Coronavirus

[Chris152]

........I am trying to figure out if there is in fact a marked increase in the death rate, or is it that those people that have died (sorry to say) would have succumbed at some point, but unluckily were taken early by Covid-19 instead..........

Sorry to have to break it to you Steve, but we're all going to die at some point.

I'm still scarred by the memory of my big brother and his mate telling me that we all die some day. I guess it's a realisation that scars most of us one way or another. Fortunately for me, when i ran home to mum in tears she told me that she and dad made me like Peter Pan so I wouldn't have to. I feel for the rest of you though.

 

[FatmanG]

Just a suggestion.

As executions/floggings etc have nothing at all to do with C19 would it be a good idea that they be taken to another thread for those interested?

I for one will avoid such a thread as I wouldn’t want to offend those who support the notion that it works with my pseudo liberal, third party apologist and whatever the third one was that Roger has labelled me with.

This thread does have a tendency to go beyond debate and get quite vitriolic. I thought (as per the rules) this is supposed to be a friendly forum where members respected the views of others.

Happy Easter.

It probably is slightly too much of a divergence from the topic. Mind you, I can't see any grounds for people getting hot under the collar i.e. it's not difficult to maintain a friendly atmosphere.

Being called pseudo liberals or whatever for not wanting to see people hanged is hardly friendly and when several are calling for murder then it goes far beyond friendly. For the 2nd or 3rd time in this thread i have to write the words middle classes and not having a clue. But I am a friendly guy and I would just like to see the advocation of murder when we all are at risk a topic for elsewhere/other times.
FG

 

[Andy Kev.]

Being called pseudo liberals or whatever for not wanting to see people hanged is hardly friendly and when several are calling for murder then it goes far beyond friendly. For the 2nd or 3rd time in this thread i have to write the words middle classes and not having a clue. But I am a friendly guy and I would just like to see the advocation of murder when we all are at risk a topic for elsewhere/other times.
FG

Terms are bandied about on all sides of most debates which reflect the individual psyches and/or emotional states of those using them. We're all better served if the former defers to rational argument and the latter is recognised as often being a poor counsellor. In addition, if we assume that the people we are discussing/arguing with are almost certainly friendly, decent people, we should be able to discuss any topic without causing or taking offence, even where the most flatly contradictory views are held.

For instance: when I read the Guardian's comment section, I often find myself wondering how it is that people that thick/bitter/twisted etc. are being given the credibility afforded them by being allowed to have their views put in a national newspaper. Now were I to say that to any of those commentators, they would quite reasonably be offended as it would be unnecessarily rude. And FWIW my personal policy is that when people reach the intellectual depths of the average Guardianista, I tend not to engage with them: closed minds and all that. The same can be said of course of many a Daily Mail commentator.

In contrast, on here I assume a level of good will and honesty and I only avoid discussion when the emotional silliness starts. Therefore we should be able to keep the temperature down and civility and friendliness at normal levels.

 

[Woody2Shoes]

For instance: when I read the Guardian's comment section, I often find myself wondering how it is that people that thick/bitter/twisted etc. are being given the credibility afforded them by being allowed to have their views put in a national newspaper.

Until the last ten years ive been a lifelong tory voter and a close relative received an mbe for services to the conservative party and yet I frequently feel the same way you say you do when I read some of the junk in the Telegraph. The tory party has lurched to the right in recent years.

 

[Andy Kev.]

For instance: when I read the Guardian's comment section, I often find myself wondering how it is that people that thick/bitter/twisted etc. are being given the credibility afforded them by being allowed to have their views put in a national newspaper.

Until the last ten years ive been a lifelong tory voter and a close relative received an mbe for services to the conservative party and yet I frequently feel the same way you say you do when I read some of the junk in the Telegraph. The tory party has lurched to the right in recent years.

We've got to be careful about getting into politics here. There seems to be a consensus emerging to the effect that the old left/right battle lines are increasingly blurred. The movement that shows the most flexibility and is most in tune with the electorate is IMO most likely to come out on top. If you're disillusioned with the DT, try The Spectator. It's never less than thought provoking and it's pitched at a far more thoughtful readership.

 

[Chris152]

We've got to be careful about getting into politics here.

For instance: when I read the Guardian's comment section, I often find myself wondering how it is that people that thick/bitter/twisted etc. are being given the credibility afforded them by being allowed to have their views put in a national newspaper.

:lol:

 

[FatmanG]

Being called pseudo liberals or whatever for not wanting to see people hanged is hardly friendly and when several are calling for murder then it goes far beyond friendly. For the 2nd or 3rd time in this thread i have to write the words middle classes and not having a clue. But I am a friendly guy and I would just like to see the advocation of murder when we all are at risk a topic for elsewhere/other times.
FG

Terms are bandied about on all sides of most debates which reflect the individual psyches and/or emotional states of those using them. We're all better served if the former defers to rational argument and the latter is recognised as often being a poor counsellor. In addition, if we assume that the people we are discussing/arguing with are almost certainly friendly, decent people, we should be able to discuss any topic without causing or taking offence, even where the most flatly contradictory views are held.

