you are lucky and end up with a call-handler who has been their a long time and knows little ways around the 'system' then you're very lucky. But if you are unlucky and get an anal-retentive then easiest to ring off and try later.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (10 Jul 2020)

Yes. I had a problem with the electricity supplier. I had a new meter fitted a few weeks before changing over, and hadn't read the (Eco 7) meter before - inadvertently I had reversed two figures. There's a 1/ a 2/ and a 3/ . The 3/ is the total of the first two, which is for a normal reading. The new meter has a dial you need a bl00dy magnifying glass to read in perfect light (why???). I sent photographs when the problem first arose (it couldn't have been beyond them to see what had happened - any reading could easily be found out given the other two), and it wasn't sorted out until I got hold of a supervisor after several weeks, refusing to speak to them any longer on the phone and saying I would communicate only be email. When I got hold of her, she just looked at the emails and said sorry, I can see what's happened, I'll amend the figures.
Simple as that.


----------



## Just4Fun (10 Jul 2020)

RogerS":3o7bo2cy said:


> They put in scripts that the call-handler has to follow. Very, very little room for them to manoeuvre or go outside that script. So if you have a problem that is outside the script (as you mention) then that is a problem.


Reminds me of the story (true or not I don't know) about the guy who rang his bank and got a call center in India. He asked to be put through to his local branch. They replied they could do everything from the call center. He insisted he wanted to speak to the local branch and in the end they got the call center manager to deal with him. The manager asked "What do you think the local branch can do that we can't?". The customer replied that he had lost his spectacles and wondered if he had left them on the counter when he was in the branch that morning!


----------



## Trainee neophyte (10 Jul 2020)

I spent an hour on the telephone yesterday, talking to a succession of effusively polite ladies in Hyderabad. Due to Coronavirus®© they were all working from home, which made for some interesting background sound effects. I also multi-tasked by barbecuing sausages and posting comments here at the same time - I like a challenge, but anything I wrote yesterday may be even more incoherent than usual.

We got it all sorted in the end, I think. The sausages were excellent.


----------



## Blackswanwood (10 Jul 2020)

Trainee neophyte":14nr6rya said:


> .... but anything I wrote yesterday may be even more incoherent than usual.
> 
> We got it all sorted in the end, I think. The sausages were excellent.



I didn't notice anything different Tn :lol: :lol: :lol: Only joking!

Serious question - presumably the ladies were speaking English and not Greek?


----------



## Trainee neophyte (10 Jul 2020)

Blackswanwood":3dvw4u1b said:


> Trainee neophyte":3dvw4u1b said:
> 
> 
> > .... but anything I wrote yesterday may be even more incoherent than usual.
> ...



It was HSBC - that bastion of truth, honesty and rigidly upright banking. (Also known as chief purveyors of money-laundering services to international swindlers and drug dealers since the Opium Wars).

But extraordinarily polite ladies in India: even though they can't actually help, it's always a pleasure to talk to them.


----------



## Blackswanwood (10 Jul 2020)

Trainee neophyte":2d5ofq5q said:


> But extraordinarily polite ladies in India: even though they can't actually help, it's always a pleasure to talk to them.



I know what you mean. I pulled a call centre in India and moved it back to the UK - head tells me it was the right thing to do but I felt terrible as the people so wanted to do a good job and would never be anything but friendly and polite to customers.


----------



## RogerS (10 Jul 2020)

Blackswanwood":2e0l48v2 said:


> Trainee neophyte":2e0l48v2 said:
> 
> 
> > But extraordinarily polite ladies in India: even though they can't actually help, it's always a pleasure to talk to them.
> ...



Indeed. I love the country and the people.


----------



## Lons (10 Jul 2020)

We have several very nice Indian friends but I had the opposite experience when BT had their call centres in India and on 2 separate occasions when having serious connection issues I got male operatives who were quite rude. I was very polite despite having explained over and over again as requested but getting the same suggestions which had all previously failed. One of them who had very broken English actually said " can you not understand English sir?" at which point I said forget it and I emailed the BT chief exec who got it sorted.

My mate, then a BT manager said relocating call centres was one of the worst decisions they ever made as they lost customers in droves.


----------



## Andy Kev. (11 Jul 2020)

Blackswanwood":tcrohrr4 said:


> Trainee neophyte":tcrohrr4 said:
> 
> 
> > But extraordinarily polite ladies in India: even though they can't actually help, it's always a pleasure to talk to them.
> ...


I should have made clear that while I've had conversations with some delightful people (by their accents Indian) it was the ill-managed nature of the systems imposed upon them which was usually the obstacle to getting anything done.


----------



## Rorschach (11 Jul 2020)

For nerds who like data, not a great outlook for a vaccine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pHfsmX467s


----------



## RogerS (13 Jul 2020)

And in other news..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-h ... r-53381802

I know exactly where this farm is. In direct line of sight from our old place  Scary thing is that the pickers would be down in the village at a weekend waiting for the bus to take them to Ledbury, Hereford, Malvern or Worcester.


----------



## Rorschach (13 Jul 2020)

RogerS":2muqz0pz said:


> And in other news..
> 
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-h ... r-53381802
> 
> I know exactly where this farm is. In direct line of sight from our old place  Scary thing is that the pickers would be down in the village at a weekend waiting for the bus to take them to Ledbury, Hereford, Malvern or Worcester.



Sorry Roger but I fail to see what you are trying to say here?


----------



## Chris152 (17 Jul 2020)

£3 billion for the NHS to try to cope this winter. 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53438486
I can't see any reason why there won't be a large surge of the virus through the winter months and can't help but picture the current lull as being like the eye of a hurricane. 
Hopeful news on a vaccine, we'll see but it looks like it won't make a difference this winter:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53426367

Time to stock up on wood for those upcoming lock-down projects, and anything else that needs doing? I think so.


----------



## Rorschach (17 Jul 2020)

Chris152":18nr6z09 said:


> £3 billion for the NHS to try to cope this winter.
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53438486
> I can't see any reason why there won't be a large surge of the virus through the winter months and can't help but picture the current lull as being like the eye of a hurricane.
> Hopeful news on a vaccine, we'll see but it looks like it won't make a difference this winter:
> ...



I'll make my prediction now. This winter C19 will replace flu as the major cause of winter deaths however due to the excess deaths we have already seen this year I think it will be a fairly quiet winter. The media will scream blue murder but the actual numbers will be comparable or lower than a bad flu season would normally be. Maybe 1000 deaths a week or so in the worst bits.


----------



## doctor Bob (17 Jul 2020)

Reading local facebook rubbish, looks like the doom mongers actually are hoping for a second wave so they can be proved right and some even talking about projects they are going to do (house renovation etc) with positive glee and not sending kids back to a death trap, makes me feel sick.

Next thing will be panic buying again, we never seem to learn................. anyway off to buy a 1000 bog rolls and 2 pallets of pasta.


----------



## Rorschach (17 Jul 2020)

doctor Bob":2znyal6t said:


> Reading local facebook rubbish, looks like the doom mongers actually are hoping for a second wave so they can be proved right and some even talking about projects they are going to do (house renovation etc) with positive glee and not sending kids back to a death trap, makes me feel sick.
> 
> Next thing will be panic buying again, we never seem to learn................. anyway off to buy a 1000 bog rolls and 2 pallets of pasta.



Your facebook is very similar to my own then, they are chomping at the bit to be proved right and loudly boasting how they aren't going to shops and pubs while in other posts decrying the demise of the highstreet.


----------



## billw (17 Jul 2020)

I've luckily avoided all the virus nonsense on facebook, but instead I seem to have a lot of White Lives Matter posts - what this says about the people I know I'd rather not think about. 

Seems hard to avoid a second wave, or a third, in fact it's going to keep coming back until it can be eradicated which certainly doesn't look like something that's happening within the next year or so.

No doubt it's going to have a long-lasting impact on society though. I've not really gone out since I returned to the UK in late March, and to be honest I've been perfectly happy and saved a hell of a lot of money. I'm not going to pubs or shops, but then again I think the high street concept is dead on its feet and all these attempts to save it are about as relevant as saving red telephone boxes, windmills, and coalmines.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (17 Jul 2020)

As a matter of curiosity - what's wrong with White Lives Matter? Or Yellow Lives? Or Brown Lives? If one is OK, why aren't the others? Why is it legal to have an Association of Black Police Officers, Lawyers, Engineers, Probation Officers etc. and not Asssociations of White ones? Why are there no Heterosexual Pride marches?


----------



## doctor Bob (17 Jul 2020)

Phil Pascoe":3u2dmjf5 said:


> As a matter of curiosity - what's wrong with White Lives Matter? Or Yellow Lives? Or Brown Lives? If one is OK, why aren't the others? Why is it legal to have an Association of Black Police Officers, Lawyers, Engineers, Probation Officers etc. and not Asssociations of White ones? Why are there no Heterosexual Pride marches?



I understand your concept, however if you look at the big picture it is generally minorities that are picked on, as a result the majority look a bit foolish if they start to complain about their lot.
When I say foolish I mean "twatish"..................

I'm sure if you feel strongly you could march down your high street declaring your hetrosexuality, this is how gay pride started, so go for it Phil.


----------



## billw (17 Jul 2020)

In short it's because nobody's ever said white lives don't matter, nor acted like they don't.

Heterosexual pride? The point of pride is to counteract shame - when's there ever been heterosexual shame?

The associations you mention are there to promote to the relevant communities that there are opportunities for non-whites, etc etc. Whites have the square root of zero problem in getting jobs in those areas in the first place.

The concept of white privilege is very poorly understood these days despite it being mentioned more frequently. I study this stuff at university and the complexity of trying to explain that people claiming they're not racist or that they have black friends (congratulations! have a medal!) in no way affects the actual problem.

Most campaigns dealing with minorities shouldn't really talk about "rights", they should talk about equality, because the backlash comes from perception they're asking to be treated better than the majority, when in fact the idea is to create equality.

This subject is a wormhole.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (17 Jul 2020)

doctor Bob":3n26ubv5 said:


> I'm sure if you feel strongly you could march down your high street declaring your hetrosexuality, this is how gay pride started, so go for it Phil.



In a discussion on this in The Times I did suggest (obviously not seriously) that I was going to organise a Heterosexual Pride march ............the post was taken down by their censors.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (17 Jul 2020)

I absolutely refuse to get in to this topic, so the censorship mind control thought-police have won, unfortunately.


----------



## Lons (17 Jul 2020)

Trainee neophyte":14l9vatc said:


> I absolutely refuse to get in to this topic, so the censorship mind control thought-police have won, unfortunately.


Good decision, me neither though the way it should be imo is ALL lives matter!


----------



## selectortone (17 Jul 2020)

Phil Pascoe":1d6y9uev said:


> As a matter of curiosity - what's wrong with White Lives Matter? Or Yellow Lives? Or Brown Lives? If one is OK, why aren't the others? Why is it legal to have an Association of Black Police Officers, Lawyers, Engineers, Probation Officers etc. and not Asssociations of White ones? Why are there no Heterosexual Pride marches?



My daughter's partner is a black man from Martinique. I have, vicariously, had a very small glimpse into what that means living in this supposedly enlightened country in the 21st century. 

If you think that white people suffer the same injustices on a daily basis that he does, from casual racism to outright hostility, then I suggest you walk a mile in his shoes.

From my daughter's perspective, try walking down the road with your boyfriend and having "_F*CKING N*GGER LOVER!!_" shouted at you from a passing car.


----------



## John Brown (17 Jul 2020)

To me, when people say "all lives matter!" It's like people complaining about the five a day fruit and veg advice. Hey! What about the carbs and protein? 
The carbs and protein are doing just fine, thanks.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (17 Jul 2020)

selectortone":afsrym1r said:


> If you think that white people suffer the same injustices on a daily basis that he does, from casual racism to outright hostility, then I suggest you walk a mile in his shoes.



I don't for a moment. I just query the logic of saying something is fine for one group in the name of equality, but somehow wrong for another group to do exactly the same thing. Some appear to be more equal than others in this respect.


----------



## selectortone (17 Jul 2020)

Phil Pascoe":o6hko30e said:


> selectortone":o6hko30e said:
> 
> 
> > If you think that white people suffer the same injustices on a daily basis that he does, from casual racism to outright hostility, then I suggest you walk a mile in his shoes.
> ...



Then why the guff about "While Lives Matter"? White lives have always mattered in this country. Phrases like that only serve to divide us further.


----------



## lurker (17 Jul 2020)

Where I live has always had a high proportion of immigrants, to the extent we are fairly well integrated. Obviously as a white bloke I have not experienced racism but accept non white friends and colleagues do get cheesed of with daily low level stuff.
The few really nasty racist things I have experienced (observed) did not involve white people.


----------



## AJB Temple (17 Jul 2020)

I had a racist outbreak once at a business I was CEO of at the time. It was airline industry related and involved a fairly sizeable group of people of mainly Pakistani origin falling out in a big way with a group of black people from Nigeria. Every imaginable form of name calling and racial epithet. It was exceptionally difficult to sort out and made me conclude that practically all minorities anywhere, sometimes get picked on by majorities. I doubt it can ever be wiped out.


----------



## Nigel Burden (17 Jul 2020)

AJB Temple":1wrxuvio said:


> I had a racist outbreak once at a business I was CEO of at the time. It was airline industry related and involved a fairly sizeable group of people of mainly Pakistani origin falling out in a big way with a group of black people from Nigeria. Every imaginable form of name calling and racial epithet. It was exceptionally difficult to sort out and made me conclude that practically all minorities anywhere, sometimes get picked on by majorities. I doubt it can ever be wiped out.



I think you're correct there. My wife works in a care/nursing home. There are as you can imagine multi nationals working there. One of her colleagues is Nepalese and said that they get called chinki eyes or slitty eyes by the Indians. I know a chap who worked in South Africa back in the 1960s in the days of apartheid, he then moved to Botswana, where he said that the boot was definitely on the other foot.

Nigel.


----------



## Chris152 (18 Jul 2020)

Can anyone help me understand whether or not this sentence makes sense? It's in a letter sent to parents about return to school in September, appears in the context of statements about maintaining distance and is presumably meant to reassure parents that kids can't bring the virus home.

'The latest published evidence in relation to the transmissibility in children states that children under the age of 18 make up 22 to 25 per cent of the population, but consistently make up <2% of the total COVID-19 caseload in every country.'
I guess it hinges on the word 'caseload', but I would understand that to mean cases where kids end up needing medical support, which is clearly low. Which has little or nothing to do with transmissibility in (by) children.

