When will this shit end?

[topmarksbri]

1 minute ago, DickButkis said:

Are you saying he hasn't apologised?

No - you said "He hasn't done anything for a need to be absolved" which I disagree with because I think what I laid out along with his links to DYR are things that he should be absolved for.

To go back to the original thing that I commented on, the video of Connor McGregor video saying "I apologize for absolutely nothing" I think is insensitive as yes, Corbyn should continue to apologize for the above and for the suggestion that antisemitism in the labour party under his watch has been greatly exaggerated which again, considering his own history, I think comes across as at best insensitive.  

[st dan]

Christmas in the UK (and the majority of Europe) is now more or less just a ‘feel good’ 2/3 week period that does wonders for people’s spirits and mindsets in the long, dark and cold winter months. 
Without it, it would be one hell of a slog from October - March each year. 

Edited November 19, 2020 by st dan

[efcfanwirral]

1 minute ago, st dan said:

Christmas in the UK (and the majority of Europe) is now more or less just a ‘feel good’ 2/3 period that does wonders for people’s spirits and mindsets in the long, dark and cold winter months. 
Without it, it would be one hell of a slog from October - March each year. 

That shines a light on the biggest problems of western society really with how true it is....

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, st dan said:

Christmas in the UK (and the majority of Europe) is now more or less just a ‘feel good’ 2/3 period that does wonders for people’s spirits and mindsets in the long, dark and cold winter months. 
Without it, it would be one hell of a slog from October - March each year. 

you can still have the lights, the booze, the tv, the presents, the carols, the calories...just don't have a meal with other people.

[found home in 2009]

1 minute ago, xxialac said:

"Don't think me having a small family gathering is going to do much to contribute"

I disagree.  Try multiplying that by 20 million small family gatherings and think of the effect.

It's the same mentality as 'it's ok to swipe something small from a big business, it won't affect their profits'.

It depends how the family have been acting before hand. The only contact me and my girlfriend have with anyone is when we do our food shop. The only contact my parents have with anyone is when they do their food shop.

Is there really much risk of the four of us meeting up? 

At one point the rules in my area meant I was allowed to have a meal in a restaurant with my parents, but not go to their house. My mum had been really missing us so the four of us went for a meal at a restaurant bringing us in contact with a waitress who had been in contact with lots of people. In my opinion following the rules put us at more risk than if we'd behaved as we would of without the rules and had dinner at my parents house.

I think we should be altering our behaviour to prevent the spread of the virus. But to be honest I think I have more common sense than the people making the rules who told us all to eat out at a time when I didn't want to leave the house when it was unnecessary.

I get if you ask people to act with common sense the majority will probably let you down. But IMHO the rule makers have also let us down, both with inconsistent ill thought out overly complex rules, but use when they publicly haven't followed them themselves.

I think compliance will be low for any rules on Christmas day and it would be better to relax the rules, instead of getting people in the habit of breaking the rules.

 

[fraybentos1]

7 minutes ago, xxialac said:

"Don't think me having a small family gathering is going to do much to contribute"

I disagree.  Try multiplying that by 20 million small family gatherings and think of the effect.

It's the same mentality as 'it's ok to swipe something small from a big business, it won't affect their profits'.

I hope that everyone that feels they can, partakes in any sensible gathering they desire. (I'm not meaning large extended families). 

Anyone that doesn't feel safe or has conditions can self-isolate for the period if they so wish.

[Crazyfool01]

1 minute ago, st dan said:

Christmas in the UK (and the majority of Europe) is now more or less just a ‘feel good’ 2/3 period that does wonders for people’s spirits and mindsets in the long, dark and cold winter months. 
Without it, it would be one hell of a slog from October - March each year. 

That’s why ... to me the messaging needs to be early ... that just this once we need to be prepared for something different ... and that needed to be done way before now ... we don’t need a build up to an event that gets cancelled or restricted .. many people will be divided over a Christmas where someone has had to make a choice between the family members that are privy to attending and who are not ... 

[found home in 2009]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

you can still have the lights, the booze, the tv, the presents, the carols, the calories...just don't have a meal with other people.

The meal with other people is the important part of it. That is the essence of Christmas to me (an atheist who doesn't like consumerism - though I have no objections to booze).

[Ozanne]

7 minutes ago, xxialac said:

"Don't think me having a small family gathering is going to do much to contribute"

I disagree.  Try multiplying that by 20 million small family gatherings and think of the effect.

It's the same mentality as 'it's ok to swipe something small from a big business, it won't affect their profits'.

