When will this shit end?

[Zoo Music Girl]

17 minutes ago, hillwalker said:

Thank you. I had the first shot of the Pfizer vaccine on Christmas Eve, it was a nice early Christmas present.  It has provided myself and colleagues who've had it with some sense of relief which is needed right now. I've always tried to remain optimistic and I can see a point next summer where we'll be back at the pub without a substantial meal and meeting friends and family again. I do have a hunch that we won't be at the farm in June though, not so much that it won't be safe then but it's too much of a gamble to proceed with all the build up work right now. But that's off topic a bit and has been discussed to death!

Excellent news! Wish I could upvote this. 

[efcfanwirral]

My Grandad has managed to catch covid in hospital in an area that was tier 2 until a couple of weeks ago. No symptoms but is being kept in (has had the one dose of the vaccine he's going to get). This is the big test of the one dose I guess...

Selfishly I'm glad my dad isnt going to be exposed to him til he tests negative but I'm not convinced it's a good use of a covid ward bed for 2 weeks to be honest - once the initial water infection he's in there for goes surely he should be going home to isolate? If this is happening around the country is this sort of thing perhaps making things worse? 

Edited December 31, 2020 by efcfanwirral

[gigpusher]

48 minutes ago, RobertProsineckisLighter said:

I find this really interesting because I have had a friend who have been diagnosed with breast cancer during Covid, operated on and received all her treatments. 

I've had friends in other parts of the country who have had operations on sports injuries. Scans etc.. 

The fall out of this year is going to last a long time both in terms of health inequalities and wider inequality as it will be the public services that end up footing the bill for decades to come.

Yes I have a friend who lives down south and she had a hysterectomy this year so it seems that area of the country may play a part and that in itself is a disgrace. Your postcode shouldn't determine whether you live in extreme pain or get the surgery you require. 

[efcfanwirral]

 

3 minutes ago, ace56blaa said:

The problem, is the other peoples opinions views they are listening to, seemingly more than the scientists is Rishi Sunak, who probably has little expertise beyond "shutting economy bad, open up as much as possible, good" - They need to balance the health and wealth for sure, but I think everyone on here has said a million times, that they haven't done that. They have time and time again failed at restoring wealth while protecting health. - It is because when they have been opening up they haven't been considering health nearly as much as wealth. For example "Eat out to Help Out" a toddler could have told them that was a bad idea for the spread of the virus and it was, but they didn't think about it like that, they just wanted to get people out and spending in hospitality, so they didn't need to keep giving them continued support. Or when just last month when they came out of lockdown far too early, so people could go out and christmas shop and put us in the position we are in now. It's not that they need to consider the bigger picture, it's that they need to stop flat out ignoring scientists, especially when they've failed at every safety precaution and messaging around health to the point that lockdowns are the only defense that will work. 

If they had track and trace working for winter, isolation payments the whole year, the correct messaging, not trying to get people back into offices in September, purely for the wealth of Tory donors/landlords. Wealth was obviously the main driving force of government decisions up until November, hence why they ended furlough too soon initially etc. But they fucked up because it turns out public confidence and health and the spread of the virus has a lot more to do with economic bounce back than the government thought. 

Again obvious to most on here.

This country voted overwhelmingly against socialism and in favour of capitalistic wealth improvement at the last election. Its obvious to us on here who care about people but that election result alone should tell us that isnt what this country is about. They are just implementing what their voters want and only doing things that are similar to socialism when they absolutely have to. 

And any YouGov surveys of people in favour of lockdowns won't have been filled in by the majority of idiots that populate the smaller minded places in this country 

Edited December 31, 2020 by efcfanwirral

[Copperface]

7 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

And any YouGov surveys of people in favour of lockdowns won't have been filled in by the majority of idiots that populate the smaller minded places in this country 

 

[Guest]

 

[ace56blaa]

6 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

 

This country voted overwhelmingly against socialism and in favour of capitalistic wealth improvement at the last election. Its obvious to us on here who care about people but that election result alone should tell us that isnt what this country is about. They are just implementing what their voters want and only doing things that are similar to socialism when they absolutely have to. 