I've searched lots for summaries on transmissibility by children and there seems to be little agreement - some say they can, and well; others say they can't or do so badly. Is there any real consensus on this? Clearly, the idea that kids can't transmit well helps the plan to get everyone back into work asap. I'd be delighted if it's true but can't find the evidence - and sentences like that add to my feeling the issue's being fudged.


----------



## Rorschach (18 Jul 2020)

We don't know how well children transmit. It's clear that age has a massive impact on how the virus presents but as to how it spreads that is very difficult to study, it could take years before we have a good understanding of transmission in children, so we are taking a calculated risk. We know the children themselves are safe, we have also had 4+ months of key workers children going to school and so far we have not seen their parents dying in droves. Yes I know there were social distancing factors in place but there were thousands of children still going to school, thousands of teachers and the parents of those children were also those most likely to be exposed through their work. Seems reasonable to me.

You could do a study that would be definitive, but it would involve intentionally infecting children with the virus at various ages and then exposing adults to them. As you imagine that ain't gonna happen!


----------



## Phil Pascoe (18 Jul 2020)

selectortone":1mnk12df said:


> Then why the guff about "White Lives Matter"? ... Phrases like that only serve to divide us further.



So Black Lives Matter doesn't? Stunning bit of logic, there. :lol:


----------



## Chris152 (18 Jul 2020)

Rorschach":3s6f0lm6 said:


> You could do a study that would be definitive, but it would involve intentionally infecting children with the virus at various ages and then exposing adults to them. As you imagine that ain't gonna happen!


You could get a pretty good idea by sending all the kids back to school, no social distancing, small chance of maintaining hygiene etc in, say, September, and wait and see what happens over the course of the next month. A fairly extreme experiment, but you'd get some idea.

The kind of attendance of kids in schools during lockdown and since bears no comparison to what will happen in September when all kids go back full time to a full curriculum.


----------



## selectortone (18 Jul 2020)

Phil Pascoe":1x3gdt8g said:


> selectortone":1x3gdt8g said:
> 
> 
> > Then why the guff about "White Lives Matter"? ... Phrases like that only serve to divide us further.
> ...



Whoosh.


----------



## billw (18 Jul 2020)

Phil Pascoe":30n5xvfw said:


> I don't for a moment. I just query the logic of saying something is fine for one group in the name of equality, but somehow wrong for another group to do exactly the same thing. Some appear to be more equal than others in this respect.



The whole point is that it isn't equal to start with. If it was, we'd not be having any of these discussions.


----------



## Chris152 (18 Jul 2020)

Maybe the race issue could find its way into its own thread, see how it fares? Just saying...


----------



## Lons (18 Jul 2020)

Chris152":2500ma47 said:


> Maybe the race issue could find its way into its own thread, see how it fares? Just saying...


 :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Droogs (18 Jul 2020)

Chris152":3nhd4gzt said:


> 'The latest published evidence in relation to the transmissibility in children states that children under the age of 18 make up 22 to 25 per cent of the population, but consistently make up <2% of the total COVID-19 caseload in every country.'



The Subject of the sentence "transmissibility" is in NO WAY connected to the second part of that sentence. How transmissible a contagion is has ( so far in this pandemic) not been correlated to 
the number of people who once having caught it are then in need of interventionist medical aid. this sentence is a classic trick used by advertisers and governments since the dawn of propaganda to take 2 separate unrelated pieces of information and conflate them in your mind to be the same thing and/or to be so closely intertwined as to be mutually supportive in spite of them usually being diametrically opposite.

so long story short, it is absolute Aberdeen Angus excreta to sway the uneducated on non thinking masses into taking part in the herd immunity experiment


----------



## Rorschach (18 Jul 2020)

Chris152":2on9sbfr said:


> You could get a pretty good idea by sending all the kids back to school, no social distancing, small chance of maintaining hygiene etc in, say, September, and wait and see what happens over the course of the next month. A fairly extreme experiment, but you'd get some idea.
> 
> The kind of attendance of kids in schools during lockdown and since bears no comparison to what will happen in September when all kids go back full time to a full curriculum.



Well that's what is going to happen anyway. The only problem is we won't know how much of any potential increase is down to the children being back at school, or the teachers, or their parents back at work full time. All these factors will have an effect and we could falsely attribute any rises to the children when it could be something else.

You are right that lockdown schooling is not the same as the full time but I know anecdotally from teacher friends that there there are schools in poorer areas that were very well attended during lockdown as a lot of the parents were key workers. Just by watching the children go to the schools near me (and knowing how it usually looks) I would say they were running at almost 50% capacity, the special needs school could have been running at close to full capacity as the queue of taxis in the mornings was just as big as usual.


----------



## Chris152 (18 Jul 2020)

Droogs":3e7if4xw said:


> Chris152":3e7if4xw said:
> 
> 
> > 'The latest published evidence in relation to the transmissibility in children states that children under the age of 18 make up 22 to 25 per cent of the population, but consistently make up <2% of the total COVID-19 caseload in every country.'
> ...



My thoughts exactly, Droogs. 
I did some hunting and found the original in the Welsh govt advice, which reads:
"The latest published evidence in relation to the transmissibility in learners under the age of 12 seems to be particularly low. Children under the age of 18 make up 22 to 25 per cent of the population, but consistently make up less than 2% of the total Covid-19 caseload in every country."
The letter from school reads:
'The latest published evidence in relation to the transmissibility in children states that children under the age of 18 make up 22 to 25 per cent of the population, but consistently make up <2% of the total COVID-19 caseload in every country.'
So they've omitted the bit about kids under 12 years, which is crucial for parents of kids in secondary school, as it means it's not relevant to their kids - and in doing so come up with a sentence that doesn't make sense. 
The school's been great throughout, I can only assume they're under immense pressure to make things work as per govt advice - which is (in my opinion) well dodgy.


----------



## woodhutt (18 Jul 2020)

On the subject of children. One Texas county has just (today) announced that they have 85 infants (under age 1) with the virus.
I don't know what this equates to as a percentage of infants in the county and of course whether they would transmit the virus to others but it perhaps cautions us not to place too much faith in current data.
Viruses all too often mutate and what may have been true a month ago, regarding the ability for children to transmit the virus, may not be true today or tomorrow.


----------



## Rorschach (18 Jul 2020)

This is most definitely worth a watch whichever side you are on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3plSbCbkSA


----------



## Rorschach (29 Jul 2020)

Wondering if anyone has changed their opinion recently? Either side of the argument.


----------



## lurker (29 Jul 2020)

Rorschach":2qpg6h1f said:


> Wondering if anyone has changed their opinion recently? Either side of the argument.


No, I still hold the opinion that you are bored and looking for an argument .


----------



## Rorschach (29 Jul 2020)

lurker":2zrqq347 said:


> Rorschach":2zrqq347 said:
> 
> 
> > Wondering if anyone has changed their opinion recently? Either side of the argument.
> ...



That's the point of this thread isn't it? A discussion (or argument if you prefer).


----------



## Lons (29 Jul 2020)

lurker":2qpa1xrw said:


> Rorschach":2qpa1xrw said:
> 
> 
> > Wondering if anyone has changed their opinion recently? Either side of the argument.
> ...


Apparently he's had a few static electricity shocks that "_almost_" broke his leg, probably explains why his brain is fried as well so maybe it's not the poor chap's fault. :wink:


----------



## doctor Bob (29 Jul 2020)

Rorschach":kpn2khbn said:


> Wondering if anyone has changed their opinion recently? Either side of the argument.



Is there an either side of an arguement, lot of different opinions but I don't think it's between two choices.

I still hold the opinion that man hugging and triple kissing trends have a lot to answer for ..........
I remember in early march attending a meeting of 10-12 and sitting on my tod at the back of the room, people were taking the water back then, even though social distancing was being encouraged.


----------



## Rorschach (29 Jul 2020)

doctor Bob":i8ip28s9 said:


> Rorschach":i8ip28s9 said:
> 
> 
> > Wondering if anyone has changed their opinion recently? Either side of the argument.
> ...



Well broadly speaking the people here fall into 2 camps I think, me vs everyone else :lol: 

What prompted my post today was the news that we are seeing an uptick in cases in places that had been touted as doing well earlier in the year, whereas those areas that took a hard hit early on are continuing to see numbers decline.


----------



## doctor Bob (29 Jul 2020)

Rorschach":1lgx40dp said:


> What prompted my post today was the news that we are seeing an uptick in cases in places that had been touted as doing well earlier in the year, whereas those areas that took a hard hit early on are continuing to see numbers decline.



I would wait a few weeks before taking it for granted we are declining


----------



## Chris152 (29 Jul 2020)

doctor Bob":2zafzqup said:


> Rorschach":2zafzqup said:
> 
> 
> > What prompted my post today was the news that we are seeing an uptick in cases in places that had been touted as doing well earlier in the year, whereas those areas that took a hard hit early on are continuing to see numbers decline.
> ...


Indeed - doesn't seem to be declining in Europe at all, but starting to increase





https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53579731


----------



## Rorschach (29 Jul 2020)

In some pockets of Europe they are yes, but take them in context and with a bit of background.

Any increase seems a lot when you starting from pretty low numbers. These are only increases in cases, deaths are not climbing as it seems to be spreading asymptomatically among the young. Also all countries are continuing to increase their testing all the time, if you test more, you will find more. That doesn't mean it is spreading, just that we are locating it better. 

As long as young people can keep away from vulnerable groups then asymptomatic spread among the young is best thing to happen, it will hasten our journey to herd immunity.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (29 Jul 2020)

Complacency rules - deaths will tend to lag cases by 2 - 3 weeks.

In Spain the 7 day rolling average cases have grown from a fairy steady ~ 400 per day up to 7th July to 2060 (7 day average) on 28th July.

It is implausible that this is simply a consequence of greater testing.

Wait two weeks and see what happens to deaths!


----------



## Rorschach (30 Jul 2020)

Terry - Somerset":13x8b4mi said:


> Complacency rules - deaths will tend to lag cases by 2 - 3 weeks.
> 
> In Spain the 7 day rolling average cases have grown from a fairy steady ~ 400 per day up to 7th July to 2060 (7 day average) on 28th July.
> 
> ...



Yep lets come back in 2-3 weeks and see how it looks. I suspect you won't hear it on the news though. Deaths are so low here they are resorting to just reporting cases to keep the fear going. In Devon we haven't had a death for the whole of July.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (30 Jul 2020)

Warning: the following may not comply with government approved narratives - reader discretion advised. This post is not intended as a personal slur or attack on anyone, so please don't get upset. 

https://blog.argonautcapital.co.uk/arti ... -lockdown/

"THE BIGGEST FRAUD: PART 1 – THE HOCUS “SCIENCE” BEHIND LOCKDOWN"






Makes you think, doesn't it?






If you are under 30, you have a higher risk of being murdered than dying of the coronavirus. For the under 40's it is on a par with death from vehicle collision. Does this mean that car driving should also be outlawed, for the good of the public? Murder is already outlawed, but the government can't even protect the citizenry from the common cold, let alone evil psychopaths.



> The 650,000 reported COVID deaths worldwide are rarely put into the perspective of 33.4 million deaths globally so far this year. Moreover, it was becoming clear that the mortality risk for most of the population from COVID, whilst not zero, was statistically lower or comparable to an average influenza season, road accidents or suicide



Part 2 looks at the vaccine scam: https://blog.argonautcapital.co.uk/arti ... e-swindle/

Finally, I will leave it to to you to decide if the people who wrote these articles are competent, or have an axe to grind. "Do your own due diligence", as they say in investing circles, but note who they get paid to advise.

Edit: from the second article:


> Nobel Prize winning biological scientist Michael Levitt had already come to the same conclusion based on a different approach: he predicted that the virus would “burn out” when it had infected 15-20% of the population though based on a pattern predicted by the “Gompertz curve” which indicated that the number of deaths after the peak is roughly double those from before resulting in Levitt accurately predicting the number of Chinese and Swedish deaths months in advance. Levitt has recently bravely predicted that US COVID will “be done in 4 weeks [25 Aug] with a total reported death below 170,000”, compared to 149,000 today.


----------



## Chris152 (30 Jul 2020)

The thing with the comparisons in the second chart is that unlike other causes, Covid spreads very easily and quickly unless very significant measures are in place to control it. If the 5-8% of people in the UK who have had the virus (ons) equates to 50 000 deaths, the total deaths by the time herd immunity is effective looks far worse than in the chart (putting aside theories that it'll fizzle out by itself before that for whatever reason).


----------



## billw (30 Jul 2020)

Jeez. OK the point is that measures taken for COVID are equivalent to measures taken by governments for reducing the likelyhood of other deaths. Whilst driving itself isn't banned, things that ARE banned include driving without a seatbelt on, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, driving over a specified speed limit, driving that contravenes the highway code in general, driving whilst using a mobile phone.... and so on. Do people do these things? Yes. Does having the rules generally reduce the mortality rate on the roads? Yes. Do people still die on the roads? Yes. Would those deaths reduce even further if everyone abided by all of the rules? Yes.

The government can hardly stop suicide, nor can it stop murder but merely impose a penalty to try and stop it from occurring because maybe people will think twice about a life behind bars.

Wearing a mask, social distancing, quarantining after being exposed or potentially exposed - these are things the government can do and whilst it's impossible to absolutely enforce it unless we become slightly more authoritarian (something I actually believe would be a good idea, akin to Singapore rather than China obviously) at least attempting to mitigate the effects of a pandemic must surely be seen as a positive and not "interference with my human rights".

Your point about murder rates under 30 is also misleading. You can't spread being murdered, but you can carry the virus and transmit it to those who may be more susceptible to being a statistic in a mortuary. Use of this type of argument is very much an effect of being in a dignity culture, i.e. you care only about what you think of yourself, not what others think of you.


----------



## Rorschach (30 Jul 2020)

Chris152":jae4jn6b said:


> The thing with the comparisons in the second chart is that unlike other causes, Covid spreads very easily and quickly unless very significant measures are in place to control it. If the 5-8% of people in the UK who have had the virus (ons) equates to 50 000 deaths, the total deaths by the time herd immunity is effective looks far worse than in the chart (putting aside theories that it'll fizzle out by itself before that for whatever reason).



The problem with that statement is that the evidence points to it being on the decline before those measures were introduced (the peak of deaths was too soon after the start of lockdown). This is in spite of the fact that patients were being moved into care homes, artificially spreading the virus and causing a higher death rate. Sweden did the same thing and has similarly paid the price of a high death toll, but it's figures follow the same curve as ours with no lockdown enforced.


