When will this shit end?

[steviewevie]

[steviewevie]

Actually pointless comparing deaths now, need to compare in a few years time. Sweden may be right and Norway/Denmark will end up with similar death rates in the end.

[DeanoL]

47 minutes ago, Neil said:

it was much worse after 1983, with loads of members expelled from the party over the following years.

The leaked documents from the other week certainly show something is different. Though it may just be visibility. But certainly having actual proof that Labour members worked to undermine their own parties election campaign in 2017 (and possibly cost us a Lab coalition government) is the worst I've seen. But then again if this shit was happening in the 80s, there wouldn't be email and WhatsApp records to look at... 

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

6 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Actually pointless comparing deaths now, need to compare in a few years time. Sweden may be right and Norway/Denmark will end up with similar death rates in the end.

Yes and look at Portugal, miles off Spain and still less than 1000 total deaths. They got it much later so were able to look at what was happening in Spain and act much sooner relatively speaking. But how do then then move forward? 

[stuartbert two hats]

17 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

What Sweden have done is put a lot of trust in their citizens to do the social distancing thing without so many restrictions. Maybe wouldn't work everywhere.

Arguably it didn't work there either.

[steviewevie]

It's brutal though. Many elderly in Sweden have died compared to it's neighbours, but Sweden have to convince that in the long term thsi is sacrifice have to make now. Imagine if we had same policy here, and we were still on 800-1000 deaths a day whereas our neighbours death rates were decreasing...and govt were continually telling us in the long term we'll all have the same number of deaths anyway, and we won't have as much economic damage, trust us, we know what we're doing. The public would not tolerate it...even now polls are showing general support for this lockdown.

[Neil]

33 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

The leaked documents from the other week certainly show something is different. Though it may just be visibility. But certainly having actual proof that Labour members worked to undermine their own parties election campaign in 2017 (and possibly cost us a Lab coalition government) is the worst I've seen. But then again if this shit was happening in the 80s, there wouldn't be email and WhatsApp records to look at... 

Do they have that proof? I've not seen it.

I have seen lots of unflattering comments about Corbyn and people around him, and people working to different ideas to Corbyn and co for how to run an election and an electable party.

(it's worth remembering that Corbyn and co had complete control for the 2019, which didn't go as well as 2017)

There's as much factionalism in the very existence of that report as there is in anything contained within it.

Same bleat as ever from the 'far' left - that they'd win every time if it wasn't for those pesky kids*.  

(* media / centrists / Jewish conspiracy / etc, take your pick )

Like I say: take a look around you, and ask yourself how close those 'far' leftists are to the general sentiment of Joe Public. 

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

35 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

It's brutal though. Many elderly in Sweden have died compared to it's neighbours, but Sweden have to convince that in the long term thsi is sacrifice have to make now. Imagine if we had same policy here, and we were still on 800-1000 deaths a day whereas our neighbours death rates were decreasing...and govt were continually telling us in the long term we'll all have the same number of deaths anyway, and we won't have as much economic damage, trust us, we know what we're doing. The public would not tolerate it...even now polls are showing general support for this lockdown.

I personally think in the absence of a vaccine or cure then the amount of deaths in each country will end up more or less the same relatively speaking. We’ve all had flatten the curve rammed down our neck 1000 time’s, it’s a pretty simple premise though, more deaths over a shorter period or or the same amount of deaths over a longer period.

Even if we remained in this exact state for a year (which would be impossible) anybody working from home the entire time would still have the risk of getting it when they popped to the shops etc, but that risk would just be spread out over the entire next 365 days, the same as it would be for everyone else in the country.

As soon as lockdown is eased that risk goes up, even if you personally don’t change your behaviour, if other people do your personal risk increases as soon as you pop out, so you’ve got an increased risk over the year.

The only way this wouldn’t be the case is if we knew for definite that in say two or three months we’d definitely have a vaccine and a cure. That way the countries who acted first would’ve saved lives. Short of that being the case we’re all likely to end up in the same place, especially if it becomes endemic, it will get everyone then eventually anyway. 

Edited April 30, 2020 by Deaf Nobby Burton

[steviewevie]

7 minutes ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

I personally think in the absence of a vaccine or cure then the amount of deaths in each country will end up more or less the same relatively speaking. We’ve all had flatten the curve rammed down our neck 1000 time’s, it’s a pretty simple premise though, more deaths over a shorter period or or the same amount of deaths over a longer period.

