COVID-19 — Coronavirus

Status
Not open for further replies.
Indaparkside said:
Only rich fuckers can go to Waitrose us poor peasants have Lidl and mass looting to contend with
Click to expand...

Ha ha! I get my main shop in Aldi in Altrincham. It is cheaper and this weekend they were well stocked. The downside is it is a 15 minute walk there and the same coming back. That is the killer carrying the bags. I have a Waitrose two minutes walk away but it has been abysmal since this crisis blew up, empty shelves etcetera. Given that it is one of the highest priced supermarkets I am disappointed they haven't got their act together better.
 
paulchapo said:
Ha ha! I get my main shop in Aldi in Altrincham. It is cheaper and this weekend they were well stocked. The downside is it is a 15 minute walk there and the same coming back. That is the killer carrying the bags. I have a Waitrose two minutes walk away but it has been abysmal since this crisis blew up, empty shelves etcetera. Given that it is one of the highest priced supermarkets I am disappointed they haven't got their act together better.
Click to expand...

Can you not car share with a neighbour
 
Coatigan said:
What public pressure? Did you watch either speech, by Boris OR Sturgeon? they are very much putting the pressure on the public rather than the other way round.

I myself am not looking for anything sinister or devious in what is a highly complex and sensitive situation.
Click to expand...

Of course you're not. The public pressure by media and majority of people. If they were putting pressure on public, they wouldn't beg them, they would order. I stopped looking what politicians are talking long time ago, it's what they are doing. In this case, they introduced half-arsed lockdown with numerous loopholes in it. It's still better than what was before, of course, but it's half-arsed anyway and there could be absolutely same scenes from all those beaches we watched during weekend with these new rules. It's my first exercise and that's it. Tubes and buses - everyone up others mouth. The single big thing they did was closing the pubs, but if you don't think they've done that only after huge public pressure, then you're blind and probably politically biased.

They've promised great stuff for economy and financial well being though. I'm jealous on you Brits for that part.
 
Uncle Wally One Ball said:
I think 2 people who happen to be doctors have been the victims of street robberies for their mobile phones as is sadly common place particularly in the place where they happened. I also the think the story about it goes on to say a lot of mays, possiblys and other speculative terms about what might happen.
What about you, what do you think?
Click to expand...

I'm somewhere in the middle. I just don't think it's such an outlandish story at all and at times like this there will be all manner of unscrupulous fuckers trying all sorts of things on
 
I'm not trying to be divisive here, or even have a go at the government. This is just something that goes through my head all the time, and I'd honestly like to know a good answer if anyone has one. It's a sincere question.

The one thing I always struggle with in regards to this approach is why we didn't buy ourselves more time? We all know they're currently scraping around to get emergency supplies for the NHS, who seem really under-prepared for all of this. There has been plenty of talks about a lack of beds, needing more nurses and so on. The staff haven't even got the right uniforms.

This has lead to loads of companies diversifying and creating equipment who don't usually do so - we've got one company who usually make hoovers building ventilators, we've got people like brewdog making hand sanitiser, we've got another who usually make sportswear now making scrubs for nurses etc. There's loads of actions like this to catch up to the need of supplies.

What I can't quite understand is why didn't we go full lock down very early on to buy us the time to make all this stuff and get prepared as possible? I understand that the virus wouldn't have gone away, but it would have slowed down immeasurably if only critical workers were out doing their jobs. We would have then surely bought 3/4 weeks to get prepared, and then we could have started slowly sending some people back to work, almost drip feeding the virus to the populace if necessary, and then helping those who picked it up. We'd be ready and able, with more knowledge of how to treat it too. Crucially too, we could 'turn off the tap' at any point if it felt dangerous.

