Jump to content

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, jim mk2 said:

Is Jack Humphry Baring Wakefield not trusted to babysit ? He is only 43

Someone with that name would be nowhere near my kids....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Blue blood said:

You mean the rewriting of history and exemption from law for certain people? yes. 

Also Rev, on Rovers I respect your opinions, but the idea this is all a big deal about nothing (or something minor) is beyond batnuts. All the medical personnel I know talk about how serious covid is. People in business and government put money first, yet have still been willing to take a big financial hit in locking us down. we've seen the reports on the news from Italy and other plaxes. Governments around the world, as well as organisations like WHO are treating it as a big deal. Not sure what qualifies you to think ALL this is wrong and yet you are right it is something minor which we have gone over the top for. 

It's not nothing. We've had a global pandemic  caused by a new virus which had cost many tens of thousands of lives . 

However we keep getting fed evidence free bilge in the form of constant statements about "How lockdown is working". Obviously if you say it often enough, people start to believe it. There isn't the slightest shred of actual evidence to suggest that any of the measures taken to combat the virus have been effective in saving lives. In fact all the evidence points toward the fact that the virus does what it does regardless of anything we  do as shown here by vast regional differences in infection rates despite us all having lived under the same identical controlled conditions (which we're reliably told prevent or reduce transmission) for the last eight weeks.

Against all this  "Ah yes the figures look bad but if you hadn't done what we said it would have been so much worse" nonsense which is entirely hypothetical and can never really be proved or disproved  we have concrete evidence of the damage to the economy in the form of businesses going bust, liveliehoods being ruined, colossal debt accruing for ourselves and future generations, damage to mental health caused by the lockdown, a rise in domestic abuse and a nation now so paralysed by fear that they seem unwilling to resume normal activities or assume acceptable levels of risk.

That isn't minor or "nothing" either. Would it not have been better for the less vulnerable part of society to carry on as normal and achieve a similar sort of result without all of the above?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

It's not nothing. We've had a global pandemic  caused by a new virus which had cost many tens of thousands of lives . 

However we keep getting fed evidence free bilge in the form of constant statements about "How lockdown is working". Obviously if you say it often enough, people start to believe it. There isn't the slightest shred of actual evidence to suggest that any of the measures taken to combat the virus have been effective in saving lives. In fact all the evidence points toward the fact that the virus does what it does regardless of anything we  do as shown here by vast regional differences in infection rates despite us all having lived under the same identical controlled conditions (which we're reliably told prevent or reduce transmission) for the last eight weeks.

Against all this  "Ah yes the figures look bad but if you hadn't done what we said it would have been so much worse" nonsense which is entirely hypothetical and can never really be proved or disproved  we have concrete evidence of the damage to the economy in the form of businesses going bust, liveliehoods being ruined, colossal debt accruing for ourselves and future generations, damage to mental health caused by the lockdown, a rise in domestic abuse and a nation now so paralysed by fear that they seem unwilling to resume normal activities or assume acceptable levels of risk.

That isn't minor or "nothing" either. Would it not have been better for the less vulnerable part of society to carry on as normal and achieve a similar sort of result without all of the above?

 

You are right now that the government has failed us.  You would have been wrong if we had acted faster/decisively and with an actual lockdown like Spain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shapps has been thrown to the wolves today and looks like a lost little kid. He is so uncomfortable which is usually a sign of somebody not being too truthful.

Where is Johnson again. After the last 24 hours he should be the one facing the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the government had any credibility before this briefing (I'm not sure it did), it has been completely eviscerated tonight. Cummings' position is untenable, this government is in complete chaos and they are all unfit for office. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, RevidgeBlue said:

It's not nothing. We've had a global pandemic  caused by a new virus which had cost many tens of thousands of lives . 

However we keep getting fed evidence free bilge in the form of constant statements about "How lockdown is working". Obviously if you say it often enough, people start to believe it. There isn't the slightest shred of actual evidence to suggest that any of the measures taken to combat the virus have been effective in saving lives. In fact all the evidence points toward the fact that the virus does what it does regardless of anything we  do as shown here by vast regional differences in infection rates despite us all having lived under the same identical controlled conditions (which we're reliably told prevent or reduce transmission) for the last eight weeks.