Even if we remained in this exact state for a year (which would be impossible) anybody working from home the entire time would still have the risk of getting it when they popped to the shops etc, but that risk would just be spread out over the entire next 365 days, the same as it would be for everyone else in the country.

As soon as lockdown is eased that risk goes up, even if you personally don’t change your behaviour, if other people do your personal risk increases as soon as you pop out, so you’ve got an increased risk over the year.

The only way this wouldn’t be the case is if we knew for definite that in say two or three months we’d definitely have a vaccine and a cure. That way the countries who acted first would’ve saved lives. Short of that being the case we’re all likely to end up in the same place, especially if it becomes endemic, it will get everyone then eventually anyway. 

This may or may not be true, time will tell...keeping health services from being overwhelmed is main thing, and why govt is so worried about exiting lockdown now, and then there being a second spike and having to go through all this again..

I think we will have social distancing until vaccine is available...maybe along the lines of what Sweden is doing now. So, businesses are open, but with restrictions so people are kept apart as much as possible.

At moment I can't see Glastonbury happening next year...but who knows, I certainly don't.

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

14 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

This may or may not be true, time will tell...keeping health services from being overwhelmed is main thing, and why govt is so worried about exiting lockdown now, and then there being a second spike and having to go through all this again..

I think we will have social distancing until vaccine is available...maybe along the lines of what Sweden is doing now. So, businesses are open, but with restrictions so people are kept apart as much as possible.

At moment I can't see Glastonbury happening next year...but who knows, I certainly don't.

We’ve had 26,000 deaths so far, let’s say deaths drop down to 70 per day which is about 10% of what they are now, that’s another 26,000 deaths over the next year. How would that be any different?

Staying in a state of lockdown (like the one we’re in now) for a year simply will not happen for numerous reasons, the entire country would collapse into a financial black hole for one, which the population wouldn’t tolerate long before it got that bad.

So what will happen? We’ll more than likely yo-yo between the state were in now and a more relaxed state to avoid the economy going completely down the toilet and unemployment hitting 10/20/30%. The sole aim of this will be to balance the capacity of the NHS against the economy, while there is capacity within the NHS to deal with it any lockdown measures will not be as strict.

While this is happening there will still be deaths at higher or lower levels, as I said 70 per day gets us to double where we are now in the next year. While the virus exists people will die, with case numbers down people will die in lower numbers, but they will still die every day until the virus disappears, which may be never. If you get immunity even for a short period then eventually people will stop dying because everyone will have had it or died, or the virus dies out because there aren’t enough people who haven’t had it to spread it, but if that’s where we all eventually end up then it won’t make a difference precisely when people died.

Edited April 30, 2020 by Deaf Nobby Burton

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, Deaf Nobby Burton said:

We’ve had 26,000 deaths so far, let’s say deaths drop down to 70 per day which is about 10% of what they are now, that’s another 26,000 deaths over the next year. How would that be any different?

Staying in a state of lockdown (like the one we’re in now) for a year simply will not happen for numerous reasons, the entire country would collapse into a financial black hole for one, which the population wouldn’t tolerate long before it got that bad.

So what will happen? We’ll more than likely yo-yo between the state were in now and a more relaxed state to avoid the economy going completely down the toilet and unemployment hitting 10/20/30%. The sole aim of this will be to balance the capacity of the NHS against the economy, while there is capacity within the NHS to deal with it any lockdown measures will not be as strict.

While this is happening there will still be deaths at higher or lower levels, as I said 70 per day gets us to double where we are now in the next year. While the virus exists people will die, with case numbers down people will die in lower numbers, but they will still die every day until the virus disappears, which may be never.

I'm saying we end up doing what Sweden are doing now. They aren't in lockdown, but still have social distancing when going about their day.

I know what you're saying about death rates over different period of time...this is what the whole flatten curve thing was, it was all about preventing NHS being overwhelmed...and for this the lockdown has worked. But, could happen again in 6 months time.

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

I'm saying we end up doing what Sweden are doing now. They aren't in lockdown, but still have social distancing when going about their day.

I know what you're saying about death rates over different period of time...this is what the whole flatten curve thing was, it was all about preventing NHS being overwhelmed...and for this the lockdown has worked. But, could happen again in 6 months time.

Yes well I think we’re agreeing with each other. My personal view is that the only consideration is the capacity of the NHS, not avoiding loss of life full stop because I think this is unavoidable.

The only way to prevent loss of life is for vulnerable people to shield themselves as much as possible and self isolate indefinitely.