----------



## Chris152 (30 Jul 2020)

You clearly need to write the outcomes of your research to all those governments in the developed world who have taken and continue to take significant measures to control the virus, Rorschach. Can't think why they continue to do so given your argument.


----------



## Rorschach (30 Jul 2020)

Chris152":1hljnho1 said:


> You clearly need to write the outcomes of your research to all those governments in the developed world who have taken and continue to take significant measures to control the virus, Rorschach. Can't think why they continue to do so given your argument.



Fear of being blamed and having painted themselves into a corner they can't back out. Nothing new in politics.


----------



## Chris152 (30 Jul 2020)

And trashing their economies in the process? Sounds a tad unlikely to me.


----------



## Rorschach (30 Jul 2020)

Chris152":zu77wooe said:


> And trashing their economies in the process? Sounds a tad unlikely to me.



Why? It's not their personal money is it? Saving face is always more important to a politician.


----------



## Chris152 (30 Jul 2020)

That's quite a perspective on the pandemic, Rorschach. Again, you should write it up but not sure where you'd send it, one of those conspiracy theory sites I guess?


----------



## Rorschach (30 Jul 2020)

Chris152":1jiwwpe9 said:


> That's quite a perspective on the pandemic, Rorschach. Again, you should write it up but not sure where you'd send it, one of those conspiracy theory sites I guess?



Plenty more important and influential people than me think the same.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (30 Jul 2020)

Pre lockdown the transmission rate was 2.5 - 3.0. Herd immunity needed 60-75% of the population to have immunity - ignoring issues about whether immunity is long term, short term or never.

The rate of transmission relates to social interaction. Changes in behaviours, mandated or adopted in the light of improved knowledge, will impact on the percentage required for herd immunity - eg:

- mask wearing
- work from home - reduced commuting and mixing in office
- distancing and procedures for pubs and restaurants 
- no large gatherings - sporting, marriages, night clubs etc 
- online shopping
- test track and trace
- improving treatment modifying the consequences

If this were to reduce the "natural" transmission rate in the UK to 1.5 - 2.0, herd immunity would kick in between 33-50%. 

Population averages are a very crude tool to understand the implications as behaviours will vary in different parts of the community with an increased understanding of risks and consequences - eg: older people will behave differently to younger, hospital and care workers have more exposure to sick people, cities are dynamically different to smaller urban and rural areas etc.

Not sure where this train of thought leaves us - but individually we can use the knowledge and understanding to minimise personal risk. Assuming that everyone else either shares our outlook, or even understands it, is foolish.


----------



## Garno (30 Jul 2020)

The same things are being repeated (again) as what was said numerous times over the first 64 pages. Is that how this thread is going to go? every 60 or so pages repeat everything then have a break for a week then start the whole process again.


----------



## Rorschach (30 Jul 2020)

Garno":33vikrwh said:


> The same things are being repeated (again) as what was said numerous times over the first 64 pages. Is that how this thread is going to go? every 60 or so pages repeat everything then have a break for a week then start the whole process again.



Possibly, but with the situation changing all the time it is good to see how our earlier opinions have changed in the face of new evidence. I have changed my position in lots of ways since the beginning, I made some mistakes, but I have also been proved correct at times as well.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (30 Jul 2020)

Garno":26jo382s said:


> The same things are being repeated (again) as what was said numerous times over the first 64 pages. Is that how this thread is going to go? every 60 or so pages repeat everything then have a break for a week then start the whole process again.



"Progress is impossible without change and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything." George Bernard Shaw. 

That works on all sides of this debate 

I think we are about at the tipping point for me changing my mind - by that, I mean in four to six weeks either the virus will be petering out in all the high infection populations, or it won't. This "second wave" second scare tactic will be shown to be nonsense, or possibly real. I am of the opinion that you need to have infected about 20% of the total population to reach herd immunity, and we will be getting there in many countries all at the same time. I will be right, or I will be wrong, and there will be no hiding from it. Until then, I still believe that the economy is more important than "saving just one life", because without an economy everyone's lives will be forfeit. Let's see if I am right - end of August and I will eat my hat or not, depending on the results.

Until then, beware the media claiming a continuation of the initial "wave" is actually the dreaded, mythical "second wave". The pineapples have been known to lie.


----------



## Rorschach (30 Jul 2020)

Trainee neophyte":3h444g34 said:


> Garno":3h444g34 said:
> 
> 
> > The same things are being repeated (again) as what was said numerous times over the first 64 pages. Is that how this thread is going to go? every 60 or so pages repeat everything then have a break for a week then start the whole process again.
> ...



I'll be there with you, are we allowed ketchup on our hats?


----------



## Trainee neophyte (30 Jul 2020)

Rorschach":2vcqgahm said:


> I'll be there with you, are we allowed ketchup on our hats?



Only if you make it yourself: this is a hands-on forum, after all.


----------



## Rorschach (30 Jul 2020)

Trainee neophyte":n4az2hvv said:


> Only if you make it yourself: this is a hands-on forum, after all.



Apparently my methods are too dangerous, the ketchup won't be safe to eat :lol: 


On a side note, I have been asked to take part in an antibody study. Will be interesting to see the results based on my location and circumstances.


----------



## Chris152 (30 Jul 2020)

Trainee neophyte":3la6civm said:


> Rorschach":3la6civm said:
> 
> 
> > I'll be there with you, are we allowed ketchup on our hats?
> ...


NO idea what you're all on about, but it should go well with the egg on your face? 

ps I hope it goes without saying I desperately hope I'm wrong about how grim the outlook looks. Very happy to have egg on my face on that one, ketchup on my hat, whatever.


----------



## Rorschach (30 Jul 2020)

Chris152":3uv7bv1t said:


> ps I hope it goes without saying I desperately hope I'm wrong about how grim the outlook looks. Very happy to have egg on my face on that one, ketchup on my hat, whatever.



I hoped I would be wrong on lots of things, unfortunately I wasn't and a lot of people are dead, and the areas I was (more or less) right on, well that also means a lot of people are dead/suffering/will die/will suffer.

This time I am most certainly hoping I am right, and you should be as well, otherwise we are stuffed again and there won't be any lockdown to help (not that I think it did), government already ruled out a second full lockdown, we can't afford it.


----------



## MikeG. (30 Jul 2020)

Trainee neophyte":3e4uioj9 said:


> ......... I am of the opinion that you need to have infected about 20% of the total population to reach herd immunity........



You're very wrong. The level is normally taken to be 85% plus, depending on the method of transmission. We're in deep do-does if we reach this sort of level without the aid of a vaccine. Hundreds of thousands will have died in us getting there.


----------



## SammyQ (30 Jul 2020)

Seconded. One of our drawling dorks (C.P. ) conflated 60% into a devious answer recently and was swiftly slapped down by the medical fraternity. 

Sam


----------



## Trainee neophyte (30 Jul 2020)

MikeG.":3btngaq5 said:


> Trainee neophyte":3btngaq5 said:
> 
> 
> > ......... I am of the opinion that you need to have infected about 20% of the total population to reach herd immunity........
> ...


You may be right, but there is a body of evidence which is suggesting that a significant (majority) proportion of the population already have immunity because of T-cells, previous exposure to similar coronaviruses, or perhaps just because tens of millions of years of evolution have given us a working defence system. Children are virtually all immune. How? Why? What does this mean?

Either herd immunity means up to 80% of the entire population, or it means 80% of the _susceptible_ population. Two very different things. Occam's razor suggests that this virus will probably behave like all the other viruses. It may be novel, and different, and have weird new, uniquely aggressive behaviour that will kill billions, but so far it looks like it will behave predictably. In other words, the vast majority of people have nothing to fear. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/is- ... -we-think-


----------



## Rorschach (31 Jul 2020)

I have heard figures as low as 20% may be needed for an effective herd immunity.

Anyone else here been asked to take part in the Oxford/ONS study? It's a nice little earner and interesting to do as well.


----------



## Droogs (31 Jul 2020)

Rorschach, how do yo respond to this info given your previous whimsy on here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Vvi88QT7Hg


----------



## Andy Kev. (31 Jul 2020)

As a general aside to this matter, it now looks as if some European countries are a step or two away from a full-blown second wave (something which was originally predicted for autumn/winter).

It cannot be a coincidence that in the previous few weeks many people have rushed like lemmings to beaches and to popular holiday resorts in places like Spain. I do of course understand that many people really look forward to their holidays but I am very surprised that so many people seem not to have thought it a good idea to avoid classical mass tourism hols. 

IMO it's fairly certain that the holiday makers will achieve two things: firstly some of them will bring the disease home with them and secondly they will make viral hotspots out of the resorts thus guaranteeing the infection of more holiday makers.

There's also the matter of where local economies seem to depend largely on tourism e.g. Majorca, Malaga etc. You have to feel sorry for the locals who work in these industries but what do we regard as more important: public health or their employment levels? Meanwhile there are "real" economic activities to protect and they have already taken a massive hit.

I don't think that low key holiday making would be such a risk e.g. farmhouse breaks, walking or cycling holidays etc. but is mass tourism really currently acceptable?

In my naivety I would have thought that more people would have had the sense to do without a trip to e.g. Majorca this year.


----------



## SammyQ (31 Jul 2020)

Trainee Neofeckwit?



> "You may be right, but there is a body of evidence which is suggesting that a significant (majority) proportion of the population already have immunity because of T-cells, previous exposure to similar coronaviruses, or perhaps just because tens of millions of years of evolution have given us a working defence system. Children are virtually all immune. How? Why? What does this mean?"



You obviously have bu66er-all-cubed idea about T cells. 

"tens of millions of years of evolution have given us a working defence system." Check out how long Man has been around will you? Tens of thousands might give you a shred of respectability. 

And: "Children are virtually all immune." Jasus on a bicycle, what are you on man? Wise up and desist this scatter-gun approach of throwing oddments of contemporary interest into a conflated, inaccurate, plainly-inflammatory-for-no-good-reason, hodge-podge of textual diarrhoea. 

Rorschach? Behave yourself. 

Sam


----------



## Lons (31 Jul 2020)

Trainee neophyte":3b9dxrui said:


> there is a body of evidence



Are your reading habits really that selective TN or did you miss this bit


> it has not yet been peer-reviewed or published in a reputable journal. Moreover, it included a fairly* small sample of 200 people.*


If you consider that to be _evidence _ then you have a different interpretation of the word than most other people.


----------



## RogerS (31 Jul 2020)

Andy Kev.":3m59eubk said:


> As a general aside to this matter, it now looks as if some European countries are a step or two away from a full-blown second wave (something which was originally predicted for autumn/winter).
> 
> It cannot be a coincidence that in the previous few weeks many people have rushed like lemmings to beaches and to popular holiday resorts in places like Spain. I do of course understand that many people really look forward to their holidays but I am very surprised that so many people seem not to have thought it a good idea to avoid classical mass tourism hols.
> 
> ...



I'd also include bars, pubs, discos, nightclubs in the same category.


----------



## RogerS (31 Jul 2020)

Lons":10lbb3hc said:


> Trainee neophyte":10lbb3hc said:
> 
> 
> > there is a body of evidence
> ...



Perhaps this explains it, Lons ?


----------



## Trainee neophyte (31 Jul 2020)

Lons":cxb3ml41 said:


> Trainee neophyte":cxb3ml41 said:
> 
> 
> > there is a body of evidence
> ...



Too many angry people, being all emotional. I have said my bit, made my prediction. Let's all see what happens. Oh, and the "second wave" in Europe is still the first wave.


----------



## SammyQ (31 Jul 2020)

There is nothing so unfixable as the lofty(??) assumption of superiority -and subsequent public debasement - by the inadequate, aping the informed. 

Sam


----------



## Garno (31 Jul 2020)

RogerS":2c1fdgan said:


> I'd also include bars, pubs, discos, nightclubs in the same category.



Do disco's still exist


----------



## Rorschach (31 Jul 2020)

Droogs":3nwt8638 said:


> Rorschach, how do yo respond to this info given your previous whimsy on here
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Vvi88QT7Hg



Excess deaths are very high yes, but when all is said and done they won't be outside normal range for a bad winter, given the last 2 years have been very low. I think it will turn out that there are quite a few people who have had an extra year or maybe two longer than would have been expected. At the moment we are trending in a minus figure for excess deaths. I might be wrong, we won't know for at least a year, maybe more.
I am not saying that people aren't dying of C19, they are, but what impact that will have on overall deaths remains to be seen, we had a good flu winter in 19/20, very few deaths, we could see the same for 20/21 as those that would have died of flu have already died of C19.

I remain optimistic, I think while it looks bad now, in the grand scheme of things it will look OK. I would hope that you are all hoping I will be right on this, because if you want me to be wrong then it's you that is the sociopath, not me


----------



## Chris152 (31 Jul 2020)

'The ONS says daily cases have risen from an estimated 2,800 to 4,200 since last week.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53609354

Disturbing, but no surprise, is it?


----------



## Trainee neophyte (31 Jul 2020)

SammyQ":3a0f95zl said:


> Trainee Neofeckwit?



Oh dear. 



SammyQ":3a0f95zl said:


> There is nothing so unfixable as the lofty(??) assumption of superiority -and subsequent public debasement - by the inadequate, aping the informed.



Here's the thing: either I am right, you are right, or it will be somewhere in between. Just because we have different views of what is going on, I don't have an urgent need to heap you with opprobrium, ridicule you and paste snide little quotes which, rather interestingly, could be read either way. I'm not trying to see you off, or scare you into not posting any more. Why do that to me? 

[youtube]PlA_EB_alvc[/youtube]



SammyQ":3a0f95zl said:


> "tens of millions of years of evolution have given us a working defence system." Check out how long Man has been around will you? Tens of thousands might give you a shred of respectability.



Unless we accept the biblical account of devine creation as accurate and true, your ancestors were developing strategies to cope with viruses before they crawled out onto the mud. Or are you too posh to have had single celled animals in your ancestry? "Tens of millions of years" is actually an understatement. Life has been struggling with parasites and diseases from the very beginning, and some of the strategies are very, very old. 

And finally, as a general observation to all: if you haven't got anything nice to say, try saying nothing at all. It's making you all look a bit desperate, and a bit too scared of non-conformity. Get a grip, gentlemen. Play the ball, not the man, and have a go at being polite once in a while - it gets you much further in life.


----------



## Rorschach (31 Jul 2020)

Chris152":1vsv19rv said:


> 'The ONS says daily cases have risen from an estimated 2,800 to 4,200 since last week.'
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53609354
> 
> Disturbing, but no surprise, is it?