Against all this  "Ah yes the figures look bad but if you hadn't done what we said it would have been so much worse" nonsense which is entirely hypothetical and can never really be proved or disproved  we have concrete evidence of the damage to the economy in the form of businesses going bust, liveliehoods being ruined, colossal debt accruing for ourselves and future generations, damage to mental health caused by the lockdown, a rise in domestic abuse and a nation now so paralysed by fear that they seem unwilling to resume normal activities or assume acceptable levels of risk.

That isn't minor or "nothing" either. Would it not have been better for the less vulnerable part of society to carry on as normal and achieve a similar sort of result without all of the above?

 

Thanks for the clarity that it's the lockdown you have issues with. Glad you don't think it is nothing as some of your posts do come across that way. 

Have to say I'm not convinced by much of what you say! Practically all nations have locked down, and the majority of scientists seem to think that it's a good idea. Haven't seen masses of evidence that it isn't a good strategy. Indeed from track and trace, masks, lockdowns and shutting borders it seems most countries - including those who have dealt with other viruses successfully -  seem to think such measures are a good idea. Yet to see the overwhelming science to say that it isn't the case. 

There's a few flaws in your who knows what it would have been like if not lockdown arguments. One the idea that we don't know what it is like is to some extent a fallicy. We have seen the difference between quick lockdowns and ones which are delayed (admittedly there are other factors but that doesn't exclude comparison) and with previous pandemics and modelling the benefits of lockdown can be also seen and demonstrated. The weight of evidence suggests that lockdown is beneficial. (Again otherwise why would so many medical professions, fat cat business people, government's etc. do it.) Whilst we can't know for certain the evidence points us in those directions. I don't need to have a brick dropped on my head to know it most likely will cause damage (and hurt!) You get the point, the effects of not lockdown, can be deduced and known with reasonable if not exact accuracy. 

Also if the logic is the future is unknown, who knows how it will have turned out, then that applies just as much to businesses and the economy as to the effects of the pandemic. Either the future is unpredictable, in which case you can't say the economy would definitely be better off, or there's evidence to make some educated guesses/have a good idea about the future including what would happen sans lockdown. 

Another factor I think you may need to consider is whether we could have avoided lockdown/crash anyway. I'm no scientist but have a bit more of an understanding of education and many schools were having to close - at least in part - before the lockdown came. There were too many teachers and other staff vulnerable, isolating etc. to continue. I'm not convinced we could have carried on. I suspect it would be that way for a number of other industries too. At least with lockdown when it came and forcing businesses to close it allows them to claim for furlough etc whereas trying to struggle on in ambiguous circumstances I imagine would be much harder. For example a cafe can now furlough staff, whereas imagine trying to keep going with far fewer customers around. I wonder if the financial ramifications would be worse. 

Finally its worth saying I agree with you that the cost has still been horrendous. From mental health to economic, on top of all the deaths it's been terrible. Can't wait for it to be over. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the woman scientist said travelling in a car with somebody who has the virus or symptoms isn't the right thing to do. In cold, hard terms they weren't protecting the kid, they put him in the line of fire.

Why weren't they pressed on such matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now it was okay to travel 260 miles With the virus to stay put, but not okay to go to your second home even if you were well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, den said:

So now it was okay to travel 260 miles With the virus to stay put, but not okay to go to your second home even if you were well.

Thats about the size of it den....

Bunch for shysters, do as I say not as I do, he should be sacked immediately. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the only advantage of the round trip was that his sister could drop shopping off at his front door.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, den said:

Apparently the only advantage of the round trip was that his sister could drop shopping off at his front door.

 

He's an arrogant bastard who needs to go ASAP. We can't afford to have people like that calling the shots in a crisis. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Gav said:

Thats about the size of it den....

Bunch for shysters, do as I say not as I do, he should be sacked immediately. 