Obviously only time will tell and we will not know the actual truth for a while. However I personally think in the absence of a fixed date for a vaccine and a treatment, looking at who locked down first and who has the least deaths now is entirely pointless. That would only be the  case if the virus was a single entity you could catch and stop for good. 

[Matt42]

1 hour ago, DeanoL said:

The leaked documents from the other week certainly show something is different. Though it may just be visibility. But certainly having actual proof that Labour members worked to undermine their own parties election campaign in 2017 (and possibly cost us a Lab coalition government) is the worst I've seen. But then again if this shit was happening in the 80s, there wouldn't be email and WhatsApp records to look at... 

Yes exactly. This is why I think the Labour division at the moment is worse than it’s been in quite a long time. In my opinion the party needs to split. For as long as the social justice side and centrist side are in the same party they will continue to lose elections. I’m sure of it.

[Avalon_Fields]

6 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

I'm saying we end up doing what Sweden are doing now. They aren't in lockdown, but still have social distancing when going about their day.

I know what you're saying about death rates over different period of time...this is what the whole flatten curve thing was, it was all about preventing NHS being overwhelmed...and for this the lockdown has worked. But, could happen again in 6 months time.

I'd tend to agree, but it's probably easier for Sweden, we are hit hardest in the big cities (Mainly London, then Birmingham & Manchester), whereas I understand many Swedes live alone, plus more of a rural population outside of Stockholm so less risk of viral transmission....but without a vaccine we have to learn to live with the virus and adapt, the alternative of a second lockdown is too disasterous to contemplate. Although I'm in the higher risk people I'd support a Swedish sensible restrictions but knowing there's an inherant risk in that.

If anyone is interested, here's the type of message sent daily for those at highest risk:

[steviewevie]

For all you Sweden fans, listened to this the other day about Sweden's coronavirus policy...

https://play.acast.com/s/the-bunker/2c079d61-85fe-4bcf-8a5f-5423eeccce8f

[Deaf Nobby Burton]

8 minutes ago, Avalon_Fields said:

I'd tend to agree, but it's probably easier for Sweden, we are hit hardest in the big cities (Mainly London, then Birmingham & Manchester), whereas I understand many Swedes live alone, plus more of a rural population outside of Stockholm so less risk of viral transmission....but without a vaccine we have to learn to live with the virus and adapt, the alternative of a second lockdown is too disasterous to contemplate. Although I'm in the higher risk people I'd support a Swedish sensible restrictions but knowing there's an inherant risk in that.

If anyone is interested, here's the type of message sent daily for those at highest risk:

Yeah I agree with that about the big cities. I work in London (normally) but live in Berkshire so commute in. Even where I am which is not that far from London at all, it’s not even that bad, they’re haven’t been many cases and it’s been more than manageable (just checked and my local authority has had 240 cases) But go into London and things like the tube will make it near impossible to manage the spread. 

[zahidf]

Lockdown lingo - are you fully conversant with the new terminology?

 

*Coronacoaster* The ups and downs of your mood during the pandemic. You’re loving lockdown one minute but suddenly weepy with anxiety the next. It truly is “an emotional coronacoaster”.

*Quarantinis* Experimental cocktails mixed from whatever random ingredients you have left in the house. The boozy equivalent of a store cupboard supper. Southern Comfort and Ribena quarantini with a glacé cherry garnish, anyone? These are sipped at “locktail hour”, ie. wine o’clock during lockdown, which seems to be creeping earlier with each passing week.

 

*Le Creuset wrist* It’s the new “avocado hand” - an aching arm after taking one’s best saucepan outside to bang during the weekly ‘Clap For Carers.’ It might be heavy but you’re keen to impress the neighbours with your high-quality kitchenware.

 

*Coronials* As opposed to millennials, this refers to the future generation of babies conceived or born during coronavirus quarantine. They might also become known as “Generation C” or, more spookily, “Children of the Quarn”. *Furlough Merlot* Wine consumed in an attempt to relieve the frustration of not working. Also known as “bored-eaux” or “cabernet tedium”.

*Coronadose* An overdose of bad news from consuming too much media during a time of crisis. Can result in a panicdemic.

 

*The elephant in the Zoom* The glaring issue during a videoconferencing call that nobody feels able to mention. E.g. one participant has dramatically put on weight, suddenly sprouted terrible facial hair or has a worryingly messy house visible in the background.