No surprise given how much more testing they are doing and it's more targeted now, and not disturbing to me. I don't care about cases, the more the better, I only care about deaths. Ideal situation is lots of cases, minimal deaths.


----------



## Rorschach (31 Jul 2020)

Trainee neophyte":165n5crt said:


> Unless we accept the biblical account of devine creation as accurate and true, your ancestors were developing strategies to cope with viruses before they crawled out onto the mud. Or are you too posh to have had single celled animals in your ancestry? "Tens of millions of years" is actually an understatement. Life has been struggling with parasites and diseases from the very beginning, and some of the strategies are very, very old.



Virus's or virus like organisms were probably around before "life" as we know it. Approx 10% of our DNA is made up from virus fragments.


----------



## Chris152 (31 Jul 2020)

Rorschach":2zuuh6fk said:


> No surprise given how much more testing they are doing and it's more targeted now, and not disturbing to me. I don't care about cases, the more the better, I only care about deaths. Ideal situation is lots of cases, minimal deaths.


How many more tests were done at the end compared to the beginning of that week? 
I really don't understand your conviction that the theories you talk about are correct. They might be, but from everything I see globally increases in cases equates to increases in deaths. There's every chance I'm completely misunderstanding what's going on of course, but you seem to have bought into something wholesale and lost any critical distance in relation to it?


----------



## Lons (31 Jul 2020)

Trainee neophyte":3af3x9vo said:


> Lons":3af3x9vo said:
> 
> 
> > Trainee neophyte":3af3x9vo said:
> ...


Which bits of my post above do you interpret as being angry or emotional? You're a very strange individual it seems.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (31 Jul 2020)

Lons":8vq7sbhe said:


> Which bits of my post above do you interpret as being angry or emotional?


Methinks the lady dost protest too much, but I live In the twilight zone apparently so I may have been misinformed. 


> You're a very strange individual it seems.



I am more and more being reminded of this: 

[youtube]I2yN_HIxLzI[/youtube]


----------



## Lons (31 Jul 2020)

As I said TN :lol: :lol: You clearly live in a world detached from reality. Never mind, you appear to be very happy there.


----------



## RogerS (31 Jul 2020)

Lons":2y71snpr said:


> As I said TN :lol: :lol: You clearly live in a world detached from reality. Never mind, you appear to be very happy there.



More a 'menage a deux' methinks...TN and Sorearse...oops ...sorry, Karen. Conjoined in a convivial tryst where reality is but a fleeting figment of the imagination, nay, a tenuous grasp of reality aka wishful thinking.


----------



## nev (31 Jul 2020)

As a mod I have the unpleasant task of having to glance through this tripe occasionally.

Please stop with the name calling and personal attacks, just ignore the trolls and wind up merchants, you're just feeding them.


----------



## Chris152 (5 Aug 2020)

'Paul Hunter, professor in medicine at the University of East Anglia, said it had become clear that there is a link between closing schools and controlling the spread of the virus. “The evidence is clear that schools are important in the spread of Covid-19,” he said. “Our studies show that, across Europe, closing schools was the single factor most strongly associated with drops in infection rates.”'
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... qp8V-LtUu8

Neil Ferguson was on Radio 4 just now, making it clear that evidence suggests older (secondary school) kids transmit the virus as well as adults. He was citing the importance of physical distancing, masks and mitigating measures and cited the possibility of kids being in school part time to allow for these. The government seems still set on all kids returning in a few weeks to full-time, full curriculum. It says this will be safe on account of 'alternative measures' (no distancing, for eg), but as far as I can tell these measures are significantly inferior to those that have been drummed into our minds hitherto. 

To my mind, the problem is the decision to make return to school mandatory for all. Secondary schools need to be flexible at this time - if kids can't work from home part time, they should be in school full time; but if kids can work from home part time or even full time, they should have the option to do so. It'd result in less kids in school at any one time, and it (blended learning/ remote learning) would be a system in place ready for when (/if) the virus takes hold again, as it almost certainly will (Ferguson again this morning, but it looks pretty obvious anyway).


----------



## RogerS (5 Aug 2020)

Interesting article, Chris. Especially the bit about the inconsistencies in wearing masks in shops but not in schools. The lack of a proper Track'n'Trace system won't help either. No coherent strategy will be in place while we have the Terrible Twins - Hapless and Hopeless - involved.


----------



## Rorschach (5 Aug 2020)

I agree that children who can work from home to a level comparable to that of being in school should be free to do so especially if they or their family are in a vulnerable position. However I suspect that is a very small % of children and on balance the vast majority need to get back into school.


----------



## doctor Bob (5 Aug 2020)

Chris152":22pyo11y said:


> To my mind, the problem is the decision to make return to school mandatory for all. Secondary schools need to be flexible at this time - if kids can't work from home part time, they should be in school full time; but if kids can work from home part time or even full time, they should have the option to do so. It'd result in less kids in school at any one time, and it (blended learning/ remote learning) would be a system in place ready for when (/if) the virus takes hold again, as it almost certainly will (Ferguson again this morning, but it looks pretty obvious anyway).



Great in principle, the bright kids with active parents would thrive, the less so would be lost from education.


----------



## Chris152 (5 Aug 2020)

The option to use blended/ remote learning could be monitored, parents complete a form committing to support the kids at home, and teachers keep tabs on the work kids are doing at home (our local was doing that anyway and I think most schools were). A lite version of what parents who home school go through. Those that can't can send their kids in f/t, to a less crowded environment. 

Either way, I think there's a pretty good chance they'll shut down again anyway once people start dying again in large numbers, so the schools need to be geared up to provide remote learning if people are really interested in the kids' education. The longer we pretend full-time, full-curriculum can work safely, the less prepared schools will be for the reality of our situation.


----------



## Rorschach (5 Aug 2020)

What % of parents do you think will actually be at home to do this? Kids being at school isn't just for the education, it is a form of childcare as well.


----------



## Chris152 (5 Aug 2020)

I don't know, but each kid that's not there is more space and less exposure for those that are.

And yes, I'm sure much of the commitment to schools opening fully in September that we're now hearing from minsters - in response to health experts' warnings about potential consequences - is to do with schools' childminding role and the (very) short-term economy.


----------



## Chris152 (9 Aug 2020)

Maybe I'll rename this thread 'Chris moaning about schools reopening'. 
I just went to our local Tesco to buy some bits. Kids just wandering around in gangs like it was a regular after-school thing, no distancing between them or anyone else, sharing packets of carp as they wandered off up the street after. 
The idea that schools can open safely with no distancing, no masks and just 'hygiene' and bubbles (massive in secondary schools) is risible - few kids have the fear that motivates most of us, from what i can see. PM on the news today speaking of a moral responsibility to reopen schools
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53710472
- what of the moral responsibility to those who'll die if there's a second surge in the virus (as expected)? I'm all for a return to education, but not a full return to full curriculum. 
I wonder if moral responsibility and economic priorities are being conflated.


----------



## Rorschach (13 Aug 2020)

I see New Zealand and Vietnam are in the news today, 3 months with no local cases and they are starting to see a rise again.


----------



## Just4Fun (13 Aug 2020)

Andy Kev. said:


> For the able bodied a few miles on foot is no trouble at all ...


Unless it is hissing with rain, your arms are full of shopping and you have a couple of kids in tow.


----------



## Droogs (13 Aug 2020)

Rorschach said:


> I see New Zealand and Vietnam are in the news today, 3 months with no local cases and they are starting to see a rise again.


I am wondering if some of the "articles" I've read about them thinking it is due to the amount of stuff they are moving around from overseas means we will possibly see a ruduction in the amount of "Amazon" deliveries either as policy or a knee-jerk reaction


----------



## Rorschach (13 Aug 2020)

Maybe, I am not sure how reliant NZ is on imports though. They are certainly reliant on importing tourists.


----------



## Droogs (13 Aug 2020)

i was thinking more along the lines of Bobajob and the Mountebanks


----------



## Rorschach (13 Aug 2020)

I am sorry I don't understand.


----------



## Argus (13 Aug 2020)

D_W said:


> I don't know who Hancock is or any of the references here



The Tony Hancock was a comedian, probably better known through the medium of radio in his day than the Prime Minister..... hence the post's title:- Hancock's Half Hour - Wikipedia
He was famous for a sketch sending up the bureaucratic blood-transfusion procedures operating in the NHS at the time. Remembered very fondly by some of us.

The present 'Hancock' is the Minister for health in this country. The subject of much criticism:- Matt Hancock - Wikipedia

A bit of the famous British irony there.


----------



## Droogs (13 Aug 2020)

Rorschach said:


> I am sorry I don't understand.


Bobajob - disparaging term for Boris taken from the name given to the week of the year when cub scouts would do any job you wanted as long as you paid them at least a "bob" - 12 old pennies or 5 new pence after decimalisation, in order to raise funds for the movement and charities

mountebank - a snake oil salesman or charlatan

I was wondering how our inept overseers would respond


----------



## D_W (13 Aug 2020)

Argus said:


> The Tony Hancock was a comedian, probably better known through the medium of radio in his day than the Prime Minister..... hence the post's title:- Hancock's Half Hour - Wikipedia
> He was famous for a sketch sending up the bureaucratic blood-transfusion procedures operating in the NHS at the time. Remembered very fondly by some of us.
> 
> The present 'Hancock' is the Minister for health in this country. The subject of much criticism:- Matt Hancock - Wikipedia
> ...



Thanks for the explanation!


----------



## RogerS (14 Aug 2020)

"This isn't just any sandwich. This is an M&S Covid sandwich"

More and more countries seeing a bounce-back.


----------



## Andy Kev. (14 Aug 2020)

Just4Fun said:


> Unless it is hissing with rain, your arms are full of shopping and you have a couple of kids in tow.


It's all part of growing up and being British (or Finnish for that matter).


----------



## lurker (14 Aug 2020)

Well France and others have been added to the list of countries that you have to isolate on return. I am wondering if a benefit from this is demonstrating to European countries the potential loss of revenue if they make our exit difficult, out of spite.


----------



## Woody2Shoes (14 Aug 2020)

Argus said:


> The Tony Hancock was a comedian, probably better known through the medium of radio in his day than the Prime Minister..... hence the post's title:- Hancock's Half Hour - Wikipedia
> He was famous for a sketch sending up the bureaucratic blood-transfusion procedures operating in the NHS at the time. Remembered very fondly by some of us.
> 
> The present 'Hancock' is the Minister for health in this country. The subject of much criticism:- Matt Hancock - Wikipedia
> ...



When he's mentioned in this household a letter 'd' mysteriously finds itself inserted between the first and second syllables of the name....


----------



## RogerS (15 Aug 2020)

In tonights' news....

_Public Health England (PHE) is to be scrapped and replaced by a new body specifically designed to protect the country against a pandemic by early next month, the Telegraph can disclose.......

Mr Hancock is seeking someone with experience of both health policy and the private sector to run it. Baroness Harding, the former chief executive of TalkTalk who heads up NHS Test and Trace, is tipped for the role._

We are so totally screwed.


----------



## billw (15 Aug 2020)

RogerS said:


> In tonights' news....
> 
> _Public Health England (PHE) is to be scrapped and replaced by a new body specifically designed to protect the country against a pandemic by early next month, the Telegraph can disclose.......
> 
> ...



What about all the public health that's not the pandemic? Doesn't that matter now? 

NHS Test and Trace only failed on two counts, although sadly those were testing and tracing.

The government's disjointed approach to health was highlighted by the fact Boris said everyone has to get healthy to beat obesity, only for his next-door neighbour to then offer everyone half-price burger and chips for a month.


----------



## Jake (15 Aug 2020)

lurker said:


> Well France and others have been added to the list of countries that you have to isolate on return. I am wondering if a benefit from this is demonstrating to European countries the potential loss of revenue if they make our exit difficult, out of spite.



That seems a self piteous take on a decision we made. There is now a collective self interest facing an individual outside one. Bewilderment at the self harm is obvious, but of course every rational intention of taking advantage of it economically, as we would if positions were reversed and we held the cards.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (16 Aug 2020)

I think we may be the losers, particularly if the French retaliate with their own quarantine restrictions on travellers from UK.

In particular if it creates a barrier to goods and services (as well as tourists) we may find our recently reopened factories short of components, and the retail sector short of both food and other imports.

Perhaps it is a practise for next year when Brexit fully happens and chaos at the border cannot be ruled out.


----------



## Rorschach (16 Aug 2020)

PHE being scrapped, hallelujah, long over due, they haven't been fit for purpose since they started their nanny state interference probably 20 or more years ago, WHO needs to go next.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (16 Aug 2020)

> Dr Penny Ward, a visiting professor in pharmaceutical medicine at King's College London, said it was "helpful" to see that the vaccine didn't cause a worse disease response in these monkeys, and that they didn't develop pneumonia after being vaccinated.



I'll take two, please.


----------



## Chris152 (16 Aug 2020)

RogerS said:


> In tonights' news....
> 
> _Public Health England (PHE) is to be scrapped and replaced by a new body specifically designed to protect the country against a pandemic by early next month, the Telegraph can disclose.......
> 
> ...


Meanwhile, Ofqual are making a spanking job of sorting the A-Level fiasco (this morning's news, and GCSEs set to be more chaotic) and apparently govt's set to start a public misinformation campaign tomorrow on how all schools are safe for September restart.
PHE have been warning evidence shows secondary school kids can transmit the virus as well as adults - not helpful.


----------



## selectortone (16 Aug 2020)

billw said:


> NHS Test and Trace only failed on two counts, although sadly those were testing and tracing.



Bravo!


----------



## artie (16 Aug 2020)

According to the 



 the fatality rate world wide is 1.4% .

If you factor in the amount of over counting, by that I mean the number of people who later died of something else after testing positive for covid. is it really a pandemic, and does it merit the massive over reaction we have seen from governments around the world?


----------



## Droogs (16 Aug 2020)

That question is a can of worms Rorschach depending on how you read it lol


----------



## Blackswanwood (16 Aug 2020)

artie said:


> According to the
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you go back to page 1 and read through this thread it's all been debated/argued over already!

Edit - sorry I didn't mean that to sound dismissive ... but it has ...


----------



## Rorschach (16 Aug 2020)

Droogs said:


> That question is a can of worms Rorschach depending on how you read it lol



Which question?


