Hancock's Half Hour

[Andy Kev.]

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]

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.

Just like the brexit thread

 

[Blackswanwood]

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]

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

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.]

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]

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]

... 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.