*Quentin Quarantino* An attention-seeker using their time in lockdown to make amateur films which they’re convinced are funnier and cleverer than they actually are.

*Covidiot* or *Wuhan-ker* One who ignores public health advice or behaves with reckless disregard for the safety of others can be said to display “covidiocy” or be “covidiotic”. Also called a “lockclown” or even a “Wuhan-ker”.

 

*Goutbreak* The sudden fear that you’ve consumed so much wine, cheese, home-made cake and Easter chocolate in lockdown that your ankles are swelling up like a medieval king’s.

*Antisocial distancing* Using health precautions as an excuse for snubbing neighbours and generally ignoring people you find irritating.

*Coughin’ dodger* Someone so alarmed by an innocuous splutter or throat-clear that they back away in terror. *Mask-ara* Extra make-up applied to "make one's eyes pop" before venturing out in public wearing a face mask.

 

*Covid-10* The 10lbs in weight that we’re all gaining from comfort-eating and comfort-drinking. Also known as “fattening the curve.

[nicknickmm]

NSFW!

Thought this was Unfairground/Shangri La!

 

[DeanoL]

1 hour ago, Neil said:

Do they have that proof? I've not seen it.

I have seen lots of unflattering comments about Corbyn and people around him, and people working to different ideas to Corbyn and co for how to run an election and an electable party.

(it's worth remembering that Corbyn and co had complete control for the 2019, which didn't go as well as 2017)

There's as much factionalism in the very existence of that report as there is in anything contained within it.

Same bleat as ever from the 'far' left - that they'd win every time if it wasn't for those pesky kids*.  

(* media / centrists / Jewish conspiracy / etc, take your pick )

 

Would rather not link to Skwawkbox but read the excerpts, not the commentary. The full leaked report is about in the less savoury parts of the internet - https://skwawkbox.org/2020/04/12/leaked-document-accuses-senior-right-wing-labour-staff-working-against-corbyn-and-reveals-their-dismay-at-electoral-surge/

Quote

Like I say: take a look around you, and ask yourself how close those 'far' leftists are to the general sentiment of Joe Public. 

Right now I'm seeing a hell of a lot of people take government hand-outs of 80% of their salary, mortgage holidays, rent holidays, and supporting a hell of a lot of policies that are quite clearly "socialist". 

Seems people are really fond of government help when they are the ones that need it. Maybe that will lead to more empathy overall? At least for a little while? I'd hope that maybe the good thing that comes out this is people with "secure" jobs that are furloughed and possibly facing redundancy in an impossible job market realising just how close to being on the breadline they actually are. Even if it works out for people, the short, sharp shock of uncertainty around future work may lead to people being a little more compassionate.

[steviewevie]

 

[steviewevie]

Now...here's a graph.

[Neil]

2 hours ago, DeanoL said:

Would rather not link to Skwawkbox but read the excerpts, not the commentary. The full leaked report is about in the less savoury parts of the internet - https://skwawkbox.org/2020/04/12/leaked-document-accuses-senior-right-wing-labour-staff-working-against-corbyn-and-reveals-their-dismay-at-electoral-surge/

yep, they show some people weren't going along with the Jez vision, it doesn't show them working against a Labour victory - which is the spin the report tries to put on it.

Who knew that those two factions disagreed with each other about stuff?

In the end it only matters if Jez had a genuine chance of winning, and just about every angle says he never would have done - because he wouldn't have got close in 2017 if people had believed he might have got close.

PS: I remember an MP who spent 35 years going against the leadership for  just about everything. Whatever happened to him?  

 

Quote

Right now I'm seeing a hell of a lot of people take government hand-outs of 80% of their salary, mortgage holidays, rent holidays, and supporting a hell of a lot of policies that are quite clearly "socialist". 

do those people want that stuff all the time, or are they desperate for things to go back to normal?

Bit of a clue there.

PS: I'm not sure how come you think extending a loan or creating new debt for yourself is anything socialist.

Edited April 30, 2020 by Neil

[zahidf]

Alan sugar has lost it

[Matt42]

8 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Alan sugar has lost it

It’s also not true, the guy didn’t say this and it’s being spread as if he did.

Conspiracy theorists will still consider this true though.

[DareToDibble]

3 minutes ago, Matt42 said:

It’s also not true, the guy didn’t say this and it’s being spread as if he did.

Conspiracy theorists will still consider this true though.

Unfortunately the minute a fake quote is posted online it becomes fact. See the general election, American election, Brexit etc