When will this shit end?

[steviewevie]

5 minutes ago, priest17 said:

Wow not cool guys

 

 

a sensible settlement? So, something less than 60mill? Idiots.

[steviewevie]

 

[DeanoL]

2 hours ago, gigpusher said:

Grub Mcr doing sterling work on their Instagram tonight trying to match up food traders with pubs so that they can offer a substantial food offering and stay open. 

The Tories are arseholes for how they're handling it obviously, but doesn't stuff like this defeat the whole point? I mean, it's stupid that they're differentiating between pubs that serve food and those that don't, because the virus doesn't care. But the reason for doing that must clearly be to try and close a certain portion of pubs to reduce spread.

This is an ingenius idea for beating the government proposals, but it seems like everyone did this they'd have to concede and just shut down all pubs instead. Because COVID doesn't care how ingenius your idea for getting round the rules is.

[stuartbert two hats]

3 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

The Tories are arseholes for how they're handling it obviously, but doesn't stuff like this defeat the whole point? I mean, it's stupid that they're differentiating between pubs that serve food and those that don't, because the virus doesn't care. But the reason for doing that must clearly be to try and close a certain portion of pubs to reduce spread.

This is an ingenius idea for beating the government proposals, but it seems like everyone did this they'd have to concede and just shut down all pubs instead. Because COVID doesn't care how ingenius your idea for getting round the rules is.

It doesn't defeat the object of not having enough money to live.

It's also because going to the pub to get pissed rather than having a meal and a pint with the meal is deemed to lead to much lower compliance with regards to social distancing. So in that sense, the virus does care whether you're out for a few drinks or out for a meal.

[SheffJeff]

32 minutes ago, priest17 said:

Wow not cool guys

 

 

The only reason for turning off comments on a tweet like this is when you know you're a sly c**t and the comments would almost entirely be derogatory. Fucking weasel.

[gizmoman]

1 minute ago, DeanoL said:

The Tories are arseholes for how they're handling it obviously, but doesn't stuff like this defeat the whole point? I mean, it's stupid that they're differentiating between pubs that serve food and those that don't, because the virus doesn't care. But the reason for doing that must clearly be to try and close a certain portion of pubs to reduce spread.

This is an ingenius idea for beating the government proposals, but it seems like everyone did this they'd have to concede and just shut down all pubs instead. Because COVID doesn't care how ingenius your idea for getting round the rules is.

And some don't care about Covid either, this is getting to the heart of the battle now, we are entering the period when people are deciding which side they are on, kill the economy and your way of life or kill some of the most vunerable who would die soon anyway (I know that doesn't apply to all), this is the decision the government are trying to avert but it's an impossible task, waiting for a vaccine while imposing these measures will kill businesses, not closing them down will cost a few more lives (we can argue about how many) but everyone has a different view on this so the governments plea to all "folllow the rules" won't work,  humans can't agree on ANYTHING that's why we have different political parties and that is why this has become a political rather than a humanitarian issue, the "Right" in general favour a realistic (in my view) "protect the vunerable and leave the rest to carry on" While the "left" choose to "wait it out until we have a vaccine and pay whatever cost it takes to save every business and job" This approach may well work if a solution comes soon, but if it doesn't the country would be bankrupt. This in itself may not be a disaster if other countries (i.e. the IMF) were able to bail us out, but every country is following the same path and it can only lead to economic disaster.

'

[LJS]

26 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

And some don't care about Covid either, this is getting to the heart of the battle now, we are entering the period when people are deciding which side they are on, kill the economy and your way of life or kill some of the most vunerable who would die soon anyway (I know that doesn't apply to all), this is the decision the government are trying to avert but it's an impossible task, waiting for a vaccine while imposing these measures will kill businesses, not closing them down will cost a few more lives (we can argue about how many) but everyone has a different view on this so the governments plea to all "folllow the rules" won't work,  humans can't agree on ANYTHING that's why we have different political parties and that is why this has become a political rather than a humanitarian issue, the "Right" in general favour a realistic (in my view) "protect the vunerable and leave the rest to carry on" While the "left" choose to "wait it out until we have a vaccine and pay whatever cost it takes to save every business and job" This approach may well work if a solution comes soon, but if it doesn't the country would be bankrupt. This in itself may not be a disaster if other countries (i.e. the IMF) were able to bail us out, but every country is following the same path and it can only lead to economic disaster.

'

Just out of interest, how many dead people would be acceptable to you?