----------



## Droogs (16 Aug 2020)

WHO needs to go next


----------



## artie (16 Aug 2020)

Blackswanwood said:


> If you go back to page 1 and read through this thread it's all been debated/argued over already!
> 
> Edit - sorry I didn't mean that to sound dismissive ... but it has ...


Yeah I bet. 

but opinions can change.


----------



## Blackswanwood (16 Aug 2020)

artie said:


> Yeah I bet.
> 
> but opinions can change.



I suppose there is a first time for everything


----------



## Rorschach (16 Aug 2020)

artie said:


> Yeah I bet.
> 
> but opinions can change.



Don't count it, most people just dig in further.

We won't know the true IFR for a long time, possible never as testing is hit and miss and a lot of people have had it without even knowing. What is becoming more and more apparent by the day though is that C19 is a rather trivial disease in comparison to many, the reaction to C19 has been been far more deadly than the disease ever will be.


----------



## lurker (16 Aug 2020)

What do you mean “if” the French retaliate, it would be entirely out of character for them not to!


----------



## doctor Bob (16 Aug 2020)

I feel very sorry for those so sh!!t-scared they can't live a reasonably normal life. 
But getting very annoyed that they also want to destroy everybody elses life.
There are some really bullshitters around, one guy I know reckons everyone he knows who's caught it has died, rides with 10 cyclists all got it all died ............


----------



## Chris152 (16 Aug 2020)

Does anyone know if the French quarantine thing applies to commercial drivers delivering to and from France? May well affect us in the next couple of days if so. Thanks.


----------



## Blackswanwood (16 Aug 2020)

Chris152 said:


> Does anyone know if the French quarantine thing applies to commercial drivers delivering to and from France? May well affect us in the next couple of days if so. Thanks.


They are exempt Chris.


----------



## Chris152 (16 Aug 2020)

That's a relief - thanks, Blackswanwood.


----------



## Garno (16 Aug 2020)

Chris152 said:


> Meanwhile, Ofqual are making a spanking job of sorting the A-Level fiasco (this morning's news, and GCSEs set to be more chaotic)



It's a bit of a difficult one to call Chris as every single year those who have not done as well as those who have passed have moaned.
What does not seem to be mentioned a lot is that more people were upgraded than were downgraded and more people passed their "A" levels than failed, we all know the reason for that, It is not deemed newsworthy. For some reason our media only report on the negatives in this country and never the positives.

I do feel for those who were borderline between a pass and a fail and the downgrade has turned that into a fail I believe a C- is classed as fail but it may well be a D, a C- or a D will not open the doors of many universities. I believe that 300+ algorithms were used in deciding who was upgraded and who was downgraded. For decades people have been failing the exam and it is not so many years ago when a campaign (again headed by our wonderful media) was around to make the exams easier as too many people were failing. If people are failing it is down to one of two reasons. Firstly they are not clever enough (No doubt I will be lynched for that one) or secondly they have not put in enough effort or worked hard enough, both of those reasons will be enough to upset some, but it is what it is.

If all of those who have been downgraded and failed suddenly get their results changed because of all the shouting how will that effect all those people who have passed? what sort of message does it send out? It will show them they need not study as hard because if they fail at uni all they need do is shout and scream until it gets changed. Lets say in 5 years time two new GP's arrive at your doctors surgery to start afresh on patients, after a short while it becomes public knowledge that one of them actually failed all of their course work, but after shouting and going to the media were upgraded, the other GP passed everything, out of the two who would you want to go to and which of the two would you be comfortable sending your family to?

Now on the flip-side there are some genuine people who have unfairly been downgraded into the fail category, somehow the 300+ algorithms have failed them, I 100% think this has happened to some and I honestly feel for them. The unfortunates who have failed due to being downgraded have 3 choices available to them, firstly they can appeal the decision as steps are already in place to enable this, Secondly, again for those who were downgraded to a fail, they can re-sit the year as all those who were downgraded from a pass or border line have priority places for the start of the new education year (Usually September but the placing system is on hold at the moment until the appeals have all been looked into). This option will cost them a year of their lives, we have to remember that no one has gone from an "A" down to a "D". And the third option is to walk away from it all, they will not be the first to do this nor will they be the only one doing it, over the decades thousands before them have walked away.

Over the years people or I should say the media, have argued that pupils are taking far too many exams, as a result of that pupils now take less, if the amount of exams had remained as it was then it is my total belief less people would of been either upgraded or downgraded. I remember at school (Yes I can remember that far back) we were having tests nearly every other week and not once did the media get on it's high horse and champion our course, we accepted the results of our final exams, sometimes with smiles and sometimes with tears. Personally I think that if the student chose option two or option three they can hold their heads up high and receive a lot more respect than if they chose option one.

Bear in mind that all scenario's above are written to include only the borderline cases as it is these cases that the media seem to be jumping all over, also this post is not aimed at anyone on these forums I have only high-lighted Chris's quote as a way in to start my post. As you can see I am torn between two sides of an argument, whilst I believe 300+ algorithms is enough to get most of it right I am also concerned that some (Not all) students have been mistakenly marked down.

Oh and it's started raining.


----------



## doctor Bob (16 Aug 2020)

Chris152 said:


> Does anyone know if the French quarantine thing applies to commercial drivers delivering to and from France? May well affect us in the next couple of days if so. Thanks.



you seem to be a "shut the world down " man ................... unless it interfers with you, have I misread this?


----------



## Chris152 (16 Aug 2020)

doctor Bob said:


> you seem to be a "shut the world down " man ................... unless it interfers with you, have I misread this?


Yes, you've misunderstood Bob.


----------



## doctor Bob (16 Aug 2020)

Chris152 said:


> Yes, you've misunderstood Bob.



OK maybe you could expand a bit on why it matters to you whether commercial drivers can operate or not. From your previous posts, it should be unimportant. Safety first, like not opening schools whatever the impact.


----------



## Chris152 (16 Aug 2020)

doctor Bob said:


> OK maybe you could expand a bit on why it matters to you whether commercial drivers can operate or not. From your previous posts, it should be unimportant. Safety first, like not opening schools whatever the impact.


Ok, I'll try. You wrote: 'you seem to be a "shut the world down " man'. I think one of the problems with some of the discussion in this thread is reducing people's positions to binaries - open/ shut. Clearly, just about everyone is somewhere between those two positions, including me. So, for example, I'm all in favour of schools reopening in September, but not on the terms planned by the government. You know that coz you've responded to my thoughts and suggestions above. So I'd advocate blended learning til the virus is under control (assuming it ever is) - in fact I'd advocate that beyond the virus as one of the ways things could improve in education, but that's another story. And I'd say pretty much the same for most other things - open them up in so far as possible without the threat of a second surge of the virus, based on predominant scientific advice. Our economy needs it. Again, I reckon 90% of people writing in this thread could agree with that (no i've not done the maths, just making figures up).

I think quarantine as the govt is requiring of people is a good thing, and it's a shame it wasn't instigated at the outset. Some say otherwise. But from what I've seen, huge numbers of people have been congregating in holiday places (while a friend's kids were in Brittany on hols with their mum, the R rate went from below 1 to 2.6 within a week, which he found pretty disturbing) and people coming back will do well to isolate from the rest of us til they know they're clear. But a fella who drives his truck to a remote part of France to drop something off and bring something back isn't exposed to all that, and that's why I'm happy that he can do so - it's both legal, and it is reasonable. Neither 0 or 1, somewhere in between, and hopefully reasonable given the info available.


----------



## Chris152 (16 Aug 2020)

Garno - the only thing I disagree with in your post is the problem of grade inflation - it is a problem exactly as you say, but it's not setting a precedent as it's clearly an extraordinary year. But the reason I raised the issue this morning was more about last night's u-turn on advice Ofqual had itself given on appeals just a few hours earlier. Amazing, and adding yet more anxiety to many young people's experience at the moment.


----------



## artie (16 Aug 2020)

This a very mysterious virus. It's most important that holiday makers quarantine on return from France, but not working drivers..
If you work in a shop you don't have to wear a mask, but if you pop next door for a 20 regal, you must put one on.


----------



## doctor Bob (16 Aug 2020)

Chris152 said:


> But a fella who drives his truck to a remote part of France to drop something off and bring something back isn't exposed to all that,



Ok I didn't realise it was just remote parts of France. Wheeew. Thank god they are not going to busy depots, cities or towns, mixing with french people, or buying food and diesel, stopping for ciggies or banging French ladies who like to provide comfort at truck stops  hopefully they put a mask on, that'll sort it.


----------



## doctor Bob (16 Aug 2020)

Chris152 said:


> and adding yet more anxiety to many young people's experience at the moment.



This is why schools need to return. Blended learning is great for well off and middle class families with a driving force at home but a massive percentage of kids will be left behind.


----------



## Chris152 (16 Aug 2020)

First post - hilarious Bob.
Second post - see my previous reply to that same comment.
If you don't really want to discuss stuff, don't bother asking eh?


----------



## Terry - Somerset (16 Aug 2020)

Every year some students who do not achieve the grade they expect appeal and have their work re-marked. This is completely right and fair.

But children have not suddenly become more gifted this year compared to the last few. Any material increase in grades can only be down to grade inflation and over-generosity on the part of teachers.

Ofqual in April produced the principles by which grades would be given - in particular that they would moderate any grade inflation to bring results overall broadly into line with previous years. It is possible they got their model wrong, but not the general principle.

Schools have presided over a system which has over-estimated grades. It was clearly easier to mark students generously to avoid possible parental confrontation and disappointed students.

I think the cave in by Sturgeon in Scotland was completely lacking in integrity, and the rest of the UK is making similar compromises.

Despite the shambles crated by educators, media and government, it may just be that fewer foreign students will allow universities to offer most students the courses they aspire to. The first year may highlight the inadequacy of those who gained their place on the back of exaggerated grades.


----------



## doctor Bob (16 Aug 2020)

Chris152 said:


> First post - hilarious Bob.



Thank you, very kind are you prepared to discuss or explain the errors of your reasoning, as I suspect most drivers don't go to remote places?


----------



## doctor Bob (16 Aug 2020)

Chris152 said:


> If you don't really want to discuss stuff, don't bother asking eh?



Sorry no idea what you want me to discuss, I just think you are wrong (ok maybe not wrong but it seems like you want your cake and eat it) and say things which make no sense to me.
Not just you, both sides of the discussion are showing signs of selfishness in what should and should not apply.

I.e. "I can't believe we have travelled all this way to the beach and it's so crowded, how can we keep our distance with this amount of people"


----------



## Chris152 (16 Aug 2020)

doctor Bob said:


> Sorry no idea what you want me to discuss, I just think you are wrong (ok maybe not wrong but it seems like you want your cake and eat it) and say things which make no sense to me.


ok, I shan't bother trying to reply honestly to your questions in future.


----------



## doctor Bob (16 Aug 2020)

Chris152 said:


> ok, I shan't bother trying to reply honestly to your questions in future.



But you weren't honest, you said drivers to france were going to remote places......  which suits your thinking and expaination, but not reality.


----------



## Chris152 (16 Aug 2020)

Gawd. 'But a fella who drives his truck to a remote part of France to drop something off and bring something back isn't exposed to all that, and that's why I'm happy that he can do so - it's both legal, and it is reasonable.' This is the fella who is doing the delivery for me, which is where our 'discussion' started, not all drivers who are going to France. Jesus h.

Anyway, I think I've had enough of all this, things on the forum definitely going down hill rapidly, all getting a bit childish. Tarraaa butts, good luck with the power struggle and all that. But many thanks to those of you who've helped me out so much over the years. Cx


----------



## doctor Bob (16 Aug 2020)

Chris152 said:


> Gawd. 'But a fella who drives his truck to a remote part of France to drop something off and bring something back isn't exposed to all that, and that's why I'm happy that he can do so - it's both legal, and it is reasonable.' This is the fella who is doing the delivery for me, which is where our 'discussion' started, not all drivers who are going to France. Jesus h.
> 
> Anyway, I think I've had enough of all this, things on the forum definitely going down hill rapidly, all getting a bit childish. Tarraaa butts, good luck with the power struggle and all that. But many thanks to those of you who've helped me out so much over the years. Cx



Ok so it is about your circumstances then. I thought we were talking about the whole picture and not just this attitude of I'm OK because my position is slightly different to you AKA Dominic Cummings. Drop out if you wish, don't try and blame it on 2 posts by me though, otherwise it looks a bit silly, I know I'm annoying but that would be a record for me. These power struggles as you like to call them are meaningless, just ignore it and it will all be normal in a few weeks, no body really cares.


----------



## Rorschach (16 Aug 2020)

If you don't like what you are reading, don't read it and if you don't like what someone is saying, ignore them (if you do ignore them though, don't come back sniping and egging on other members like that kid who stands behind the bully shouting out mean words and then running, mentioning no names Roger lol). The attitude of some people here really surprises me, I wonder if they act like that in real life, if so, how do they cope? Some guys on here have been on this planet for 70 or more years and they act like spoilt children, a lot worse than the millennials they seemingly despise so much.


----------



## Chris152 (16 Aug 2020)

Not your posts Bob, really - I quite like most of yours. But it's got quite political (in the true sense of the word) the last few days in the AOB section and i really can't be pineappled thinking about it. new pastures and all that. 

eta - how do you get out of this place? Is there a close account button somewhere?! Thanks.

Oh, I've just seen your post R - confirms my wish to leave.


----------



## doctor Bob (16 Aug 2020)

Just give it a break for a month or two, then decide. Works wonders for me.
The important thing is to realise all this internet stuff is irrelevant, real life is not.


----------



## Chris152 (16 Aug 2020)

Couldn't agree more Bob - but it starts to matter in my mind, which is a part of reality - I'm also ditching FB, again it seems like I'm wasting time on it when I could be doing better things.


----------



## Jake (16 Aug 2020)

artie said:


> According to the
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That'd be nearly a million dead for the UK.


----------



## artie (17 Aug 2020)

I think it's 1.4% of people who have it, not 1.4% of the entire population.


----------



## Jake (17 Aug 2020)

Correct so deduct maybe 15-20% depending on the circumstances. But then add a multiple of 3-5 if you allow it to run out of control like Lombardy.


----------



## Rorschach (17 Aug 2020)

Jake said:


> Correct so deduct maybe 15-20% depending on the circumstances. But then add a multiple of 3-5 if you allow it to run out of control like Lombardy.



Don't forget to carry the 2 and divide by Pi when you do your made up numbers.


----------



## billw (17 Aug 2020)

artie said:


> I think it's 1.4% of people who have it, not 1.4% of the entire population.



