Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just now, Bubba said:

And what about the research, testing, etc involved in finding a vaccine?

If they award that to Serco we're all f****.

Researching a vaccine is a specialised task. Testing is not, at least not anywhere near the same level of complexity. They're hiring people with no previous medical or lab experience to do it.

I personally don't think we'll see a vaccine, at least one that gives permanent immunity like most.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 261
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

All Swedish models appeal to me

It’s a load of crap and if people don’t believe it’s real, got yourselves scrubbed up and on the ICU at Calderdale Royal, then tell us it isn’t real.

It's not even a party political issue for me. It's about Johnson and those he chose to surround himself with (and the reasons they're there). I can disagree ideologically with Conservatives but am gro

Posted Images

12 hours ago, Kay Shay-ra Shay-Ra said:

Apologies in advance if I offend anyone.

 

But why should the fit and able bodied people suffer due to the fact that elderly and already ill people may die from the virus.

 

The deaths may go up but the government advice will absolutely ruin people immune systems anyway.

Not saying herd immunity would work.

 

But its quite clear the cases will go up when you can just pop down and get tested.

When it wasn't so easy to get tested did people just feel crap and deal with it? Guess so with the ages of deaths.

I will wear a mask in shops and public transport etc so that people's state of mind who are worried about catching it won't be be harmed.

But all along places that take card payment like B&Q etc have been less risk than going to to sit in someone's garden.

 

I'm not wearing a tinfoil hat but there is more to this than the virus.

Possible Agenda 21 being pushed?

There have been fit healthy young people who have died or have been in intensive care too.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Ash said:

There have been fit healthy young people who have died or have been in intensive care too.

In the same way that a fit healthy young person can have a surprise heart attack...on any sort of singular level it becomes an impossible argument in the sense that no one can sanely argue that they are happy for people to die.

The government is in power to rule for the majority and to consider all possible angles, effects and side effects of every decision they make. If they make decisions based on "there's about a 1 in a zillion chance of a young healthy person dying of it so we must go over the top with all of our measures" then we are all royally f*cked.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The average age of deaths in the UK from Coronavirus is above the life expectancy. This is possibly one reason why the death numbers are remaining low whilst positive tests are back up at the levels during the height of the crisis because unfortunately a lot of our 80+ aged population have died and better precautions have been put in place.

This does, to an extent, beg the question on why stricter measures have been reintroduced though obviously it is important to protect the elderly population of this country. Possibly (and hopefully) a big spike in deaths may not materialise in this 2nd wave and the measures announced yesterday may be an overreaction. Even in Spain where average daily cases is between 5-6000, daily deaths are a fraction of what they were back in March and April.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Bubba said:

Even in Spain where average daily cases is between 5-6000, daily deaths are a fraction of what they were back in March and April.

Yet Boris and co are trying to scaremonger everyone into believing we must take these types of actions "because of what we see in France and Spain". I guess he assumes the general public isn't even capable of googling actual data.

If you Google 'coronavirus stats' it immediately brings up graphs, which you can sort by either cases or deaths, for any country you choose to select. Obviously not all countries count things the same way, have full data etc. - but it tells you that for yesterday/the most recent date they have:

France had 10,008 new cases, and 78 deaths.

Spain had 14,389 new cases, and 90 deaths.

So pray tell Boris what that tell us? It tells me that we should be worried about deaths more than we should cases, and that he is lying out of his backside trying to legitimise our measures based on what is happening in France and Spain, given they don't exactly seem to be in massive trouble with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a load of bullshit on Facebook about the restrictions being about 'a new world order' or new agenda and that the virus is fake. What Ive never seen anyone say is something to back up what the purpose would be of having a fake virus and these restrictions. What is the apparent end game they are striving for?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bubba said:

There is a load of bullshit on Facebook about the restrictions being about 'a new world order' or new agenda and that the virus is fake. What Ive never seen anyone say is something to back up what the purpose would be of having a fake virus and these restrictions. What is the apparent end game they are striving for?

By no means do I think this virus is fake and I do my best to stay safe and away from people who I cant acount for their whereabouts. 

But what I believe is that I think it's being abused so that the government to can't keep tabs on us. The whole cashless thing so every transaction and job has to go through the books and above board. Plus they can see where we have shopped and what we shop for. 

The closing down of pubs, gatherings stops people mobilising and nullifies us when we might want to argue a cause. 

I'd also like to add that I bet there are some property developers rubbing their hands at the prospect of pubs, businesses and sports teams shutting down for good. Is this a land grab? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with conspiracies, including this one, is that it would involve so many people who all would have to keep schtum, that I just cant see it.

Its like those who believe 9/11 was an inside job. It just wouldnt be possible to keep quiet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bubba said:

The average age of deaths in the UK from Coronavirus is above the life expectancy. This is possibly one reason why the death numbers are remaining low whilst positive tests are back up at the levels during the height of the crisis because unfortunately a lot of our 80+ aged population have died and better precautions have been put in place.

This does, to an extent, beg the question on why stricter measures have been reintroduced though obviously it is important to protect the elderly population of this country. Possibly (and hopefully) a big spike in deaths may not materialise in this 2nd wave and the measures announced yesterday may be an overreaction. Even in Spain where average daily cases is between 5-6000, daily deaths are a fraction of what they were back in March and April.

Your first sentence may be correct but that doesn't make it acceptable. If everyone over the age of expectancy started dying off, the age of expectancy would come down pretty rapidly.

Deaths are low in comparison to the recorded number of cases, but they are climbing and if it follows Spain the trend would remain upwards without further restrictions.