And any YouGov surveys of people in favour of lockdowns won't have been filled in by the majority of idiots that populate the smaller minded places in this country 

I mean most people in this country didn't vote for what the tories actually do. They voted for Brexit and Freedom and Sovereignty, whatever that is. But no one voted for the Tories to steal billions of tax payers money to doll out to their wealth tory friends. - The vote for the fantasy idea of Conservatism, the idea that anyone can get rich with less regulations and more tax breaks for the wealthy. etc etc. But Conservatism doesn't work for more than a select percentage of the population. The truth is the majority of people voting conservative will never benefit from that choice. 

Also this Tory party is not implementing what the voters want, they are simply just doing the bare minimum in order to save as much money as possible for their own ends. Starting culture wars to fuel support for their agenda. The average person wants all british kids to be fed. But once you start saying things like its " a woke lefty agenda" to feed kids, the same person, who has been brainwashed by selected newspapers for years is gonna be turned off to the idea. - The conservative party doesn't stand for anything, it's a racket, a pyramid scheme in order to achieve as many votes as possible. This is evident from Dominic Cummings, someone who has never liked tory's becoming an advisor for brexit and steering the conversation to immigration. Because immigration is an easy scapegoat, despite it not really being a huge issue, comparatively to Tory austerity. 

Also no one voted for anything to do with a global pandemic, no one knew that was on the ballots. In fact I'd go as far as to so, a lot of people really don't know what they want. If they want this country to be "fixed" by tories, they are deluded plain and simple. Tories will never make england great because they MO relies on making so many people suffer. 

But I agree that polls aren't representative, because anyone with a attention span for politics and no vested interest in Tory funding is like to spend time watching PMQs or doing political surveys and that's the problem in the way. People having their "god given" right to an political opinion, without having to do any research. 

I'm honestly done with the We should consider both sides equally argument, when it is clear the tories aren't political, they are purely greed driven. 

 

[Losing my hair]

21 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

My Grandad has managed to catch covid in hospital in an area that was tier 2 until a couple of weeks ago. No symptoms but is being kept in (has had the one dose of the vaccine he's going to get). This is the big test of the one dose I guess...

Selfishly I'm glad my dad isnt going to be exposed to him til he tests negative but I'm not convinced it's a good use of a covid ward bed for 2 weeks to be honest - once the initial water infection he's in there for goes surely he should be going home to isolate? If this is happening around the country is this sort of thing perhaps making things worse? 

He isn't going to get one dose, nobody is only going to get one dose. Everybody will receive 2 doses 3-12 weeks apart.

[ShakeyCrash]

13 minutes ago, ace56blaa said:

The problem, is the other peoples opinions views they are listening to, seemingly more than the scientists is Rishi Sunak, who probably has little expertise beyond "shutting economy bad, open up as much as possible, good" - They need to balance the health and wealth for sure, but I think everyone on here has said a million times, that they haven't done that. They have time and time again failed at restoring wealth while protecting health. - It is because when they have been opening up they haven't been considering health nearly as much as wealth. For example "Eat out to Help Out" a toddler could have told them that was a bad idea for the spread of the virus and it was, but they didn't think about it like that, they just wanted to get people out and spending in hospitality, so they didn't need to keep giving them continued support. Or

I may be less intelligent than most toddlers but I don't see why it's a given that Eat out to help out was a bad idea.  At least have the debate right?  This is the absolutism and oversimplification that is creeping in here.  The scheme generated £849 million for businesses and some of those were on their knees and may have seen them through to now.  Also during that time I remember there was a really good feeling factor of supporting businesses and seeing friends.  On the flip side there are claims that it may have increased the spread of the virus by between 8 to 17 %.  The debate is whether the benefits it generated merited the outcome.  This debate can and should be extended for other areas (e.g. schools).