Although without preventative measures, everyone would soon enough catch it.


----------



## artie (17 Aug 2020)

billw said:


> Although without preventative measures, everyone would soon enough catch it.


No way to know that for sure, not every nurse even in a covid ward catches it and believe it or not many are nursing covid patients with minimal and sometimes no PPE


----------



## Jake (17 Aug 2020)

billw said:


> Although without preventative measures, everyone would soon enough catch it.



Well herd immunity should kick in at some point, around 85% although being out of control would mean it would be likely to overshoot.


----------



## Jake (17 Aug 2020)

Rorschach said:


> Don't forget to carry the 2 and divide by Pi when you do your made up numbers.



Numbers based on the science, not your crackpottery.


----------



## Droogs (17 Aug 2020)

Following a conversation I recently had (yesterday) with a chap at a EV charge point, I did some investigation into a comment that he made about people getting cancer treatment and covid19. for those tht are interested, I found this article in the Lancet



https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31173-9/fulltext


----------



## artie (17 Aug 2020)

Droogs said:


> Following a conversation I recently had (yesterday) with a chap at a EV charge point, I did some investigation into a comment that he made about people getting cancer treatment and covid19. for those tht are interested, I found this article in the Lancet
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31173-9/fulltext


The first three lines of the first paragraph contain the words " postulated " and "conjecture " so I didn't feel it was worth continuing.


----------



## Droogs (17 Aug 2020)

You should as it goes on to explain that because of that situation, they carried out the study to basically get some real info


----------



## Rorschach (18 Aug 2020)

What that article doesn't seem to cover is that even after the massive delay in cancer treatment for no good reason, if you are now lucky enough to get treatment back on track, if you test positive for C19 (despite showing no symptoms) you will not get your cancer treatment until you show negative, however long that takes.


----------



## RogerS (18 Aug 2020)

Deleted


----------



## Lons (18 Aug 2020)

Rorschach said:


> What that article doesn't seem to cover is that even after the massive delay in cancer treatment for no good reason, if you are now lucky enough to get treatment back on track, if you test positive for C19 (despite showing no symptoms) you will not get your cancer treatment until you show negative, however long that takes.


A very silly pointless statement for you to make for the simple reason that anyone undergoing surgery or the usual chemotherapy / radiotherapy cancer treatment is at real risk of serious consequences of Corvid 19 infection during that time as the treatment lowers the immune system.


----------



## Droogs (18 Aug 2020)

Hi Lons, that was my understanding as well. But the comment the chap I spoke to that made me do some digging was that, while the immune system is compromised during chemo it appeared that the fact that the patient is so full of steroids that those who were tested and found to be positive during treatment that they were in general found to be totally asymptomatic or to have had only a very mild infection while undergoing treatment. Now this was contrary to my understanding of it all and is what lead me to go digging


----------



## RogerS (18 Aug 2020)

Lons said:


> A very silly pointless statement for you to make for the simple reason that anyone undergoing surgery or the usual chemotherapy / radiotherapy cancer treatment is at real risk of serious consequences of Corvid 19 infection during that time as the treatment lowers the immune system.


Please !

DO NOT FEED THE TROLL !!!


----------



## Droogs (18 Aug 2020)

So it seems that the veracity of infection is more dependent on the type of comorbidity you may have


----------



## Lons (18 Aug 2020)

RogerS said:


> Please !
> 
> DO NOT FEED THE TROLL !!!


Depends what you feed them with Roger. Liken it to our mutt who if you gave her a huge bag of grapes would scoff the lot, sick it up and eat it again, that fact that it would probably be fatal makes not one jot of difference.


----------



## Lons (18 Aug 2020)

Droogs said:


> So it seems that the veracity of infection is more dependent on the type of comorbidity you may have


I think any sensible person who has cancer wouldn't take what seems to be a very real extra risk of increasing their chances of dying by having treatment whilst infected especially when the experts don't have answers and advice is based on limited research and differing opinion.

I certainly wouldn't, others might.


----------



## Rorschach (18 Aug 2020)

So if you are positive for C19, but have no symptoms at all, indeed you may have had the infection a long time but it is still showing up in your system for who knows how long (we don't know how long it hangs around), you should be denied treatment that could/will save your life?

Catch C19, die of cancer instead, that makes total sense. In the case of my family member if they don't get their treatment soon at best they will lose their arm, at worst their life as it is already showing signs it might be spreading to the lymphatic system. Noteworthy is that this treatment should have been carried out more than 16 weeks ago when it would have been a minor op, it has now been a much more serious op (lost significant use of the hand now) and needs radiotherapy. If they now test positive for C19, they will get no treatment at all which is basically a death sentence, even if the C19 is causing no symptoms.


----------



## Droogs (18 Aug 2020)

I'm not suggesting otherwise Lons, I've been on an RCHOP regime since Feb, In fact my radiotherapy only finish 3 weeks ago and I am still following the advice given to shield until end of Sept to allow my immune system to rebuild. But I am now permitted to go out other than to the hospital and posted this to show that more info is becoming available the shows how much we don't know about this virus. Also that although I find Rorschach's attitude towards others when up against his profit margin or infringing in his right to not give a toss as to whether he could possibly infect others by being selfish abhorent, I do understand how he has come to his opinion.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (18 Aug 2020)

It may just be that hospitals try to separate CV19 patients from the rest of the hospital to minimise the risk of infecting other patients and staff.

Particularly as cancer patients undergoing treatment have very compromised immune systems, the consequences of transmission are sufficiently serious as to make risk reduction critical.


----------



## Lons (18 Aug 2020)

Rorschach said:


> So if you are positive for C19, but have no symptoms at all, indeed you may have had the infection a long time but it is still showing up in your system for who knows how long (we don't know how long it hangs around), you should be denied treatment that could/will save your life?
> 
> Catch C19, die of cancer instead, that makes total sense. In the case of my family member if they don't get their treatment soon at best they will lose their arm, at worst their life as it is already showing signs it might be spreading to the lymphatic system. Noteworthy is that this treatment should have been carried out more than 16 weeks ago when it would have been a minor op, it has now been a much more serious op (lost significant use of the hand now) and needs radiotherapy. If they now test positive for C19, they will get no treatment at all which is basically a death sentence, even if the C19 is causing no symptoms.


I feel very sorry for your relative it's a catch 22 situation but unlike you my sympathy is genuine and not a case of they will die anyway which has been your attitude from the start. There for all to read and solicited reactions from a number of people, go on deny it!


----------



## Rorschach (18 Aug 2020)

Lons said:


> I feel very sorry for your relative it's a catch 22 situation but unlike you my sympathy is genuine and not a case of they will die anyway which has been your attitude from the start. There for all to read and solicited reactions from a number of people, go on deny it!



Difference is, my relative wouldn't have died anyway, outlook with treatment was excellent. They are not someone sitting in god's waiting room (a care home).


----------



## Garno (18 Aug 2020)

Rorschach said:


> Difference is, my relative wouldn't have died anyway, outlook with treatment was excellent. They are not someone sitting in god's waiting room (a care home).



The outlook with treatment may well be excellent but by no means 100% guaranteed.

I see you are now trying to change your stance a little by inferring that your comments about letting those more vulnerable to the effects of covid die was only meant for those in a care home.


----------



## Rorschach (18 Aug 2020)

Garno said:


> The outlook with treatment may well be excellent but by no means 100% guaranteed.



You are right, but the outlook with no treatment is a slow, painful death guaranteed. The outlook pre-C19 was for a complete recovery, no after effects other than scarring. Now the best outlook we can hope for is "just" severe limitation in the hand.



Garno said:


> I see you are now trying to change your stance a little by inferring that your comments about letting those more vulnerable to the effects of covid die was only meant for those in a care home.



No I was just using that as an example that covers the majority of deaths. I'm still evil don't worry.


----------



## Garno (18 Aug 2020)

Rorschach said:


> You are right, but the outlook with no treatment is a slow, painful death guaranteed.



The same as those poor souls in nursing homes should they catch covid, maybe not as long but the same result.
Not nice is it when it's one of your own ....


----------



## Rorschach (18 Aug 2020)

Garno said:


> The same as those poor souls in nursing homes should they catch covid, maybe not as long but the same result.
> Not nice is it when it's one of your own ....


Certainly not, I never said it was. Remind me how well lockdown helped them?


----------



## Garno (18 Aug 2020)

Rorschach said:


> Certainly not, I never said it was. Remind me how well lockdown helped them?


 Remind me how letting them suffer without any kind of treatment helps them.


----------



## Rorschach (18 Aug 2020)

Garno said:


> Remind me how letting them suffer without any kind of treatment helps them.


Wait, what? When did you think I was advocating that?


----------



## Garno (18 Aug 2020)

So now you are saying you were not?

You change your stance more times than a baby has nappy changes.


----------



## Rorschach (18 Aug 2020)

No seriously, where did I say it? I have never advocated for restriction of any kind of treatment, what do you think my most recent posts have been about?


----------



## Lons (18 Aug 2020)

Rorschach said:


> I'm still evil don't worry.


That's the second comment I've ever agreed with you. weyhay! 
100% correct in your self assessment.


----------



## artie (18 Aug 2020)

Does anyone know what treatment an elderly person gets after they've been told they have covid?


----------



## Rorschach (18 Aug 2020)

artie said:


> Does anyone know what treatment an elderly person gets after they've been told they have covid?



I can only tell you what the consultant told us which was that basically the only treatment was for something imminently life threatening. E.g if you were having a heart attack, you would get treatment, but if you were due to have a hip operation for example, that is cancelled. For some things that seems reasonable, a hip operation delayed by a month or two isn't a big deal. Chemotherapy, radiotherapy or an operation to remove a tumour being delayed by even a few weeks can have a massive impact on a persons life.


----------



## RogerS (18 Aug 2020)

artie said:


> Does anyone know what treatment an elderly person gets after they've been told they have covid?


That really is a fatuous question. A lot of your posts seem to be in a similar vein and one could be forgiven that you are doing this to deliberately provoke. AKA trolling.


----------



## doctor Bob (18 Aug 2020)

Why is it a silly and pointless question?


----------



## artie (18 Aug 2020)

RogerS said:


> That really is a fatuous question. A lot of your posts seem to be in a similar vein and one could be forgiven that you are doing this to deliberately provoke. AKA trolling.


Thank you for contributing on this very controversial subject, your help and encouragement is deeply appreciated.


----------



## artie (18 Aug 2020)

Rorschach said:


> I can only tell you what the consultant told us which was that basically the only treatment was for something imminently life threatening. E.g if you were having a heart attack, you would get treatment, but if you were due to have a hip operation for example, that is cancelled. For some things that seems reasonable, a hip operation delayed by a month or two isn't a big deal. Chemotherapy, radiotherapy or an operation to remove a tumour being delayed by even a few weeks can have a massive impact on a persons life.


Yes I can understand that, but what treatment do they get for covid?


----------



## Lons (19 Aug 2020)

artie said:


> Yes I can understand that, but what treatment do they get for covid?


I'm not sure what you're asking. There is no effective treatment, yet, for corvid-19, they treat the problems it causes once they develop and how serious those issues are depends on a number of factors. There's plenty of information out there which will tell you what you want to know if you look for it.

If you are infected but few symptoms don't worry about it unless it gets serious *just stay away from other people.* One of the serious effects which aren't easily seen is low oxygen count in your blood, that's what killed a friend of ours in a short space of time. You can check that if you spend a few quid on an oximeter.


----------



## Droogs (19 Aug 2020)

artie said:


> Yes I can understand that, but what treatment do they get for covid?


Cup of tea and a buscuit as that's all they can do for it in a care home unless they can persuade to local hospital to take them. If in the hospital they they are just monitored, given extra ox and they deal with complications as they happen. Mind you this is only recently as Bobajob's policy was to ignore them in the hope that they magically go away or die


----------



## Rorschach (19 Aug 2020)

artie said:


> Yes I can understand that, but what treatment do they get for covid?


Ah sorry, I misunderstood what you were asking. I don't know if they get any treatment, there isn't really a lot that can be done and it all depends on the symptoms. My point was that if you test positive, but have no symptoms (or very mild symptoms like a slight cough), you will be denied pretty much any treatment for anything else you are suffering from.

Oh and don't pay too much attention to Roger. He just likes to snipe at people who don't agree with his view that the universe revolves around him


----------



## Trainee neophyte (19 Aug 2020)

artie said:


> Does anyone know what treatment an elderly person gets after they've been told they have covid?



At the risk of making lots of people very angry (again, sigh), there _might_ be some movement on the hydroxychloroquinine bunfight: Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine Cut Death Rate Significantly in COVID-19 Patients, Henry Ford Health System Study Shows



> Treatment with hydroxychloroquine cut the death rate significantly in sick patients hospitalized with COVID-19 – and without heart-related side-effects, according to a new study published by Henry Ford Health System.
> 
> In a large-scale retrospective analysis of 2,541 patients hospitalized between March 10 and May 2, 2020 across the system’s six hospitals, the study found 13% of those treated with hydroxychloroquine alone died compared to 26.4% not treated with hydroxychloroquine. None of the patients had documented serious heart abnormalities; however, patients were monitored for a heart condition routinely pointed to as a reason to avoid the drug as a treatment for COVID-19.
> 
> ...



And more here: 








MN Governor Quietly Reverses Course on Hydroxychloroquine | RealClearPolitics


This past week Minnesota became the second state to reject regulations that effectively ban the controversial drug hydroxychloroquine for use by COVID-19...




www.realclearpolitics.com





I don't know if it helps or not, but I do know that most of the well-publicised studies that showed it didn't work gave the drug or drugs to people who were about to die anyway, as opposed to immediately on admission, which it's how the Chinese and other doctors were advocating it to be used. Whether this was done in error, or intentionally to get a desired negative result is not for me to judge. If it is provably the latter, I imagine a few legal issues will ensue. Everything has been politicised, so nothing is what it appears to be.


----------



## Rorschach (19 Aug 2020)

Was it not Roger? My apologies, must have been one of other old rich guys who hate me.


----------



## artie (19 Aug 2020)

Thanks guys, that sort of confirms what I thought, If an elderly person tests positive or even just shows some mild symptoms they are separated and more or less left to get on with it on their own. Nurses and doctors banned from talking about whats going on.


----------



## RogerS (19 Aug 2020)

artie said:


> Thanks guys, that sort of confirms what I thought, If an elderly person tests positive or even just shows some mild symptoms they are separated and more or less left to get on with it on their own. Nurses and doctors banned from talking about whats going on.