 

[Ryan1984]

I’m a fan of Starmer but this also rings true:

 

[DeanoL]

34 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

And some don't care about Covid either, this is getting to the heart of the battle now, we are entering the period when people are deciding which side they are on, kill the economy and your way of life or kill some of the most vunerable who would die soon anyway (I know that doesn't apply to all), this is the decision the government are trying to avert but it's an impossible task, waiting for a vaccine while imposing these measures will kill businesses, not closing them down will cost a few more lives (we can argue about how many) but everyone has a different view on this so the governments plea to all "folllow the rules" won't work,  humans can't agree on ANYTHING that's why we have different political parties and that is why this has become a political rather than a humanitarian issue, the "Right" in general favour a realistic (in my view) "protect the vunerable and leave the rest to carry on" While the "left" choose to "wait it out until we have a vaccine and pay whatever cost it takes to save every business and job" This approach may well work if a solution comes soon, but if it doesn't the country would be bankrupt. This in itself may not be a disaster if other countries (i.e. the IMF) were able to bail us out, but every country is following the same path and it can only lead to economic disaster.

'

You say left and right there, but it’s the government (right) pushing to shut down Manchester to save lives and incur economic damage, versus a Labour mayor (left) who prefers to protect the cities economy and doesn’t want a lock down. 

[Reckoner]

6 hours ago, gizmoman said:

"protect the vunerable and leave the rest to carry on"

People keep saying this, but never seem to have any more detail in how it would work other than the phrase?

Who looks after the vulnerable? Do Doctors and Nurses need to isolate as well to protect them? Does anyone who lives with a doctor or nurse need to isolate? Does anyone who may be a contact or have a vulnerable family member need to isolate? What even is vulnerable? Just old people? Is it everyone with High blood pressure? Everyone obese? People with diabetes? People with MS or other auto-immune disease? People with cancer or kidney disease? What is the effect on the death rate if this cohort can’t get treatment because the hospitals are full of covid patients? 

If it’s not just locking old people up, but anyone vulnerable to COVID through an pre-existing comorbidity then what is the effect of that on an economy? Who is driving the buses or freight trucks or working in factories or logistics centres? Who is still shuffling paper across their desk in an office? Who is performing all the roles that help an economy keep ticking if all these people are shielding? What is the effect of an unchecked pandemic running amok on economy? Are the people working from home still being active in the economy and eating out, buying coffee, spending money? Sweden still had an 8% GDP drop. , US 10%, Brazil 9.7% Peru 30%, all places that let it rip through. They may bounce back but let’s see. I’d bet that the places that have supressed the virus and are able to kick start their internal economies with confidence in the population that you won’t catch something by stepping out of your door will have the best Q.3’s

It’s an absolute nonsense phrase that means absolutely nothing.  There is no ability to just carry on. It’s a highly contagious virus that grows exponentially and through people who don’t even know they are sick. You can either lockdown, let it rip or find a middle way that allows the economy to function while minimising risk. You can only achieve this middle way by keeping cases as low as possible with a good testing and competent contact tracing system that can stomp out any clusters. Lockdowns are not a punishment or a tactic to fight the virus, they are an acknowldgement that you have lost control.

Eight f’n months and somehow this is still a debate.

(also i don't mean this as an attack, i just really really really hate that phrase...)

[mcshed]

7 hours ago, gizmoman said:

kill the economy and your way of life 

I don't think anybody is advocating this approach, people who want restrictions also want to support the economy. The IMF have told countries not to be scared of further borrowing as they forecast even lower interest rates in the future and interest rates have been pretty much rock bottom since the financial crisis. Borrowing is cheap, we can afford to protect lives and jobs, it would clearly make the point that the past decade of austerity was Tory ideology rather than a necessary response to the 2008 crash but it is possible.

Now I actually think for quality of life reasons rather than economic ones we probably should have loosened things up faster and further over the summer whilst being honest that this was temporary and now when the weather is more virus friendly we should be taking the necessary action. 

Edited October 21, 2020 by mcshed

[steviewevie]

8 hours ago, gizmoman said:

And some don't care about Covid either, this is getting to the heart of the battle now, we are entering the period when people are deciding which side they are on, kill the economy and your way of life or kill some of the most vunerable who would die soon anyway (I know that doesn't apply to all), this is the decision the government are trying to avert but it's an impossible task, waiting for a vaccine while imposing these measures will kill businesses, not closing them down will cost a few more lives (we can argue about how many) but everyone has a different view on this so the governments plea to all "folllow the rules" won't work,  humans can't agree on ANYTHING that's why we have different political parties and that is why this has become a political rather than a humanitarian issue, the "Right" in general favour a realistic (in my view) "protect the vunerable and leave the rest to carry on" While the "left" choose to "wait it out until we have a vaccine and pay whatever cost it takes to save every business and job" This approach may well work if a solution comes soon, but if it doesn't the country would be bankrupt. This in itself may not be a disaster if other countries (i.e. the IMF) were able to bail us out, but every country is following the same path and it can only lead to economic disaster.