I don't mean to pick you out, and agree with a large number of your points, but it's a good example of what I think some people are getting at. 

 

[hogga]

28 minutes ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

Excellent news! Wish I could upvote this. 

That's done for you. Your New Year resolution should be to go easy on upvotes to make them last at least most of the day 😁

[RobertProsineckisLighter]

1 hour ago, Ozanne said:

Of course the Scientists will worry about the bigger picture. A poorly functioning economy will have a knock on effect to health matters and vice versa.

During a global pandemic the government should be listening to the scientists, it’s pretty important given it’s a health crises.

I know there’s a cost associated with lockdowns it’s not a case of me liking it or not. To be honest I’m not sure why you said that as I haven’t once indicated that I don’t think there is one. There are ways to pay for the pandemic which can be done both during and after. However if we keep on going in and out of different forms of lockdowns then that is harmful to the economy giving us less of an ability to pay for it; when we could’ve acted tougher at the start and with a more consistent, competent approach.

The thing is the government aren’t really listening to anyone except themselves until it’s too late. If you don’t want to talk about Scientists then talk about Teachers and the Unions. Both telling the government for months that exam grades were an issue. The government ignored them, ignored the situation in the devolved nations and we know what happened next. They are now ignoring Teachers, Schools, Unions and SAGE over school reopenings with their announcement yesterday which also came too late. They had the warning from Economists and businesses too about furlough ending; the government ignored them and pressed on with the end of October deadline until they couldn’t any longer.

There’s a clear consistent theme here of the government ignoring incoming warnings of situations until it’s too late and it’s happening again. 

So are you saying they are ignoring it or not? A moment ago that wasn't what you were saying now it is? 

The scientists present the science. 

The economists present the picture about the economy. 

The Chief Medical Officer presents the picture about the situation in the NHS. 

The government then have to take all of these view points and make some horrible choices about what is best for the country at this moment in time with the information avalaible to them. They will get it wrong on occasions WHOEVER is in power and they will get some stuff right we dont know what they have got wrong or what they have got right yet because it's still going on. IF they closed schools and the rate of infections didn't come down that would be another wrong. IF the locked down I October who is to say that we wouldn't have had the mixing over Xmas and be in a worse position in a few weeks time. We just don't know. You just have to acknowledge that some things will turn out to be bad choices and some good.

Surely you can see that keeping people locked down for an undefined period of time, closing schools, closing businesses all the things you just throw out there as being obvious has wide reaching detrimental effects for years to come? 

Do you think the government are actively choosing to make bad decisions and endanger lives, or do you think they might be making what they believe to be the right decision which just turns out not to be?! 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, ShakeyCrash said:

I may be less intelligent than most toddlers but I don't see why it's a given that Eat out to help out was a bad idea.  At least have the debate right?  This is the absolutism and oversimplification that is creeping in here.  The scheme generated £849 million for businesses and some of those were on their knees and may have seen them through to now.  Also during that time I remember there was a really good feeling factor of supporting businesses and seeing friends.  On the flip side there are claims that it may have increased the spread of the virus by between 8 to 17 %.  The debate is whether the benefits it generated merited the outcome.  This debate can and should be extended for other areas (e.g. schools).

I don't mean to pick you out, and agree with a large number of your points, but it's a good example of what I think some people are getting at. 

 

I haven’t looked into the figures but the argument is that those businesses are now being forced to shut (or shut earlier than they would have) because Sunak wanted people to Eat Out. Even if it did help some businesses the added burden it’s now put on NHS Trusts in certain regions could cost more both economically and in livelihoods. They shouldn’t have had the scheme but given our better support to hospitality businesses throughout. 

