COVID-19 — Coronavirus

Status
Not open for further replies.
marcus said:
Because there isnt really restrictions on the ‘vulnerable’. The stats still clearly say its killing the older/unhealthy.

(sorry, didnt mean it to sound as harsh as that)
Click to expand...
When there were shielding restrictions on the vulnerable, originally, it didn’t stop hospitals being full of very ill covid cases many of whom didn’t know they were vulnerable. That’s the point thousands of us think we are healthy and get a bad case that puts us in hospital.
Would Boris have been one of your vulnerable to restrict ?
 
blueparrot said:
Of course there’s evidence and data, they aren’t doing it for a laugh. You may not agree with their conclusions, I haven’t seen the analysis so don’t know.
We don’t always get rules we agree with. Pretending there is no evidence so you can do what you want, doesn’t change it.
Click to expand...
They’re making ‘laws’ with absolutely no scrutiny whatsoever. They’re using statutory instruments to make something that isn’t a crime today into something that is tomorrow. No consultation, no presentation of the evidence upon which they’re making those decisions, no involving local public health teams, just doubling down on stuff that’s already been proven not to work.
Not forgetting that furlough was at 80% when London was locked down and it’s now 67% when it’s the north. Levelling up, my arse. Not only that, people earning less than £20000 a year, and I’d wager there’s a few of them up north, are much less likely to isolate if that means staying of work. Ultimately if you’ve got £1200 a month coming in and £1200 a month going out, getting £900 a month for Christ knows how long isn't really going to cut it, I’m afraid, especially if it looks like your job will be disappearing sooner or later.
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
They’re making ‘laws’ with absolutely no scrutiny whatsoever. They’re using statutory instruments to make something that isn’t a crime today into something that is tomorrow. No consultation, no presentation of the evidence upon which they’re making those decisions, no involving local public health teams, just doubling down on stuff that’s already been proven not to work.
Not forgetting that furlough was at 80% when London was locked down and it’s now 67% when it’s the north. Levelling up, my arse. Not only that, people earning less than £20000 a year, and I’d wager there’s a few of them up north, are much less likely to isolate if that means staying of work. Ultimately if you’ve got £1200 a month coming in and £1200 a month going out, getting £900 a month for Christ knows how long isn't really going to cut it, I’m afraid, especially if it looks like your job will be disappearing sooner or later.
Click to expand...
While every bit of that may be true, an opinion of bad use of evidence or an opinion of lack of consultation or presentation of evidence. Doen’t mean there is no evidence,and restrictions are put in place as some kind of whim..
 
blueparrot said:
When there were shielding restrictions on the vulnerable, originally, it didn’t stop hospitals being full of very ill covid cases many of whom didn’t know they were vulnerable. That’s the point thousands of us think we are healthy and get a bad case that puts us in hospital.
Would Boris have been one of your vulnerable to restrict ?
Click to expand...

56 and fat, he's borderline. Don't forget he spent a couple of days in hospital and that was pretty much it. Probably not the best example as he beat it. Then took 2 weeks paternity.....
 
True_Blue69 said:
Just reading these proposed new restrictions they can fuck right off. Shutting everything in an area classed as red zones including gyms, non professional sport, shops and salons. I hope to god people stand up to this somehow. I've been compliant from day 1 but they can do one now as far as I'm concerned. Absolute pricks.
Click to expand...
It is a red zone ffs , the dippers have not stuck to the fucking rules , the selfish is who you should blast at
 
True_Blue69 said:
56 and fat, he's borderline. Don't forget he spent a couple of days in hospital and that was pretty much it. Probably not the best example as he beat it. Then took 2 weeks paternity.....
Click to expand...
Was over a week I think, went into ICU, but if we are adding to the list of vulnerable that might overload the NHS over 55 overweight people, that’s another big chunk of the population we have to protect or restrict if we are restricting the vulnerable.
 
blueparrot said:
While every bit of that may be true, an opinion of bad use of evidence or an opinion of lack of consultation or presentation of evidence. Doen’t mean there is no evidence,and restrictions are put in place as some kind of whim..
Click to expand...
They said doubling every 7 days, 19 of 20 areas with restrictions have got worse, patients going into hospital without Covid are catching it there and then being added to the numbers, the RAF are going round the Midlands with swab kits trying to find cases.
October, November and December ALWAYS see a peak in respiratory admissions and deaths and, surprisingly enough, most of those deaths are older people.
They‘ve stopped weddings, funerals and christenings and condemned hundreds of thousands of people to die a lonely miserable non-tactile death, so I don’t think asking them to publish the evidence is asking for the moon to be honest.
 
True_Blue69 said:
Where is this data? Gyms opened months ago and infections continued to fall unaffected. If they have data then I will say fair enough and take it on the chin, they have not presented any at all so they can piss off. Hospitality is linked to 3-5% of new cases in the data presented. Until they tried to make their own and said 30% in a study that conveniently was never verified.
Click to expand...
You like unverified studies usually ..
 
If folk have to understand rules in a pandemic then there lays the problem, I don't need a Govt. or quango to explain to me how it works as I like to think I know how to conduct myself in said Pandemic, common sense and all that.
 
cleavers said:
It was a week, and he then had another week recovering at home.

(Paternity leave is a right of everyone these days.)
Click to expand...

I completely agree, but after having 4 weeks off I would expect the prime minister to come back to work during a global pandemic. Seen as though everyone keeps making a ridiculous comparison to the war, imagine Churchill doing that during WW2.
 
True_Blue69 said:
I completely agree, but after having 4 weeks off I would expect the prime minister to come back to work during a global pandemic. Seen as though everyone keeps making a ridiculous comparison to the war, imagine Churchill doing that during WW2.
Click to expand...
Not a fan of Johnson but if he was as ill as reports say why would he, given that if he came back early the conspiracies would have been out ala the fat orange lunatic.
 

True_Blue69 said:
I completely agree, but after having 4 weeks off I would expect the prime minister to come back to work during a global pandemic. Seen as though everyone keeps making a ridiculous comparison to the war, imagine Churchill doing that during WW2.
Click to expand...
I must be imagining long covid , it was all a dream
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top