'

I vote for kill the economy and your way of life. Long live the revolution.

[Toilet Duck]

1 hour ago, Gregfc15 said:

People keep saying this, but never seem to have any more detail in how it would work other than the phrase?

Who looks after the vulnerable? Do Doctors and Nurses need to isolate as well to protect them? Does anyone who lives with a doctor or nurse need to isolate? Does anyone who may be a contact or have a vulnerable family member need to isolate? What even is vulnerable? Just old people? Is it everyone with High blood pressure? Everyone obese? People with diabetes? People with MS or other auto-immune disease? People with cancer or kidney disease? What is the effect on the death rate if this cohort can’t get treatment because the hospitals are full of covid patients? 

If it’s not just locking old people up, but anyone vulnerable to COVID through an pre-existing comorbidity then what is the effect of that on an economy? Who is driving the buses or freight trucks or working in factories or logistics centres? Who is still shuffling paper across their desk in an office? Who is performing all the roles that help an economy keep ticking if all these people are shielding? What is the effect of an unchecked pandemic running amok on economy? Are the people working from home still being active in the economy and eating out, buying coffee, spending money? Sweden still had an 8% GDP drop. , US 10%, Brazil 9.7% Peru 30%, all places that let it rip through. They may bounce back but let’s see. I’d bet that the places that have supressed the virus and are able to kick start their internal economies with confidence in the population that you won’t catch something by stepping out of your door will have the best Q.3’s

It’s an absolute nonsense phrase that means absolutely nothing.  There is no ability to just carry on. It’s a highly contagious virus that grows exponentially and through people who don’t even know they are sick. You can either lockdown, let it rip or find a middle way that allows the economy to function while minimising risk. You can only achieve this middle way by keeping cases as low as possible with a good testing and competent contact tracing system that can stomp out any clusters. Lockdowns are not a punishment or a tactic to fight the virus, they are an acknowldgement that you have lost control.

Eight f’n months and somehow this is still a debate.

 

(also i don't mean this as an attack, i just really really really hate that phrase...)

Excellent post mate.

[Fuzzy Afro]

Country with the world’s longest and strictest life lockdown also has the most deaths per million. 

[steviewevie]

 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Country with the world’s longest and strictest life lockdown also has the most deaths per million. 

And why do you think that is?

Is the lockdown causing the deaths or are the deaths causing the lockdown?  

[Crazyfool01]

8 hours ago, gizmoman said:

And some don't care about Covid either, this is getting to the heart of the battle now, we are entering the period when people are deciding which side they are on, kill the economy and your way of life or kill some of the most vunerable who would die soon anyway (I know that doesn't apply to all), this is the decision the government are trying to avert but it's an impossible task, waiting for a vaccine while imposing these measures will kill businesses, not closing them down will cost a few more lives (we can argue about how many) but everyone has a different view on this so the governments plea to all "folllow the rules" won't work,  humans can't agree on ANYTHING that's why we have different political parties and that is why this has become a political rather than a humanitarian issue, the "Right" in general favour a realistic (in my view) "protect the vunerable and leave the rest to carry on" While the "left" choose to "wait it out until we have a vaccine and pay whatever cost it takes to save every business and job" This approach may well work if a solution comes soon, but if it doesn't the country would be bankrupt. This in itself may not be a disaster if other countries (i.e. the IMF) were able to bail us out, but every country is following the same path and it can only lead to economic disaster.

'

I know that post isn’t personal but here is what it would mean for me ... vulnerable for me is .... me , my sister , both parents , best friend and wife , his parents another friend , his daughter , 2 cousins .... so at what point are you drawing the line ? 

[Fuzzy Afro]

1 hour ago, Gregfc15 said:

People keep saying this, but never seem to have any more detail in how it would work other than the phrase?

Who looks after the vulnerable? Do Doctors and Nurses need to isolate as well to protect them? Does anyone who lives with a doctor or nurse need to isolate? Does anyone who may be a contact or have a vulnerable family member need to isolate? What even is vulnerable? Just old people? Is it everyone with High blood pressure? Everyone obese? People with diabetes? People with MS or other auto-immune disease? People with cancer or kidney disease? What is the effect on the death rate if this cohort can’t get treatment because the hospitals are full of covid patients? 