[RobertProsineckisLighter]

11 minutes ago, ShakeyCrash said:

I may be less intelligent than most toddlers but I don't see why it's a given that Eat out to help out was a bad idea.  At least have the debate right?  This is the absolutism and oversimplification that is creeping in here.  The scheme generated £849 million for businesses and some of those were on their knees and may have seen them through to now.  Also during that time I remember there was a really good feeling factor of supporting businesses and seeing friends.  On the flip side there are claims that it may have increased the spread of the virus by between 8 to 17 %.  The debate is whether the benefits it generated merited the outcome.  This debate can and should be extended for other areas (e.g. schools).

I don't mean to pick you out, and agree with a large number of your points, but it's a good example of what I think some people are getting at. 

 

Exactly!

[Copperface]

13 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

 

I posted the following tweet on March 11. 10 months down the line now.

Italy were facing the same choices. Basically a crude survival related assessment dictated whether you received treatment or not. Don't think we really learned much in the intervening period.

 

[RobertProsineckisLighter]

Just now, Ozanne said:

I haven’t looked into the figures but the argument is that those businesses are now being forced to shut (or shut earlier than they would have) because Sunak wanted people to Eat Out. Even if it did help some businesses the added burden it’s now put on NHS Trusts in certain regions could cost more both economically and in livelihoods. They shouldn’t have had the scheme but given our better support to hospitality businesses throughout. 

Where is this magic money tree to pay for all this stuff? Ah yes future generations. 

If your blaming eat out to help out for the current spike, we should have stayed in lockdown till we have everyone jabbed then is that not the only option? Because ANYTHING other than locking people in their homes would lead to an increase.

 

 

[ace56blaa]

12 minutes ago, ShakeyCrash said:

I may be less intelligent than most toddlers but I don't see why it's a given that Eat out to help out was a bad idea.  At least have the debate right?  This is the absolutism and oversimplification that is creeping in here.  The scheme generated £849 million for businesses and some of those were on their knees and may have seen them through to now.  Also during that time I remember there was a really good feeling factor of supporting businesses and seeing friends.  On the flip side there are claims that it may have increased the spread of the virus by between 8 to 17 %.  The debate is whether the benefits it generated merited the outcome.  This debate can and should be extended for other areas (e.g. schools).

I don't mean to pick you out, and agree with a large number of your points, but it's a good example of what I think some people are getting at. 

 

Yes of course the was good things about eat out to help out, it was at a time where the government ere opening everything back up and basically saying we had "beat the virus" so at the time it seemed like a good way to get the economy back up and running. But only because the government was ignoring the scientists saying there is a threshold to how much you can reopen. In isolation eat out to help out might have been okay, but the did it just before unis and schools went back whilst opening everything back up. 

You don't have to be a smart economist to know that giving half price meals whilst telling the public the virus is defeated is gonna generate some cash, but thats not the point, it is now clear that the scheme did contribute to the uptick in september and that Rishi Sunak was also the person opposing firebreaks and lockdowns at every turn, whilst trying to end furlough and financial support. 

I fail to see how a good economist doesn't recognise that simply trying to convince everyone to go to indoor places to spend is a good idea when it will and has ultimately lead to those same businesses being closed. As Boris himself says when justifying the huge gaps in financial support, the best way to get sectors back up and running is to control the virus. So why aren't they doing that. ?



 

 

[RobertProsineckisLighter]

43 minutes ago, gigpusher said:

Yes I have a friend who lives down south and she had a hysterectomy this year so it seems that area of the country may play a part and that in itself is a disgrace. Your postcode shouldn't determine whether you live in extreme pain or get the surgery you require. 

My friend who got her treatment was down south. Postcode lottery with access to services has existed a very long time and the fallout from brexit and Covid will only amplify this again. The gap only grows bigger with austerity. 

[ace56blaa]

3 minutes ago, RobertProsineckisLighter said:

Where is this magic money tree to pay for all this stuff? Ah yes future generations. 