For instance: when I read the Guardian's comment section, I often find myself wondering how it is that people that thick/bitter/twisted etc. are being given the credibility afforded them by being allowed to have their views put in a national newspaper. Now were I to say that to any of those commentators, they would quite reasonably be offended as it would be unnecessarily rude. And FWIW my personal policy is that when people reach the intellectual depths of the average Guardianista, I tend not to engage with them: closed minds and all that. The same can be said of course of many a Daily Mail commentator.

In contrast, on here I assume a level of good will and honesty and I only avoid discussion when the emotional silliness starts. Therefore we should be able to keep the temperature down and civility and friendliness at normal levels.

Thats fair comment but in this instance we are talking about very emotive issues that have directly affected a good few of us in some way and therefore emotions will run high and maybe it's a topic best suited to another time once the curve has been flattened and we are not seeing friends and loved ones at such risk and stress levels maybe a little lower.
FG

 

[Andy Kev.]

We've got to be careful about getting into politics here.

For instance: when I read the Guardian's comment section, I often find myself wondering how it is that people that thick/bitter/twisted etc. are being given the credibility afforded them by being allowed to have their views put in a national newspaper.

:lol:

There's no politics there. I could have just as easily written that about e.g. Daily Mail. It's the quality of the commentary of which I despair, not particularly the sentiments which it represents.

 

[Andy Kev.]

Thats fair comment but in this instance we are talking about very emotive issues that have directly affected a good few of us in some way and therefore emotions will run high and maybe it's a topic best suited to another time once the curve has been flattened and we are not seeing friends and loved ones at such risk and stress levels maybe a little lower.
FG

Agreed and it is for those very reasons that I think it best to have a good look in the mirror of our emotions before posting in a calm and reasonable way. I'm sure we're all capable of that. You know the old idea: "Count to ten before you say anything!"

 

[FatmanG]

Thats fair comment but in this instance we are talking about very emotive issues that have directly affected a good few of us in some way and therefore emotions will run high and maybe it's a topic best suited to another time once the curve has been flattened and we are not seeing friends and loved ones at such risk and stress levels maybe a little lower.
FG

Agreed and it is for those very reasons that I think it best to have a good look in the mirror of our emotions before posting in a calm and reasonable way. I'm sure we're all capable of that. You know the old idea: "Count to ten before you say anything!"

I shall try and remember that as i am sometimes guilty

 

[Chris152]

We've got to be careful about getting into politics here.

For instance: when I read the Guardian's comment section, I often find myself wondering how it is that people that thick/bitter/twisted etc. are being given the credibility afforded them by being allowed to have their views put in a national newspaper.

:lol:

There's no politics there. I could have just as easily written that about e.g. Daily Mail. It's the quality of the commentary of which I despair, not particularly the sentiments which it represents.

You might be able to get away with writing that you didn't intend there to be any politics there, or that you were unaware of the politics - which is probably more accurate. So many of your posts are saturated politically, A-K; what I find so funny is that you seem blissfully unaware of it.

 

[Andy Kev.]

You might be able to get away with writing that you didn't intend there to be any politics there, or that you were unaware of the politics - which is probably more accurate. So many of your posts are saturated politically, A-K; what I find so funny is that you seem blissfully unaware of it.

In that case it might be helpful to decide what we mean by politics. I well remember the humanities clowns of my undergraduate days trotting out the tired old cliche that, "everything is political, maaan". A lazy notion convenient for the hard of thinking.

For most of us, most of the time, I suspect that we can agree that being political is when you are pushing a particular party political line. So for instance, although we associate the idea of wanting to reintroduce capital punishment with the right of centre, it is perfectly possible for somebody who is left of centre to share that view.

However, if OTH we want to redistribute all wealth etc. we are specifically following a left wing line just as much as we would be specifically following a right wing line if we wanted to have no constraints whatsoever on capitalism and wanted to do away with all aspects of the welfare state.

I picked on the Guardian comments column not because it is left wing but because it is a byword for a kind of silliness that often makes the transition into high comedy. There are Guardian commentators for whom I have a lot of time e.g. John Harris. I also quite like Marina Hyde although I'm convinced that where most people have blood flowing in their veins, she has a rich supply of vinegar.

 

[Blackswanwood]

Guys, what has any of this got to do with C19?

 

[Chris152]

Guys, what has any of this got to do with C19?

Nothing - apologies.

 

[Andy Kev.]

Guys, what has any of this got to do with C19?

Yep, you're right. End of.

 

[Inoffthered]

Guys, what has any of this got to do with C19?

Well in an attempt to tie recent comments back to the covid malarky, the shortcomings of journalists and political commentators has been exposed in the daily press meetings.
The questions raised by some of the journalists reveal a huge political bias, an apparent intent to avoid the real questions that should be asked and juvenile attempts to get politicians to "give a guarantee" on a situation that is volatile and subject to change.