If it’s not just locking old people up, but anyone vulnerable to COVID through an pre-existing comorbidity then what is the effect of that on an economy? Who is driving the buses or freight trucks or working in factories or logistics centres? Who is still shuffling paper across their desk in an office? Who is performing all the roles that help an economy keep ticking if all these people are shielding? What is the effect of an unchecked pandemic running amok on economy? Are the people working from home still being active in the economy and eating out, buying coffee, spending money? Sweden still had an 8% GDP drop. , US 10%, Brazil 9.7% Peru 30%, all places that let it rip through. They may bounce back but let’s see. I’d bet that the places that have supressed the virus and are able to kick start their internal economies with confidence in the population that you won’t catch something by stepping out of your door will have the best Q.3’s

It’s an absolute nonsense phrase that means absolutely nothing.  There is no ability to just carry on. It’s a highly contagious virus that grows exponentially and through people who don’t even know they are sick. You can either lockdown, let it rip or find a middle way that allows the economy to function while minimising risk. You can only achieve this middle way by keeping cases as low as possible with a good testing and competent contact tracing system that can stomp out any clusters. Lockdowns are not a punishment or a tactic to fight the virus, they are an acknowldgement that you have lost control.

Eight f’n months and somehow this is still a debate.

 

(also i don't mean this as an attack, i just really really really hate that phrase...)

Good post but I’ll mention for the umpteenth time that absolutely no one who advocates shielding is suggesting that all shielders can be protected. The idea would be to limit the spread into vulnerable groups through the use of shielding, it would not be possible to stop it altogether and no one suggests that it is.

 

As for who shields, well we think the IFR is about 0.5% so I think we should look to identify the 0.5% most vulnerable people in society, not just everyone who happens to be over 60 or have a minor health condition (at which point you’d be looking at millions). 
 

There were 2.2m people in the UK classed as extremely vulnerable, so this is around 3%-4% of the population I believe. These are the people who would be shielded under the plan. 

[Fuzzy Afro]

2 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

I know that post isn’t personal but here is what it would mean for me ... vulnerable for me is .... me , my sister , both parents , best friend and wife , his parents another friend , his daughter , 2 cousins .... so at what point are you drawing the line ? 

Out of that group, who was in the clinically extremely vulnerable shielding group previously? I think only those people would actually need to shield, whereas everyone else would still be expected to triumph over the virus should they contract it. 

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Good post but I’ll mention for the umpteenth time that absolutely no one who advocates shielding is suggesting that all shielders can be protected. The idea would be to limit the spread into vulnerable groups through the use of shielding, it would not be possible to stop it altogether and no one suggests that it is.

 

As for who shields, well we think the IFR is about 0.5% so I think we should look to identify the 0.5% most vulnerable people in society, not just everyone who happens to be over 60 or have a minor health condition (at which point you’d be looking at millions). 
 

There were 2.2m people in the UK classed as extremely vulnerable, so this is around 3%-4% of the population I believe. These are the people who would be shielded under the plan. 

glad you're not in charge.

[Fuzzy Afro]

Deal done to move South Yorkshire into Tier 3. 

[Fuzzy Afro]

Manchester getting £60m

[Crazyfool01]

5 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Out of that group, who was in the clinically extremely vulnerable shielding group previously? I think only those people would actually need to shield, whereas everyone else would still be expected to triumph over the virus should they contract it. 

2 people the rest were vulnerable ... who were also asked to remove themselves from society during the last lockdown ... diabetes doesn’t fall into extremely vulnerable ... yet has increased mortality ... so I’m not so sure about the expected to triumph statement . Do you watch those daily briefings with the admissions to icu of the over 60s ? 

Edited October 21, 2020 by crazyfool1

[RobertProsineckisLighter]

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-boris-johnson-to-make-announcement-on-south-yorkshire-amid-tier-3-restriction-speculation-12109954

There we go.... 

[Fuzzy Afro]

1 minute ago, crazyfool1 said:

2 people the rest were vulnerable ... who were also asked to remove themselves from society during the last lockdown ... diabetes doesn’t fall into extremely vulnerable ... yet has increased mortality ... so I’m not so sure about the expected to triumph statement 

They were? I’m sure only the “clinically extremely vulnerable” actually had to shield?

 

Diabetes certainly has increased mortality, but still pretty low I’d imagine among young people? My best mate is 29 and type 1 and he doesn’t seem too worried for sure.