I'm all for the Swedish model actually, life must go on and all that, but it relies on people using common sense and taking measured approaches to risky situations. Sadly there's a distinct lack of common sense everywhere you look, so I'm not sure this would work in the UK. You only have to look at the supermarkets, where people form orderly queues outside, then once inside it's a free for all with zero attempt by many to keep any sort of distance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Hoddie said:

Your first sentence may be correct but that doesn't make it acceptable. If everyone over the age of expectancy started dying off, the age of expectancy would come down pretty rapidly.

Deaths are low in comparison to the recorded number of cases, but they are climbing and if it follows Spain the trend would remain upwards without further restrictions.

I'm all for the Swedish model actually, life must go on and all that, but it relies on people using common sense and taking measured approaches to risky situations. Sadly there's a distinct lack of common sense everywhere you look, so I'm not sure this would work in the UK. You only have to look at the supermarkets, where people form orderly queues outside, then once inside it's a free for all with zero attempt by many to keep any sort of distance.

In what sense? See my figures earlier - their cases have gone up hugely, deaths have not.

I agree the Swedish model appeals to me, but would have zero chance of working in this country.

Edited by greg45
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, greg45 said:

In what sense? See my figures earlier - their cases have gone up hugely, deaths have not.

I agree the Swedish model appeals to me, but would have zero chance of working in this country.

They are climbing, albeit slowly. It's a classic no-win situation for the government. If they lock down and successfully prevent a return to the large number of deaths we saw earlier in the year, they'll be accused of taking unnecessary draconian action (difficult to show success); or if they keep opening up as was planned until this week, only to then see a spike in deaths, they'll be criticised for not taking the warning signs seriously.

The issue with this government is that they can't seem to make up their minds. It's one step forwards, two to the side, three back, another forwards, etc. It's like hokey cokey on a 'hilarious-if-not-so-serious' scale.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hoddie said:

They are climbing, albeit slowly. It's a classic no-win situation for the government. If they lock down and successfully prevent a return to the large number of deaths we saw earlier in the year, they'll be accused of taking unnecessary draconian action (difficult to show success); or if they keep opening up as was planned until this week, only to then see a spike in deaths, they'll be criticised for not taking the warning signs seriously.

The issue with this government is that they can't seem to make up their minds. It's one step forwards, two to the side, three back, another forwards, etc. It's like hokey cokey on a 'hilarious-if-not-so-serious' scale.

I think that's the real issue. Said it before in this thread and elsewhere that nobody could expect perfection. New Zealand were heralded as the 'gold standard' for a while but they've made errors as have all countries.
The heart of the problem with Johnson is his complete inability to master a brief. He just doesn't have the attention span or, I suspect, the will to do it. He doesn't do detail. That's been a consistent criticism since he was at school. As a journalist, rather than research, he'd manufacture (polite word for lie). He did the same as Mayor. He had this great vision of new Routemasters and Garden Bridges and made a Horlicks of them.
Nothing changed when he was foreign secretary. 
He picked a side on Brexit that suited him. He made the Conservative Party such a toxic mess when he assumed power that he was forced to surround himself with a cabinet built on loyalty to his cause as opposed to talent. 

Add in that he is a serial liar and sprinkle with a healthy dose of his vanity and it's no wonder that our approach has changed almost week on week, staggering from one error or correction, reversal or crisis to another. 
 

As an aside, the MP for Mansfield, Ben Bradley, raised the issue of clubs lower down the league at PMQs today. Just because he's a Conservative it doesn't mean I can't applaud him for doing so. We need more MPs, our local ones included, to do the same. Even being cynical, it's an easy local media story you can generate with very little effort.

 

Edited by 154 Hopper Avenue
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Wilder Bollox said:

Staggering kick offs and trying to avoid clashing with big games would broaden the potential but I'm not sure about the logistics of pay to view and we've also got to have an arrangement with BT to allow clubs to either do it on their own or do it via them

Presume that games on BT would not be streamed. BT games are usually 5.30 kick off and wouldn't be affected by streaming at 3.00. Everyone keeps suggesting £10 as a possible charge but as season ticket holders have paid more than that it could cause problems. Why not £15. I would pay that. It allows you to watch the match without the costs of getting to the ground etc. I know it is not the same as being at the game but it helps to keep the club going and unlike in the past you are at least getting to see the game for your donation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, bolt45 said:

Presume that games on BT would not be streamed. BT games are usually 5.30 kick off and wouldn't be affected by streaming at 3.00. Everyone keeps suggesting £10 as a possible charge but as season ticket holders have paid more than that it could cause problems. Why not £15. I would pay that. It allows you to watch the match without the costs of getting to the ground etc. I know it is not the same as being at the game but it helps to keep the club going and unlike in the past you are at least getting to see the game for your donation.

I wouldn't pay £15. It's too much imo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a season ticket holder I would expect to have the away games free or a refund to cover the price difference if it only covers home games plus a discount for paying up front. I'm sure the club will do the right thing regarding season ticket holders who have taken the risk based on the information available at the time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Hands Off The Shay said:

As a season ticket holder I would expect to have the away games free or a refund to cover the price difference if it only covers home games plus a discount for paying up front. I'm sure the club will do the right thing regarding season ticket holders who have taken the risk based on the information available at the time.

Not much of a risk if you expect your cake either way.

30 minutes ago, Flea said:

Thing is, some clubs will know they hold the cards. Charge it and pay it, or miss out. 

Indeed, but I won't be paying it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Wilder Bollox said:

And fans may choose to not pay it . But the biggest problem with streaming is that a large group can watch 1 paid stream

This is true, many families go and will now potentially watch a game for £10 rather than £40/50

I've just seen that the Premier league have brough fwd certain kick off times to accomidate pub serving hours. I'm finding it hard to accept that i can go, in a no doubt fairly busy pub to watch a PL game.  I cant however, stand or sit in a outdoor arena socially distance from everyone else??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...