I fully agree Gav but after Johnson and his minions have publicly supported him that won't happen. He won't resign either so it might be left to other powerful political organisations to pile the pressure on.

Whichever way it has really angered lots of decent people. I have spoken to a few Tory voters recently who aren't happy with the handling of the whole situation but this will probably tip them over the edge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, arbitro said:

And the woman scientist said travelling in a car with somebody who has the virus or symptoms isn't the right thing to do. In cold, hard terms they weren't protecting the kid, they put him in the line of fire.

Why weren't they pressed on such matters.

He can't have been feeling that bad if he could drive 260 miles non stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, den said:

Apparently the only advantage of the round trip was that his sister could drop shopping off at his front door.

 

We've got parents across this country in dire financial situations, with no garden for the kids, no food in the cupboard and corona virus running through the household, they're managing.

Yet the millionaire Dominic Cummings who lives in Islington can't get groceries delivered or cope with a wife and 4yr old child.

He should be sacked, fined by the police and warned about his behaviour. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

He can't have been feeling that bad if he could drive 260 miles non stop.

You know Tyrone so much of what they have said is implausible that it's clear they are covering the whole thing up with lies and I find that insulting to every decent minded person in this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, arbitro said:

You know Tyrone so much of what they have said is implausible that it's clear they are covering the whole thing up with lies and I find that insulting to every decent minded person in this country.

and Jenny Harries has created a whole new interpretation of the guideline. Listen to what I say, then work out what I really meant. She should have stuck to the science, not tried to protect anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gav said:

We've got parents across this country in dire financial situations, with no garden for the kids, no food in the cupboard and corona virus running through the household, they're managing.

Yet the millionaire Dominic Cummings who lives in Islington can't get groceries delivered or cope with a wife and 4yr old child.

He should be sacked, fined by the police and warned about his behaviour. 

I would imagine that anyone who's been fined for breaching the rules will be asking for the fines to be repaid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cummings appears  to have a lot of friends in London willing to cover his arse on this one but seemingly unwilling to drop shopping off at his front door. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, den said:

and Jenny Harries has created a whole new interpretation of the guideline. Listen to what I say, then work out what I really meant. She should have stuck to the science, not tried to protect anyone.

The supposedly neutral advisors are being dragged into the mire by this lot. Whatever degree of objectivity they may have started out with is rapidly disappearing. Their necks are on the line now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

The supposedly neutral advisors are being dragged into the mire by this lot. Whatever degree of objectivity they may have started out with is rapidly disappearing. Their necks are on the line now.

Certainly, we can conclude that had the ring of protection that has been thrown around Cummings been thrown around the care/nursing homes, we would probably saved 10,000 deaths...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet somewhere in a wheat field Teresa May is watching all this thinking "It's not so great now is it Boris?" The last 4 prime ministers we've had have all been increasingly useless. Brown built the economy on sand as Chancellor and then had the misfortune of not being a people person. Cameron played a leading role in creating the hellhole that is modern Libya, with the jihadists and people traffickers, and had the EU referendum. May was just........awful and now we have Johnson, a workshy egotist who is as rarely seen as Bigfoot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The burning question:

Whilst brave Dom was busy protecting his family from the corona virus, who was sitting on the SAGE Group in his place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Norbert Rassragr said:

I bet somewhere in a wheat field Teresa May is watching all this thinking "It's not so great now is it Boris?" The last 4 prime ministers we've had have all been increasingly useless. Brown built the economy on sand as Chancellor and then had the misfortune of not being a people person. Cameron played a leading role in creating the hellhole that is modern Libya, with the jihadists and people traffickers, and had the EU referendum. May was just........awful and now we have Johnson, a workshy egotist who is as rarely seen as Bigfoot.

I was pondering this on my run earlier. I'd rather Bojo was in charge for EU negotiations and I'd rather May was in charge now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather they both be at the Jobcentre, but if they had to be the last two leaders, that would be the better way round. Mind you, Boris is useless on details, as just two PMQs against Starmer have shown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.