Even if you dint want to look at it on that large a scale, say one member of a family picks up the virus then goes to Christmas day round another family members house then it’s very possible the virus would spread within the family and risk lives/health to the family members. It’s not as simple as just locking away vulnerable members either. 
 

You can see it coming now, relaxed measures at Christmas then a lockdown in January which people will also complain about. 

[mikegday]

1 minute ago, found home in 2009 said:

At one point the rules in my area meant I was allowed to have a meal in a restaurant with my parents, but not go to their house. My mum had been really missing us so the four of us went for a meal at a restaurant bringing us in contact with a waitress who had been in contact with lots of people. In my opinion following the rules put us at more risk than if we'd behaved as we would of without the rules and had dinner at my parents house.
 

That’s assuming you would have behaved in your parents house as you would in a restaurant. I’ve always argued you are much more likely to ‘relax’ in a house you’re familiar with than a restaurant. Also I presume the restaurant wasn’t normal? The waiter you’re referring to would have been masked and kept their distance right? If your parents had been dishing out food to you, they would likely not have followed the same protocols.

[xxialac]

6 minutes ago, found home in 2009 said:

It depends how the family have been acting before hand. The only contact me and my girlfriend have with anyone is when we do our food shop. The only contact my parents have with anyone is when they do their food shop.

Is there really much risk of the four of us meeting up? 

At one point the rules in my area meant I was allowed to have a meal in a restaurant with my parents, but not go to their house. My mum had been really missing us so the four of us went for a meal at a restaurant bringing us in contact with a waitress who had been in contact with lots of people. In my opinion following the rules put us at more risk than if we'd behaved as we would of without the rules and had dinner at my parents house.

I think we should be altering our behaviour to prevent the spread of the virus. But to be honest I think I have more common sense than the people making the rules who told us all to eat out at a time when I didn't want to leave the house when it was unnecessary.

I get if you ask people to act with common sense the majority will probably let you down. But IMHO the rule makers have also let us down, both with inconsistent ill thought out overly complex rules, but use when they publicly haven't followed them themselves.

I think compliance will be low for any rules on Christmas day and it would be better to relax the rules, instead of getting people in the habit of breaking the rules.

 

That's fair analysis but ultimately far, far too discretionary and allows people to bend the rules.

The nature of rules is that they inevitably catch people, for whom ideally an allowance would be made. Best to have a blanket ban on all households mixing to improve adherance.

 

The sooner we stick with tough rules, the sooner we will be out of it.

Look at the countries that fully cracked down on it and where they are now? Why can't we see the blinding obvious?

 

Edited November 19, 2020 by xxialac

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, found home in 2009 said:

The meal with other people is the important part of it. That is the essence of Christmas to me (an atheist who doesn't like consumerism - though I have no objections to booze).

yeah, I guess some people might like that sort of thing.

But...well...I don't know...there's this pandemic thing, and it kills some people, leaves others with long term problems...and it spreads in indoor environments when people are in close proximity...and hopefully things will improve in a few months and by next christmas things will be back to normal...but this year it's different...so maybe we could make that sacrifice for the greater good?

[steviewevie]

I'm guessing in the end they will allow family gatherings, but will ask people to just try and stick to rule of 6 or something similar, keep windows open, try and be careful with social distancing, maybe don't include elderly or vulnerable people...and then we'll just have to hope for the best. It is just one day....and not everyone will be partaking...I certainly won't be.

[found home in 2009]

1 minute ago, steviewevie said:

yeah, I guess some people might like that sort of thing.

But...well...I don't know...there's this pandemic thing, and it kills some people, leaves others with long term problems...and it spreads in indoor environments when people are in close proximity...and hopefully things will improve in a few months and by next christmas things will be back to normal...but this year it's different...so maybe we could make that sacrifice for the greater good?

I've been making sacrifices all year and so have my family. I just can't see if we've all been really careful that it's high enough risk to cancel the thing that keeps you going through a miserable winter.

[Fuzzy Afro]

4 minutes ago, xxialac said:

That's fair analysis but ultimately far, far too discretionary and allows people to bend the rules.

The nature of rules is that they inevitably catch people, for whom ideally an allowance would be made. Best to have a blanket ban on all households mixing to improve adherance.

 

The sooner we stick with tough rules, the sooner we will be out of it.

Look at the countries that fully cracked down on it and where they are now? Why can't we see the blinding obvious?

 

Nonsense. We don’t have a zero covid policy in this country. 