With regards to the PPE question, the government should get the head of NHS procurement involved in the next press conference and let him explain to the media why the NHS is so woefully unprepared and why they did nothing to get PPE stuff in when news of the pandemic broke last year. To listen to some of the "journalists" you would be forgiven for thinking that Boris is sitting on the purchase order book and refusing to buy anything. The reality is that the NHS has a huge procurement operation that increasingly appears to be unfit for purpose....and before anyone starts bleating about austerity consider this as an example of skewed priorities. At the beginning of the Corvid 19 crisis, the NHS was advertising for "Diversity managers" on a salary range of £45k to £55K!

The media seems intent on dragging up so called experts to slag off the government. In a recent Question Time the Beeb wheeled in Professor Ashton describing him as a health expert blah blah (but failing to mention that he was labour party activist). It is worth watching his performance on QT, a more ignorant and ill mannered individual but be difficult to find...even Fiona Bruse was getting fed up with constant sniping and interruptions. The real issue however, is that having pontificated on what the government had done wrong, it subsequently transpired that the government policy had followed exactly what he he had been lecturing the government to do six weeks prior.

The media should also be asking questions regarding the circumstances, source and timing of the release of the virus and the accuracy of the reports emerging from China, the role of the WHO and whether it is a body that is fit for purpose.

Unfortunately, we have a press sector that seem intent on wanting guarantees about when the death toll will fall etc simply so that when the actual outcome is different they can use the answer as a stick to beat the politicians on the basis that their "guarantee" was too high (outrageous, you were being too pessimistic, are you going to resign) or too low (outrageous, you were being too optimistic, are you going to resign).

The levels of knowledge of some is woefully low. In a recent interview Peston was pontificating about the governments terrible record on testing (in that rather affected and louche way that Peston has developed) explaining where the government had gone wrong and what they should be doing. Unfortunately for him there was a medical expert from one of the universities also on the programme who listened politely to what he had to say before totally demolishing his argument and gently explained why Peston had confused his facts, was totally wrong and mixing tests for the existence of the virus with tests to prove that someone had had the virus. It was the most gentle and effective re-eduction of a self important media expert and it certainly put Peston back in his box. Did Peston acknowledge his error? No, he moaned on twitter that he thought the Prof was rude and aggressive , a totally false accusation.

It is a sad fact that many newspapers (and the BBC) have ceased to be reporters of news but have become political pressure groups (especially the BBC).

 

[Andy Kev.]

The levels of knowledge of some is woefully low. In a recent interview Peston was pontificating about the governments terrible record on testing (in that rather affected and louche way that Peston has developed) explaining where the government had gone wrong and what they should be doing. Unfortunately for him there was a medical expert from one of the universities also on the programme who listened politely to what he had to say before totally demolishing his argument and gently explained why Peston had confused his facts, was totally wrong and mixing tests for the existence of the virus with tests to prove that someone had had the virus. It was the most gentle and effective re-eduction of a self important media expert and it certainly put Peston back in his box. Did Peston acknowledge his error? No, he moaned on twitter that he thought the Prof was rude and aggressive , a totally false accusation.

It is a sad fact that many newspapers (and the BBC) have ceased to be reporters of news but have become political pressure groups (especially the BBC).

Never underestimate the sense of self-importance of overpaid media commentators. Some see themselves as the high priests of the temple of public debate.

I was once sat next to one such type in a helicopter in Bosnia and he was doing a tour of all the major HQs. He pompously informed me that he was there to decide what was really going on as he wrote "opinion-forming" books on current affairs. As the conversation went on it became clear that he wasn't even near the beginning of understanding what was going on and I could see no reason to believe that a whistle stop tour of the place was going to change that fact.

 

[MikeG.]

In my previous life I met journalists all the time, and, like woodworkers, there was a huge spectrum. From the know-nothings looking for sleaze to the intellectual, rational and honest looking to report events faithfully. The vast majority, however, clustered around the middle, with only a weak idea of what was happening, a drive to fit whatever they saw or heard into a pre-determined narrative, using interviews only as a source of out-of-context quotes, interviewing by reading through their list of pre-written questions with no reference to what was actually said to them, and above all, an ability to get their copy in seconds before the deadline.

 

[RobinBHM]

Andy Kev wrote:

Now were I to say that to any of those commentators, they would quite reasonably be offended as it would be unnecessarily rude. And FWIW my personal policy is that when people reach the intellectual depths of the average Guardianista, I tend not to engage with them: closed minds and all that.

horses for courses, you have in the past quoted from the Telegraph, which is a propaganda machine and is known for misrepresenting facts.

 

[Woody2Shoes]

For instance: when I read the Guardian's comment section, I often find myself wondering how it is that people that thick/bitter/twisted etc. are being given the credibility afforded them by being allowed to have their views put in a national newspaper.

Until the last ten years ive been a lifelong tory voter and a close relative received an mbe for services to the conservative party and yet I frequently feel the same way you say you do when I read some of the junk in the Telegraph. The tory party has lurched to the right in recent years.

We've got to be careful about getting into politics here. There seems to be a consensus emerging to the effect that the old left/right battle lines are increasingly blurred. The movement that shows the most flexibility and is most in tune with the electorate is IMO most likely to come out on top. If you're disillusioned with the DT, try The Spectator. It's never less than thought provoking and it's pitched at a far more thoughtful readership.

The speccy's owned by the same people as the tgraph and the writing is only a little better than the economist.