If your blaming eat out to help out for the current spike, we should have stayed in lockdown till we have everyone jabbed then is that not the only option? Because ANYTHING other than locking people in their homes would lead to an increase.

 

 

Ah the fucking magic money tree argument. You realise that is a stupid tory propaganda thing, "Whose gonna pay for all this?" they cry until it is about wasting million and billions of tax payers money on tory contracts that amount to nothing. 

The truth is the economy can support a lot more borrowing than you think, the idea of a national deficit is gravely exaggerated. Something to do with the ease of being able to sell bonds to make up the deficit. 

Someone put a video about it on here a long long time ago, never been able to find it since, so if anyone knows what im talking about please chime in, but essentially the idea that there's no magic money tree is hilarious, when they spaff billions up the wall on failed PPE and then tell you there's not enough for furlough 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, RobertProsineckisLighter said:

So are you saying they are ignoring it or not? A moment ago that wasn't what you were saying now it is? 

The scientists present the science. 

The economists present the picture about the economy. 

The Chief Medical Officer presents the picture about the situation in the NHS. 

The government then have to take all of these view points and make some horrible choices about what is best for the country at this moment in time with the information avalaible to them. They will get it wrong on occasions WHOEVER is in power and they will get some stuff right we dont know what they have got wrong or what they have got right yet because it's still going on. IF they closed schools and the rate of infections didn't come down that would be another wrong. IF the locked down I October who is to say that we wouldn't have had the mixing over Xmas and be in a worse position in a few weeks time. We just don't know. You just have to acknowledge that some things will turn out to be bad choices and some good.

Surely you can see that keeping people locked down for an undefined period of time, closing schools, closing businesses all the things you just throw out there as being obvious has wide reaching detrimental effects for years to come? 

Do you think the government are actively choosing to make bad decisions and endanger lives, or do you think they might be making what they believe to be the right decision which just turns out not to be?! 

I don’t need your patronisation about what certain job roles do, thanks though.

I’ve said the government have acted too late on all the advice, I’ve said that quite a few times.

We know what HAS happened, we know they acted too late and we know as a result we have one of the largest death counts in the world and one of the largest recessions. As I’ve said that’s the worst of each world and is just one item of proof that the government have failed. You are giving the government a free pass over their handling of the pandemic because we don’t know what might have happened at the time, you’re missing the point that the government had warnings and chose at the time not to act.
 

If it was happening just once then fair enough but it isn’t, it’s happening over and over again to the point now where it’s negligence. That’s why I gave you more examples than just Scientists, when is it a wake up call to you that all these trends are pointing to the people making the decisions that are the problem or are you going to keep your head in the sand over it?

Please can you point out where I have said I wanted people kept in lockdown? I’ve had a look and I don’t think I’ve said it. I’ve said I wanted the government to act on the warnings, if they had done we might not have needed so many forms of lockdown. I don’t want people kept in lockdowns but if they are needed then we should enact it quickly and put sufficient financial support in place for businesses and workers when they isolate.

I have no idea if they purposely act to make bad decisions. I have a feeling they act with the intentions of prioritising certain people first and ensuring their acquaintances can profit off the situation. I believe their main priority is ensuring the NHS doesn’t collapse as the PR fallout from that would destroy their electoral hopes. 

[Losing my hair]

11 minutes ago, RobertProsineckisLighter said:

Where is this magic money tree to pay for all this stuff? Ah yes future generations. 

If your blaming eat out to help out for the current spike, we should have stayed in lockdown till we have everyone jabbed then is that not the only option? Because ANYTHING other than locking people in their homes would lead to an increase.

 

 

We live in the 6th largest economy in the world worth over £2 trillion a year. The money is there to pay for all this, just not necessarily in the right place.

[ace56blaa]

10 minutes ago, RobertProsineckisLighter said:

Where is this magic money tree to pay for all this stuff? Ah yes future generations. 