If we're gonna get a peak either way, why does it have to be sooner rather than later. Lots of people keep saying 'ahh but the problem is China will get a second wave', but they're surely better prepared for another, and given we knew what was coming, couldn't we have avoided that first wave by taking drastic measures, and then delayed that peak to later in the year so we were more prepared? Is that really a bad thing? If the peak has to happen, you'd surely rather it happen a while away to get prepared for it? If we had delayed it, we'd have better equipment, a better understanding from the world's leading scientists in other countries on how to deal with this virus, and maybe even have antibody tests ready.

I don't understand why we didn't quickly lock down, get prepared, and then start slowly dealing with it and trying to gradually build this herd immunity approach. Am I missing something here? It's a sincere question.
 
Marvin said:
When the peak is passed it will collapse, you've seen the model curves, and the real curves from South Korea and China. Afterwards there will be tests and society will have the resources to do the tests. There'll be vaccine trials too which will have increasing effects. Many healthworkers will have immunity and they'll know it from antibody tests.

Boris seems to be trying to infect the herd. he's either incompetent or he's following a stupid strategy that most scientists have laughed out of the house.
Click to expand...
Re last para., herd infection if that is the idea, has a side effect of being fatal mainly to the elderly and / or those with underlying health conditions.
Other than long term benefit financially to the NHS what possible reason would there be for such a sacrifice?
 
Jim Radcliffe playing the hero- making hand sanitizer in Middlesbrough (should be rightly applauded) - pity Britains wealthiest man pays not a penny in income tax however!
 
twosips said:
I'm not trying to be divisive here, or even have a go at the government. This is just something that goes through my head all the time, and I'd honestly like to know a good answer if anyone has one. It's a sincere question.

The one thing I always struggle with in regards to this approach is why we didn't buy ourselves more time? We all know they're currently scraping around to get emergency supplies for the NHS, who seem really under-prepared for all of this. There has been plenty of talks about a lack of beds, needing more nurses and so on. The staff haven't even got the right uniforms.

This has lead to loads of companies diversifying and creating equipment who don't usually do so - we've got one company who usually make hoovers building ventilators, we've got people like brewdog making hand sanitiser, we've got another who usually make sportswear now making scrubs for nurses etc. There's loads of actions like this to catch up to the need of supplies.

What I can't quite understand is why didn't we go full lock down very early on to buy us the time to make all this stuff and get prepared as possible? I understand that the virus wouldn't have gone away, but it would have slowed down immeasurably if only critical workers were out doing their jobs. We would have then surely bought 3/4 weeks to get prepared, and then we could have started slowly sending some people back to work, almost drip feeding the virus to the populace if necessary, and then helping those who picked it up. We'd be ready and able, with more knowledge of how to treat it too. Crucially too, we could 'turn off the tap' at any point if it felt dangerous.

If we're gonna get a peak either way, why does it have to be sooner rather than later. Lots of people keep saying 'ahh but the problem is China will get a second wave', but they're surely better prepared for another, and given we knew what was coming, couldn't we have avoided that first wave by taking drastic measures, and then delayed that peak to later in the year so we were more prepared? Is that really a bad thing? If the peak has to happen, you'd surely rather it happen a while away to get prepared for it? If we had delayed it, we'd have better equipment, a better understanding from the world's leading scientists in other countries on how to deal with this virus, and maybe even have antibody tests ready.

I don't understand why we didn't quickly lock down, get prepared, and then start slowly dealing with it and trying to gradually build this herd immunity approach. Am I missing something here? It's a sincere question.
Click to expand...

I too think we should've gone into lockdown earlier and they've been a little slow on some things for sure which has annoyed me, but what you're saying can be levelled at all manner of countries as well so perhaps a fairer question should be why didn't the whole planet go into lockdown early on?
 
M18CTID said:
I too think we should've gone into lockdown earlier and they've been a little slow on some things for sure which has annoyed me, but what you're saying can be levelled at all manner of countries as well so perhaps a fairer question should be why didn't the whole planet go into lockdown early on?
Click to expand...

A few countries did though tbf.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top