That is such utter rubbish. Do some proper research instead of reading the Daily Star.


----------



## RogerS (19 Aug 2020)

Lons said:


> Well I don't hate you I just think you're pathetic but I'd put money on there being a long list.
> 
> You've let your green eyed envy slip through again btw , I doubt there are many on the forum who are actually "rich" unless as it seems you count everyone who might have a quid or two more than you.
> As I said - pathetic!


Wonder how his trinket business is going ?


----------



## Rorschach (19 Aug 2020)

Lons said:


> Well I don't hate you I just think you're pathetic but I'd put money on there being a long list.
> 
> You've let your green eyed envy slip through again btw , I doubt there are many on the forum who are actually "rich" unless as it seems you count everyone who might have a quid or two more than you.
> As I said - pathetic!



Not envy, it's just the people here with money and comfort are always "I'm alright Jack" and don't care about those suffering. Maybe rich was the wrong word, lets change it for " those who have no money worries".

Again the personal insults, why can't you be civil like the vast majority on here. Even those who don't like what I say are still civil and polite in their disagreements as I am with them. It's a small group here that have to resort to personal attacks and it saddens me, why must you do it?


----------



## Rorschach (19 Aug 2020)

RogerS said:


> Wonder how his trinket business is going ?



Well government money skews the figures somewhat but in general despite my early doom and gloom I am having what appears to be a bumper year so far. Of course how long that will continue we don't know, the bite of recession hasn't really kicked in just yet for many.


----------



## billw (19 Aug 2020)

I am minded to think that whole hydroxychloroquinine thing is because Trump bought about 60 million doses since he likes to do things within a factual vacuum. They could just donate them to a "sh*thole country" to help the fight against malaria I suppose.


----------



## SammyQ (19 Aug 2020)

*"Any material increase in grades can only be down to grade inflation and over-generosity on the part of teachers."*

Patently, you have never taken part in grade moderation, otherwise you would realuse just how patronising, uninformed and plain wrong you are. 
Ever thought of standing as a Conservative in an election? 

Sam. 37 years a teacher.


----------



## Rorschach (19 Aug 2020)

SammyQ said:


> *"Any material increase in grades can only be down to grade inflation and over-generosity on the part of teachers."*
> 
> Patently, you have never taken part in grade moderation, otherwise you would realuse just how patronising, uninformed and plain wrong you are.
> Ever thought of standing as a Conservative in an election?
> ...



As a teacher then, how would you explain the fact that even with grade moderation and a massive decrease in the grades given compared to the teacher provided grades, overall attainment was still higher this year than last year? I can't understand what is going on myself.


----------



## billw (19 Aug 2020)

Rorschach said:


> As a teacher then, how would you explain the fact that even with grade moderation and a massive decrease in the grades given compared to the teacher provided grades, overall attainment was still higher this year than last year? I can't understand what is going on myself.



Maybe the kids are smarter this year.


----------



## Lons (19 Aug 2020)

Rorschach said:


> always "I'm alright Jack" and don't care about those suffering. Maybe rich was the wrong word, lets change it for " those who have no money worries".


Don't make me laugh, you've just described your own attitude perfectly!

You regularly mention in a disparaging way, old men, 70 plus, no money issues, going to die anyway and lots of other tosh which clearly suggests you have issues. What you forget is that most are not silver spoon recipients but rather they had the usual taxing jobs, mortgages which had to be paid and kids who needed clothes and food followed by higher education costs. The fact that the money they may have saved over a lifetime and pensions invested in were hard earned not gifted and that they now are mortgage free was down to bloody hard work and some educated choices.
As I said, Mr Green rearing his ugly head, are you sure you're not Jacob's son ( or daughter ).

So from your other posts it now seems you've been a teacher as well as a virologist, statistician, expert on politics and medicine or maybe it's just self professed know it all who actually knows or thinks he knows only what he reads.  Still just the usual armchair expert in truth!


----------



## Rorschach (19 Aug 2020)

See, you can be (reasonably) civil when you try, no need for childish insults was there.


----------



## Lons (19 Aug 2020)

Rorschach said:


> See, you can be (reasonably) civil when you try, no need for childish insults was there.


Your attempt at sarcasm doesn't work you should know that you've tried many times before.
You _really_ think that was civil?    Have you been on the pop tonight?


----------



## doctor Bob (19 Aug 2020)

I sort of understood the venom on the brexit thread (leave remain), don't get it on here though, seems very odd and personal.


----------



## Rorschach (19 Aug 2020)

Lons said:


> Your attempt at sarcasm doesn't work you should know that you've tried many times before.


I wasn't being sarcastic.


----------



## Rorschach (19 Aug 2020)

doctor Bob said:


> I sort of understood the venom on the brexit thread (leave remain), don't get it on here though, seems very odd and personal.


I don't understand either but it seems to come from just a few members. I didn't take part in the Brexit thread, was it the same people? I would laugh if on that topic I agreed with them, they would probably hate it and do a 180! lol.


----------



## SammyQ (19 Aug 2020)

Rorschach said:


> As a teacher then, how would you explain the fact that even with grade moderation and a massive decrease in the grades given compared to the teacher provided grades, overall attainment was still higher this year than last year? I can't understand what is going on myself.



So, dear Troll, you dont believe that teachers are not under pressure to improve 'their' grades every year? My Board of Governors insisted this year after year. A minimum of 3%, which equates to about 1 kid in 20 gaining a grade. 
Also, as we got to know any course by reading - closely - the Chief Examiner's Report, we realised what precisely they were looking for, we could tailor our teaching more effectively. 
So, you, with your superficial, designed-to-be-inflammatory, patronising outlook "can't undetstand what"s going on"?? 

"Go fish!" sunshine. Back under yer bridge. 

Sam


----------



## Rorschach (19 Aug 2020)

SammyQ said:


> So, dear Troll, you dont believe that teachers are not under pressure to improve 'their' grades every year? My Board of Governors insisted this year after year. A minimum of 3%, which equates to about 1 kid in 20 gaining a grade.
> Also, as we got to know any course by reading - closely - the Chief Examiner's Report, we realised what precisely they were looking for, we could tailor our teaching more effectively.
> So, you, with your superficial, designed-to-be-inflammatory, patronising outlook "can't undetstand what"s going on"??
> 
> ...



It was a genuine question as I really don't get it, conflicting reporting on the news so I asked your opinion since you are a teacher, why couldn't you give a genuine and polite answer? Would you treat a student that way? Please don't be another one like Roger and Lons.


----------



## SammyQ (19 Aug 2020)

Learn to read. I HAVE answered you. Two clear, unambiguous points. 

*" Please don't be another one like Roger and Lons. "* What a compliment!!!

Sam


----------



## doctor Bob (19 Aug 2020)

SammyQ said:


> Also, as we got to know any course by reading - closely - the Chief Examiner's Report, we realised what precisely they were looking for, we could tailor our teaching more effectively.



I find this disheartening.


----------



## AJB Temple (19 Aug 2020)

Please can we all be civil. 

Relying on teachers inevitably creates grade inflation. It is reasonable and logical. Here is why. Let us suppose a teacher has 20 students. 4 of them are capable of getting an A in a given stem subject. But from experience historically two students will perform at least as expected and two will be overcome by nerves, forgetfulness or whatever and get a B. But the teacher has no idea which two. Hence the teacher, in grade predictions must rate all four as grade A. This is entirely fair and reasonable for all four. But in a real exam two will still get a B. 

In the current environment, all four will get an A. Two will be undeserving, but we don't know yet which two. Eventually both intellect and consistency will out. Either the university will discover it, or an employer will. 

Where I went, the professors knew straight away pretty much, who was clever and who was sub par. The example works best at the right side of the bell curve where the top 5 or so universities pick their candidates for medicine, veterinary science, mathematics, law etc. The variance decreases at the apex of the bell curve. 

Grade inflation of circa 8% (which I think is what is being suggested as being at least the level this year) will result in employers and universities being much more sceptical around the B/C area I suspect.


----------



## Jake (19 Aug 2020)

doctor Bob said:


> I sort of understood the venom on the brexit thread (leave remain), don't get it on here though, seems very odd and personal.


The common theme is about making people worse off (and dead counts I suppose).


----------



## SammyQ (19 Aug 2020)

doctor Bob said:


> I find this disheartening.


 Bob, it is not - for one moment - that we were teaching answers parrot-fashion, or teaching to a preferred format, but rather that the differences between the higher grades were subtle; they depended on a candidate's ability to discriminate - in detail - between closely related facts in the knowledge body. 
The Chief Examiner's Report highlighted those modes of thinking and enabled us to teach pupils how to differentiate as they were expected to do, and as the universities expected them to be able to in *their* courses. 
We could not possibly teach them all possible versions of an answer, but we could enable the versatility of thinking to give them the capacity to synthesise novel answers in an exam, under time and presentation pressures. 

HTH, Sam


----------



## Rorschach (20 Aug 2020)

Thanks AJB for that explanation.

Based on what I have heard on the news, it would appear that without the moderation the grades were far higher than they should be, the obvious conclusion being that teachers are at worst over inflating the grades or at best giving students the benefit of the doubt in tough times. Regardless that leads to grade inflation which is normal but at a high level is bad. It would seem the correction for it though has not worked well either for a lot of students.

I don't know what needs to be done to sort this but just using teachers grades doesn't seem to be the answer. If a student has inflated grades and the university doesn't discover it until they start their course you are going to have large numbers of students failing their degree having spent an awful lot of money and putting themselves into debt for no gain.


----------



## lurker (20 Aug 2020)

It’s a good job this did not happen when I was at school,because all of my teachers were constantly telling me that I would amount to nothing.


----------



## SammyQ (20 Aug 2020)

*" Based on what I have heard on the news, it would appear that without the moderation the grades were far higher than they should be, the obvious conclusion being that teachers are at worst over inflating the grades or at best giving students the benefit of the doubt in tough times. "*

Dear, dear, dear, 'horse to water' comes to mind. You just cannot accept and assimilate information? Hmmmm? 

Moderation conferences, involving hundreds of teachers across the country, take place BEFORE grades are awarded. The 'moderation' you are referring to is slapping the title (wrongly) an ass-covering, blame-deflection exercise by a group of gratuitously-priveleged, inadequate, incompetents. It was done in an attempt to deflect attention from the lack-lustre and lacking-cerebrally Williamson.

Secondly, If what you are prosthelytising were remotely true, teachers' reputation would be in tatters and the courts would be jam-packed with cases of aggrieved parents claiming damages. My profession is one deeply, deeply, invested in child care and utterly committed to seeing our charges' progression in this world. To suggest - as you are doing - that we are 'snake oil' purveyors, is baseless, inflammatory garbage. Shame on you.

Sam


----------



## Rorschach (20 Aug 2020)

Ok you seem to have your own agenda here where you read what you want to read. You don't seem to want to have a proper discussion, you just want to attack someone you don't like, whatever they say. That's fine, but I won't be a part of it. Have a good day.

Going back to the topic on hand. Local news reported that in the entire Westcountry region (Bristol to Penzance) there are only 3 people currently hospitalised with C19 and there hasn't been a death in over 6 weeks. Very strange given the demographic of the region.


----------



## RogerS (20 Aug 2020)

SammyQ said:


> *" Based on what I have heard on the news, it would appear that without the moderation the grades were far higher than they should be, the obvious conclusion being that teachers are at worst over inflating the grades or at best giving students the benefit of the doubt in tough times. "*
> 
> .... Shame on you.
> 
> Sam



It's par for the course, Sam. It's called trolling. Why not put him on Ignore ? It works a treat.


----------



## SammyQ (20 Aug 2020)

Just did Roger. Waste of time and energy. 

Cheers, Sam.


----------



## Rorschach (20 Aug 2020)

Please feel free to put me on ignore, but if you do, please don't act like Roger and keep sniping at me, it's very sad, you might even call it trolling ironically.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (20 Aug 2020)

SammyQ said:


> My profession is one deeply, deeply, invested in child care and utterly committed to seeing our charges' progression in this world. To suggest - as you are doing - that we are 'snake oil' purveyors, is baseless, inflammatory garbage. Shame on you.


Whilst I imagine not too many of us here can lay claim to being teachers per se, we have, all of us, extensive experience of teachers from being students, and then most of us later as parents. You may struggle to get everyone to agree that all, or even most teachers subscribe to your loft ideals.









Top results at A-level almost double under new system


Today’s data shows there have been increases in all grades on last year




feweek.co.uk







> The proportion of A*s awarded to A-level pupils has almost doubled – revised results released today show.
> Exams regulator Ofqual has released data on GCSE and A-levels today after the government U-turned to award pupils their centre-assessed grade or the grade calculated for them by exam boards – whichever is higher.
> The data shows the percentage of A* grades has risen from 7.7 per cent in 2019, to 14.3 per cent in 2020.
> Under the calculated grade system, the results of which were released last week, the percentage of A* grades only rose to 8.9 per cent.
> ...



What I don't understand is the suggestion that teachers have not over-inflated these results. Is it just an unfortunate coincidence that the Coronavirus struck the very year that there was a near doubling of ability in UK students? Purely coincidental? Can you give me a reason for these results that isn't based on teachers providing higher scores than their students would earn from exams? It might not be that the teachers have done this on purpose: it might be incompetence rather than an a selfish desire to inflate their own performance. Is their another explanation? I am not a teacher, so I might have failed to consider a perfectly sensible, reasonable explanation as to why the one year teachers get to rate the performance of their student, the proportion who get A or A* has almost most doubled?

If I had taken my A Levels last year I would be particularly peeved. Anyone who took their exams 20 years ago or more already knows that current exam results are laughably higher than they used to be. Here's an article from 2008 confirming the inexorable increase in grades, but not performance: A-levels 'now two grades easier than 20 years ago'

Oh, and if the above are demonstrable facts (feel free to show me that they are wrong), does this still come under the heading of trolling? I disagree with you, therefore I am a troll? I particularly don't want to fight over this, but I also don't understand your position that teachers have not enhanced their students' results. Or is that not your position?[/Quote]


----------



## Rorschach (20 Aug 2020)

The GCSE results mirror the A-level results from last week, massive increase in attainment without moderation. 

I don't think that the system they used for moderating A-levels was right, clearly some students were penalised from the anecdotal evidence presented on the radio phone in shows last week, students predicted to get A or A* getting dropped to C or less. However there is clearly some need for moderation.


