Coronavirus - political views - supporting or otherwise...

SocketRocket

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
15,054
Paul did, which was what prompted my reply. I am not being party political on this in any way and I resent the accusation. I have praised the government on this thread where it was merited. I am merely commenting on the situation and each aspect of it as I see it

And of course I don't think they wanted a high death rate. What a ridiculous thing to say. They made some massive mistakes early on that have proven very costly. It's reasonable to be able to point that out without being called out for it by partisans such as yourself.
I do owe you an apology. I have Paul on 'Ignore' so dont see his posts, this does sometimes create a disjointing in some threads, your post came over in a different context.
Again, my apologies.
 

Hacker Khan

Yurt Dwelling, Yoghurt Knitter
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
9,097
Like South Korea?
Yes, they did well initially but a few days ago there were reports that they have had to re-introduce lockdown because the easing has put up infection rate.
I'm not criticising them, just pointing out that this is unknown territory for all nations, and I think all nations are trying their best as they see it.
I am presently watching the South news about the numpties at the beaches in
Dorset. The silly BBC are still wittering on about the government message not being clear in the face if their reports showing how the people at those beaches are not giving a damn about SD , or respect for local residents, or the beach( rubbish strewn anywhere) etc.
Clearly, they know what they should or should not do, but they are doing whatever they want, and fingers up to the lockdown requirements, whatever easement stage they are at.
For so many, summer's here, and the virus isn't.
Burt surely that indicates their strategy is working? Test, trace and isolate involves being able to shot down any local outbreaks very quickly and that's going to happen in this country as well.
 

DanFST

Head Pro
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
742
Location
Canary Wharf
Anyone that ranks countries:

What's the ideal situation for a virus that has no vaccine or cure? Until such is found, herd immunity is the only criteria for a normal life.
 

bluewolf

Money List Winner
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
9,347
Location
St. Andish
Anyone that ranks countries:

What's the ideal situation for a virus that has no vaccine or cure? Until such is found, herd immunity is the only criteria for a normal life.
Just for clarity.
Are you saying that Herd Immunity is what we should be doing, or do you think that it is what the Government are doing but not telling us?
Or have I missed your point (most likely😂)?
 

DanFST

Head Pro
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
742
Location
Canary Wharf
Just for clarity.
Are you saying that Herd Immunity is what we should be doing, or do you think that it is what the Government are doing but not telling us?
Or have I missed your point (most likely😂)?
I believe it's what our government has been doing since day 1 (along with a few others). But then It throws me off when they **** up care homes so badly, and can't even see their mistakes. My point is, apart from not overwhelming hospitals, whats the goal?

How about isolating the virus so its existence becomes lower.

Ideal situation agreed, but it had been here in 2019 most likely. Control is already lost. Do we shut borders and trade until a vaccine is here?
 

bluewolf

Money List Winner
Joined
Nov 30, 2010
Messages
9,347
Location
St. Andish
I believe it's what our government has been doing since day 1 (along with a few others). But then It throws me off when they **** up care homes so badly, and can't even see their mistakes. My point is, apart from not overwhelming hospitals, whats the goal?
Ok, I do actually agree with you, but that would mean that what several Governments (including ours) has done is to intentionally expose more people to the virus, resulting in many more short term deaths.
 

DanFST

Head Pro
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
742
Location
Canary Wharf
Ok, I do actually agree with you, but that would mean that what several Governments (including ours) has done is to intentionally expose more people to the virus, resulting in many more short term deaths.

I guess that's true to a sense, do short term deaths have any more weight than medium term? The strategy to give everyone a hospital bed I think was successful.

The government royally mucked up with care homes. I saw a Tory MP not admitting fault the other day, but he said we should have had more healthcare staff in the homes (a ludicrous idea. I'm no epidemiologist, but you fully isolate those at huge risk, theres no cure you can only limit transmission)

But for the greater population, I still don't understand what the ideal situation is. (I hope a vaccine comes tommorow so I look stupid)
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
21,854
The detail has been there for anyone to see and broadcast continually, I cant see why you dont understand them when you are normally so interested in the detail of such subjects.

The group that have been told to stay at home and be 'shielded' are people with certain underlying medical conditions, these people have been informed by letter. Those over 70 without serious medical conditions have not been informed by letter but have been advised they can leave home but should take particular care to avoid contact with others.
So who is it that is now allowed out who weren’t allowed out before. And you are right. If I really felt hat I needed to fully understand the detail of the rules as they are now the I know I could find that out. But I don’t need to as we are basically sticking to the lockdown rules.

However that I am not completely clear on the detail as I have picked it up, suggests that many others also might not be clear. However that i would look into it if I had the need does not mean that many others would do the same - and might just simply - say sod it all - I can’t be bothered with this...
 

rulefan

Tour Winner
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
7,660
So who is it that is now allowed out who weren’t allowed out before. And you are right. If I really felt hat I needed to fully understand the detail of the rules as they are now the I know I could find that out. But I don’t need to as we are basically sticking to the lockdown rules.

However that I am not completely clear on the detail as I have picked it up, suggests that many others also might not be clear. However that i would look into it if I had the need does not mean that many others would do the same - and might just simply - say sod it all - I can’t be bothered with this...
Who is allowed out has not changed. What they may do and who they may meet has.
 

pauldj42

Money List Winner
Joined
Nov 13, 2012
Messages
13,265
Location
Seaham
Who is allowed out has not changed. What they may do and who they may meet has.
Yes it has for those who were shielding:

“More lockdown rules are being relaxed in England, allowing the most vulnerable people to go outside again.

For 10 weeks, people who are most at risk of becoming seriously ill from coronavirus have been told not to leave their homes at all. This is called social shielding.

From Monday, the latest change will allow those who have been shielding to go outside with members of their household and meet one other person.”
 
Joined
Jul 24, 2012
Messages
21,854
Yes it has for those who were shielding:

“More lockdown rules are being relaxed in England, allowing the most vulnerable people to go outside again.

For 10 weeks, people who are most at risk of becoming seriously ill from coronavirus have been told not to leave their homes at all. This is called social shielding.

From Monday, the latest change will allow those who have been shielding to go outside with members of their household and meet one other person.”
So even on this most basic point there is inconsistent understanding, and I ask again - which groups have not been allowed out because if some are now allowed out that means that previously they were not. And I simply do not believe that it was ever the case that a group was not allowed to leave their homes yet that is the language used. Advised to not leave yes - but not actually allowed?
 

SocketRocket

Ryder Cup Winner
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
15,054
So even on this most basic point there is inconsistent understanding, and I ask again - which groups have not been allowed out because if some are now allowed out that means that previously they were not. And I simply do not believe that it was ever the case that a group was not allowed to leave their homes yet that is the language used. Advised to not leave yes - but not actually allowed?
You are playing games with semantics and I believe you know very well what the rules are and how they operate. Its unusual in the UK to instruct the populace to restrict their basic freedoms, we rather make rules/laws and ask people not to break them, some have no penalties if broken and some do.
The rules are laid out on the .Gov site and you are free to read and digest them like anyone else but I think you have a deeper agenda.

I think Kipling put it well:
"If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken, twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools"
 
Top