If your blaming eat out to help out for the current spike, we should have stayed in lockdown till we have everyone jabbed then is that not the only option? Because ANYTHING other than locking people in their homes would lead to an increase.

 

 

Also not blaming eat out to help out solely. The problem was the government did that and then opened millions of over thigns too early, like 30 person weddings and arcades, the government was incapable of making any concessions on the economy opening more stuff up after their scientific advisors said they were at the threshold then they opened schools and forced people back to offices. 

That is the problem not one thing alone, but doing things like eat out to help out whilst pretending the virus had been defeated and that we'd be back to normal by christmas. 

I even thought "maybe this is going to be over soon" because of the messaging

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, RobertProsineckisLighter said:

Where is this magic money tree to pay for all this stuff? Ah yes future generations. 

If your blaming eat out to help out for the current spike, we should have stayed in lockdown till we have everyone jabbed then is that not the only option? Because ANYTHING other than locking people in their homes would lead to an increase.

 

 

You mean the magic money tree that has given billions to the Tories mates? Funny how the money is available in some circumstances but in others when it comes to giving money to poorer people it isn’t.

Are you sure about your last point? Have a look in some other countries they seem to be managing it quite nicely with an effective test and trace program.

Again I’m not saying keep people locked up, you seem to like it as you mention it a lot. I’m saying with regards to Eat Out, maybe don’t actively encourage people to go out to restaurants which are an ideal place for viruses to spread (people eating, face masks being put on and off etc). It’s more nuanced than you are suggesting. 

Edited December 31, 2020 by Ozanne

[Punksnotdead]

2 hours ago, jump said:

I still think Brewdog are a bit w*nk. They own the copyright of "punk" somehow and been sending lawyers after anyone who use the term, I've seen a few pubs/clubs using terms like "punk night" or "punk all dayer" for their own events get threats from them.

That's my username fucked then! 😄

[Guest]

There’s plenty of other ways to pay for it rather than more austerity.

We don’t have to cut public services, if anything when we are in an economic downturn we need to INVEST more in public services to drive up consumer confidence. We could look at raising taxes whether that’s on the wealthy or small increases for the whole population. It’s also different when we own our own currency and are currently funding the pandemic response by borrowing from the publicly owned BoE at historically low interest rates which won’t need to be repaid for a very long time. Therefore as we essentially owe the money to ourselves there is also an argument that we never need to pay it back and it can be written off to give the economy room to breathe.

There’s also other ways to pay for the pandemic (green investment etc) but cuts to public services isn’t the answer. This pandemic has shown if we run with an under-funded health service then we run the risk of it not being able to be fully there for us when we need it most. 

[RobertProsineckisLighter]

3 minutes ago, ace56blaa said:

Ah the fucking magic money tree argument. You realise that is a stupid tory propaganda thing, "Whose gonna pay for all this?" they cry until it is about wasting million and billions of tax payers money on tory contracts that amount to nothing. 

The truth is the economy can support a lot more borrowing than you think, the idea of a national deficit is gravely exaggerated. Something to do with the ease of being able to sell bonds to make up the deficit. 

Someone put a video about it on here a long long time ago, never been able to find it since, so if anyone knows what im talking about please chime in, but essentially the idea that there's no magic money tree is hilarious, when they spaff billions up the wall on failed PPE and then tell you there's not enough for furlough 

I've spent 13 years working I local government I've seen what 40% budget cuts do to public services - and I've seen who it is that suffers. I've seen what a 50% reduction in workforce does and who suffers as a result. 

As long as I've got a hole in my arse there is going to be some book balancing with the Tories in power - and all the while they are in power is the public services and their users who are going to suffer the most. 

Nearly all the LA's in the country are on the verge of bankruptcy as a direct result of Covid so even if the Tory's don't cut their budgets they will be balancing the books themselves. The wasted billions although criminal is just s drop in the oceon to the true cost of Covid.