----------



## doctor Bob (20 Aug 2020)

I predict a big problem in this coming year with students now being over confident about their ability. University drop outs and struggling with A levels which are very different to GCSE's. 
Sam, are you seriously saying you believe their has been no inflation of grades, if you genuinely think there hasn't I urge you to speak to the statistics teacher, I think there has been a massive over inflation, however I do think it's the fairest way.
All the kids I know think Boris is a legend.


----------



## Trevanion (20 Aug 2020)

You know, when I got my GCSE results I don't think I ever really thought about them ever again after that day and I can't tell you exactly what I got off the top of my head but I know I got a B, a couple of Cs, a couple of Ds and a couple of Es, and a BTEC. I've never been asked for them beyond the college application.

Kinda wish I could have the last two years of my life in school given back to me to be honest, a total waste of _my_ time which could've been better spent elsewhere without the bloody pressure and stress of "You must do well otherwise you'll fail at life" all the damn time.


----------



## SammyQ (20 Aug 2020)

doctor Bob said:


> I predict a big problem in this coming year with students now being over confident about their ability. University drop outs and struggling with A levels which are very different to GCSE's.
> Sam, are you seriously saying you believe their has been no inflation of grades, if you genuinely think there hasn't I urge you to speak to the statistics teacher, I think there has been a massive over inflation, however I do think it's the fairest way.
> All the kids I know think Boris is a legend.





doctor Bob said:


> I predict a big problem in this coming year with students now being over confident about their ability. University drop outs and struggling with A levels which are very different to GCSE's.
> Sam, are you seriously saying you believe their has been no inflation of grades, if you genuinely think there hasn't I urge you to speak to the statistics teacher, I think there has been a massive over inflation, however I do think it's the fairest way.
> All the kids I know think Boris is a legend.


Bob, I will be honest: if the same safeguards of a) centre moderation and b) external moderation, of coursework has taken place, with English boards, as they did with my board (CCEA), the chances for inflation were slim. You were SO scrutinised, you could not 'pull a fast one'; in fact, the year before I retired, CCEA applied a two grade penalty to ALL pupil coursework for my subject in two geographically separated schools, where lax grading had been going on. 
The Examiners'Marking Conference worked to similar rigour, and published diagnostic marking guides every year. So, when we set exams as Mocks, we had a stringent guide for awarding marks. 
There IS 'inflation'between Mocks and the real exams, in that everybody usually improves! The C and D candidates can go up by two grades, the A and B candidates by one grade. This is probably because Mocks happen with no pause in teaching, but the 'real things' are preceded by Study Leave of some weeks, thus giving a better run at the exams. 
Something that has been overlooked in all this, is how schools are percieved by the universities. If St. Anastasia's Academy regularly 'blags' in predicted grades to get pupils UCAS offers, and the kids then fail to achieve, then St. Anastasia's very quickly loses credibility with application panels and acquires a dubious reputation! There is simply no mileage in falsifying or hyping grades and abilities, as it is a quickly seen-through ploy. 
I concur with you in that I too believe that 'Covid Year Kids' are going to have a very strange tertiary education. Not necessarily that they "have been promoted beyond their capabilities", but rather that their enforced distance learning and denial of 'normal' student high density social activity will make them different from what graduated before.

Sam


----------



## Terry - Somerset (21 Aug 2020)

Normally at this time of year the news is full of 18 year olds upset because they did not get the grades they wanted and need to go through clearing.

This year they all get the grades they expected and all (in theory) could get to go to the university they were offered place at.

The original proposition from Ofqual was that grade would be moderated to produce a grade distribution similar to previous years. 

So I think the U turn on grades has just shifted the problem downstream - top universities almost certainly made offers to students based on a broad assumption that a percentage will fail to get the grades. They may now have more students than they have the capacity to take. 

Overall it is a shambles that could have been avoided - the pressures and outcomes were entirely predicatble 5 months ago!


----------



## Rorschach (21 Aug 2020)

You are right Terry it is a shambles but we mustn't put any blame on teachers, they are never at fault for anything remember.


----------



## SammyQ (21 Aug 2020)

*" Overall it is a shambles that could have been avoided - the pressures and outcomes were entirely predicatble 5 months ago!* "

Absolutely Terry.

Sam


----------



## doctor Bob (21 Aug 2020)

I wonder how the kids sitting A and GCSE's this coming year will fair.


----------



## Rorschach (21 Aug 2020)

doctor Bob said:


> I wonder how the kids sitting A and GCSE's this coming year will fair.



Poorly I would imagine. The kids who would have sat exams this year had basically finished their schooling before lockdown. Those sitting exams end school for study leave around Easter so they missed about a month of their schooling. Those sitting exams next year have missed 4-5 months of proper school and depending on their teachers and socioeconomic status will either have had excellent home learning or non existent learning. When they do back to school in a few weeks it is going to be some horror show of pointless social distancing and disruption. 
It wouldn't surprise me if their grades have to be moderated upwards to account for the inflation from this year.


----------



## Garno (21 Aug 2020)

I actually agree with Rorschach in that the results this year are bordering on farcical.

It is a shame really because there will be so many youngsters who will get a very rude wake up call over the next couple of years when it becomes apparent that they do not have what it takes to pass any degree's or A levels they may choose. Obviously this will not happen to all of the students that have a good mark but it will affect a number of them. This years grading will be remembered for many years for the wrong reasons and as a result will have an adverse effect on those who have passed on their own merits.

The media will be stoking the flames for many years to come.


----------



## Rorschach (21 Aug 2020)

Careful now agreeing with me, you will get in trouble 

The problem I see is two fold. Students who deserved good grades but got marked down will now suffer by not being able to reach their potential as they might have lost a university place or been forced to do a course they didn't want to do. Not only might they suffer academically but also from a morale standpoint, it could really set their confidence back.
Students who might have now been inflated beyond what they actually achieved may end up wasting money on a course they are not capable of completing and could fail or do very poorly. While this won't necessarily set them back academically it will do terrible things to their morale.


----------



## Rorschach (24 Aug 2020)

Right back to one of the original topics here, kids and schools.

Listened to the news today, people worried about kids going back next week, government bashing as usual. Scottish government has sent the kids back (no government bashing there, shocker! ) and Scotland now talking about face masks for the kids, I wonder if the people that came up with that have ever met a child?
Meanwhile in Sweden they must be baffled at the fuss we are going to, schools never closed there.


----------



## Droogs (24 Aug 2020)

Quarantinewhile, at a school in Dundee, 22 of the staff have just tested positive along with many pupils and some visitors to the school and it has now been shut down for a least a fortnight


----------



## Lons (25 Aug 2020)

Rorschach said:


> Meanwhile in Sweden they must be baffled at the fuss we are going to, schools never closed there.



Hmm.. There are other opinions on Sweden such as this in the New Scientist which claims they have done no better and sometimes worse than countries who enforced lockdown rather than their voluntary one which being Swedes the general public complied with. Economic and travel figures are interesting as well.

There's always more than one side to a story.








Is Sweden's coronavirus strategy a cautionary tale or a success story?


Despite claims that soft lockdown was a good idea, so far Sweden has had more covid-19 related deaths than its Scandinavian neighbours with little difference in economic slowdown




www.newscientist.com


----------



## rafezetter (26 Aug 2020)

Rorschach said:


> Not envy, it's just the people here with money and comfort are always "I'm alright Jack" and don't care about those suffering. Maybe rich was the wrong word, lets change it for " those who have no money worries".
> 
> Again the personal insults, why can't you be civil like the vast majority on here. Even those who don't like what I say are still civil and polite in their disagreements as I am with them. It's a small group here that have to resort to personal attacks and it saddens me, why must you do it?




I don't know rorshcach, maybe it was the whole "I'm happy to let [old] people die so that I don't lose any money from an enforced lockdown" you kept spouting repeatedly that got some peoples backs up - or possibly the "I don't think wearing masks makes any difference" - or quite possibly it might have been the one where you claimed that the enforced lockdown killed more people via other means (suicide and medical situations) than if no lockdown had happened - but I could be guessing.....

It might be new owners of the forum rorschach, but you do know it's still US you are talking to and we have memory spans longer than a few days, so don't play the "holier than thou" card with us eh? it'll just annoy people even more.

Edit - here's a question that's been bouncing around for a while, does anyone here remember seeing any actual WOODWORK from rorscach? Any projects or WIP's?


----------



## Rorschach (29 Aug 2020)

For those who might have watched the first interview here is a follow up with Michael Levitt. Very interesting to see where he went wrong but also how right he was in so many areas.


----------



## doctor Bob (29 Aug 2020)

rafezetter said:


> Edit - here's a question that's been bouncing around for a while, does anyone here remember seeing any actual WOODWORK from rorscach? Any projects or WIP's?



Is it necessary to post up stuff, not a lot of members do.


----------



## doctor Bob (30 Aug 2020)

Just getting silly now, lecturers ******** themselves....... Just like care homes .......... NO!!!
1 death today.
This is now beyond my comprehension of ***********.
Pure scaremongery now by the broadcasters.


----------



## Trainee neophyte (31 Aug 2020)

Even the Daily Fail is struggling to keep the pandemic panic going: Pockets of New York and London 'could have herd immunity' to Covid-19

It all comes down to whether there is already any inbuilt immunity to this virus, or there isn't. One school of thought says 80-100% of people have to catch the virus, with its associated megadeath consequences. 

Another school of thought suggests that 15-20% of the population are susceptible - the remainder have some to full immuniy through previous encounters with similar viruses, plus built in generic defenses.


----------



## RogerS (31 Aug 2020)

doctor Bob said:


> Is it necessary to post up stuff, not a lot of members do.


No, but then again most members aren't Super-Trolls. Or a Used Lingerie Salesman as he professes to be according to his avatar.


----------



## RogerS (31 Aug 2020)

doctor Bob said:


> Just getting silly now, lecturers ********* themselves....... Just like care homes .......... NO!!!
> 1 death today.
> This is now beyond my comprehension of ***********.
> Pure scaremongery now by the broadcasters.



Wow.....so you really ARE a Doctor. I never realised. So we can all safely ignore anything that SAGE says. Phew..that's a relief. Covid is a myth. All down to 5G. Rest easy. Doctor Bob says it's all hot air and nothing be concerned about.


----------



## Rorschach (31 Aug 2020)

They need to keep up the fear otherwise they will be shown to have overreacted and cost the country (world) a fortune thanks to lockdowns that were never needed.
Countries that had lockdowns and countries that didn't are all starting to head toward a similar % of deaths. Countries like NZ that locked down very effectively now have a choice to make, stay isolated or allow some deaths.


----------



## Blackswanwood (31 Aug 2020)

doctor Bob said:


> Just getting silly now, lecturers ********* themselves....... Just like care homes .......... NO!!!
> 1 death today.
> This is now beyond my comprehension of ***********.
> Pure scaremongery now by the broadcasters.



I did pinch myself when I saw someone spouting on about universities being the next care homes ... presumably they missed that people in care homes are in a high risk category and the vast majority of students are not. If it was a lecturer who said it and I rocked up at university and found them teaching me I think I'd be looking for a rebate on my fees. In my opinion universities and schools need to crack on and do the best they can, make provision for those who are high risk (defer a year/remote tutoring?) and accept that there is no perfect answer. 

In fairness I think the broadcasters are just doing their job and have to present both sides of the argument but in general we filter out the bits we don't want to hear. The BBC have been doing some pretty good "myth buster" stuff throughout - for instance, I saw one on the app yesterday about the returning to school argument.

Have you seen any impact on business yet Bob? My wife is a director of a small house builder (small company not small houses) and they have seen no let up in demand and are faced with a decision about what to commit on for next year which they are finding really difficult.


----------



## doctor Bob (31 Aug 2020)

Blackswanwood said:


> Have you seen any impact on business yet Bob? My wife is a director of a small house builder (small company not small houses) and they have seen no let up in demand and are faced with a decision about what to commit on for next year which they are finding really difficult.



It's all good at present, which I'm amazed by. However I'm also amazed by people in or associated with "construction" attitude to the future, everyone seems to think it's going to be rosey and great for ever, I think the opposite, we just tend to lag behind a bit.
I have taken the opportunity to have a tidy up business wise, return one of our trucks which was just a vanity object, condense the workforce and let some subbies go.


----------



## Rorschach (1 Sep 2020)

Watching the news this evening there is all doom and gloom as usual, pushing the fear agenda. But then they give the daily figures and it's just such a non-event. Thousands of cases every week now, a handful of deaths. 3 deaths in the last 24 hours, not directly C19 related, just within 28days of a positive test and somehow we are all meant to be worried? We might as well say no-one is dying of C19 as that's basically what the figures show.
With the way things are surely we should be encouraging the spread, it's clear that whatever is spreading at the moment is nothing to be worried about at all.


----------



## Rorschach (8 Sep 2020)

After a mid July low of 350 cases we have seen a steady rise to now regularly more than 1500 cases a day, deaths since July though continue to stay so low that most days you can count them on your fingers. Still the media hype continues though and local lockdowns being enforced even though the first of these (Leicester) saw no additional deaths or hospitalisations from their apparent increases in cases.
The madness continues.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (8 Sep 2020)

Very simplistic.

The growth in cases - current levels 2900, not 1500, is principally amongst the young who are relatively unaffected by the virus.

Over 80 age group case levels have actually declined and others over 60 have only marginally increased. Infection levels amongst the 60+ are approx 30% of younger groups.

Deaths will also typically follow infection by around 2-4 weeks so comparing current deaths with current cases is incorrect.

There is much we still don't know about the virus - is it mutating to become less dangerous, is testing incorrectly detecting dead virus, do certain groups have some immunity anyway, will vaccine work etc etc.

Some are happy to buy in to whichever sources echo their views of covid reality. Mostly they are ill-informed self publicists. A few have some scientific credibilty but are standing alone in their beliefs.

We should aim to be rather more balanced in our responses to the virus 

it will not, with sensible management and behaviours, wipe out humanity, 
there is a price to be paid - economic and social - for restrictions
the complacent "the madness continues", "it's all a conspiracy", "flu is worse" are risking overwhelming resources if they are proved wrong.


----------



## Rorschach (9 Sep 2020)

Terry - Somerset said:


> Deaths will also typically follow infection by around 2-4 weeks so comparing current deaths with current cases is incorrect.



Cases have been increasing for more than 9 weeks since the early summer low point, deaths have continued to fall in that period. Explain that?

I heard Hancock on the radio this morning, more new restrictions coming in to "simplify" the rules. More farce and more fear mongering.


----------



## MikeK (5 Nov 2020)

This thread required a lot of moderation, so it is now locked.


----------