[xxialac]

Having a jolly with family on a predefined day and a break from it being cold and dark > increasing the national death rate and prolonging a pandemic.

[xxialac]

Just now, Fuzzy Afro said:

Nonsense. We don’t have a zero covid policy in this country. 

Umm, I'm not saying it is.

I'm suggesting what should be happening if we didn't have disastrously bad leadership.

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

I'm guessing in the end they will allow family gatherings, but will ask people to just try and stick to rule of 6 or something similar, keep windows open, try and be careful with social distancing, maybe don't include elderly or vulnerable people...and then we'll just have to hope for the best. It is just one day....and not everyone will be partaking...I certainly won't be.

will also depend on what infection rates and numbers in hospital is like come mid december.

[Crazyfool01]

1 minute ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Nonsense. We don’t have a zero covid policy in this country. 

And we don’t have events either ... instead an equally divided country that’s fucked until we get a vaccine in play 

[found home in 2009]

5 minutes ago, mikegday said:

That’s assuming you would have behaved in your parents house as you would in a restaurant. I’ve always argued you are much more likely to ‘relax’ in a house you’re familiar with than a restaurant. Also I presume the restaurant wasn’t normal? The waiter you’re referring to would have been masked and kept their distance right? If your parents had been dishing out food to you, they would likely not have followed the same protocols.

We've had dinner at my parents sitting miles apart. In the restaurant we were sat right next to each other. Both had sanitiser outside the toilet. But in my parents house I know they would have been using it and they would be the only people that could have touched the door. Whereas in the restuarant there could have been hundreds of customers that touched the bathroom door handle without sanitising.

You could say all families will show a different amount of caution, but similarly I reckon all businesses will make different amounts of effort to comply with the rules too.

[Ozanne]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

I'm guessing in the end they will allow family gatherings, but will ask people to just try and stick to rule of 6 or something similar, keep windows open, try and be careful with social distancing, maybe don't include elderly or vulnerable people...and then we'll just have to hope for the best. It is just one day....and not everyone will be partaking...I certainly won't be.

They clearly will allow for gatherings at Christmas, I’m just not sure it’s a good idea with the risk involved of passing the virus onto a family member. 

[shoptildrop]

12 hours ago, crazyfool1 said:

What were the levels in Leicester? We’re they significantly higher than the national average now then ? 

it was @121 per 100K (went up to 140-150 if remember correctly)that put Leicester into lockdown (numbers we could only wish we had!!), the benchmarks have changed so many times since then and tbh they don't seem to be very well defined

Also on the EID celebrations, there was one on 31st July as the below Manchester tier was announced 9.30pm on twitter on the Thursday with it coming into effect at midnight, so basically screwing up EID celebrations across the region. Remember at the time we were all like can you imagine them pulling this stunt at 9.30pm Christmas eve?? 

Manchester was put into Tier 2 due to Oldham numbers going up but as you can see across the borough's numbers were lower than anything now:

 

 

[Fuzzy Afro]

Need to find out from my GP if I’m on the shielding list now before deciding if I’ll be making the journey north. But I intend to do so in a carefully considered manner if I can. 

[Ozanne]

Just now, shoptildrop said:

it was @121 per 100K (went up to 140-150 if remember correctly)that put Leicester into lockdown (numbers we could only wish we had!!), the benchmarks have changed so many times since then and tbh they don't seem to be very well defined

Also on the EID celebrations, there was one on 31st July as the below Manchester tier was announced 9.30pm on twitter on the Thursday with it coming into effect at midnight, so basically screwing up EID celebrations across the region. Remember at the time we were all like can you imagine them pulling this stunt at 9.30pm Christmas eve?? 

Manchester was put into Tier 2 due to Oldham numbers going up but as you can see across the borough's numbers were lower than anything now:

 

 

Yes that was it, the restrictions called into place the evening before EID celebrations. I really felt for people wanting to celebrate that at the time. That was as you say in the summer as well. They would never do that for Christmas, which I think says something in itself. 

[Leyrulion]

35 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

How many on here clapped for the nhs last time and think it’s now acceptable that they are thrown into chaos a couple of  weeks after xmas for the sake of a few pairs of socks and a multipack of lynx ? 

I don't understand why people appear to be so insistent on seeing extended family for half a week when that could mean a MONTH more of tight restrictions.

When if we just knuckled down we could be done with this shit a month earlier and then you'd have UNLIMITED time to see family. 

Have your turkey dinner for one and do a family "Christmas" in July!