COVID-19 — Coronavirus

[kaz7]

Several councils threatened to withhold funding to help care homes deal with the coronavirus outbreak if they didn't agree to take in COVID-19 patients, Sky News can reveals,It comes as dozens of care homes fear a government policy allowing the transfer of coronavirus-positive or untested patients is a "major factor" in why COVID-19 deaths are so high.
The policy was changed in the middle of April but some care homes believe the damage had already been done by then

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavi...they-didnt-take-in-covid-19-patients-11986578

 

[birchwoodgingerste]

R is high in Cornwall

The wall is higher!:))

 

[goatersnipple]

what people really want to hear is ‘stay at home forever and we’ll pay you forever’

Yep.
We have loads of lads who are still off.
They think it's great while some of us have to work.
They will change the tune once furlough is reduced.
Already had one ring to see if he can come back once the furlough is reduced.
No

 

[Vic]

Several councils threatened to withhold funding to help care homes deal with the coronavirus outbreak if they didn't agree to take in COVID-19 patients, Sky News can reveals,It comes as dozens of care homes fear a government policy allowing the transfer of coronavirus-positive or untested patients is a "major factor" in why COVID-19 deaths are so high.
The policy was changed in the middle of April but some care homes believe the damage had already been done by then

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavi...they-didnt-take-in-covid-19-patients-11986578

Why the emphasis on the councils (who have a legal duty to find care for people who need it) rather than the government policy behind it? I'd have thought the headline should be the government lie: "It's simply untrue that government policy has allowed the spread of COVID-19 in care homes. We've been working with the care sector since February to ensure they've had the best advice, based on the latest scientific evidence" followed by how well they've done to provide testing which obviously isn't necessary if the first bit is true.

 

[SWP's back]

One thing Whitty said is that he thinks it could be as low as 4% of the population that has had the virus. That many deaths and that low an amount. If it's that low we just can't rely on herd immunity can we? Death toll would be catastrophic. Not saying we are, more the point we really need some therapeutic to arrive or sumat. Isn't good otherwise.

He’s probably right, that would give a mortality rate of about 1.1%

Not sure anyone is suggesting (other than Karen) that herd immunity (through everyone getting it) is the plan as that would mean around 715,000 dead using 1.1% mortality rate.

 

[SWP's back]

"stay at home if you can, but go to work if you have no alternative". Thank goodness we have a PM who knows we need clarity more than ever.

Makes perfect sense.

 

[blue b4 the moon]

This thread, needs a new thread.
All discussion on the virus has gone out the window. It's a shame because it was generally well informed and good natured. It obviously had it's difference of opinion and robust views but at least they were worthy of a read.
Now? It's barely worth a look.

Sadly like what seems to be 99% of BM threads it's turned into point scoring, arguements & agendas.

 

[SWP's back]

No, everyone I know is more concerned about saving lives, rather than money. Each to their own though.

Everyone you know must have massive cash savings then. Well done them.

 

[SWP's back]

I see the French have simplified the UK governments slogan by dropping the "Control the Virus" bit, but adopting the rest in its entirity: "Sauvez des vies, restez prudents", which translates as: "Save lives, be careful"

Are the french being as moronically dumb as the noisy minority on here asking what “be careful” means?

 

[BlueHammer85]

As much as we moan, we’re no different to other countries - this is Australia where they have decided to open shopping malls.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05...m-over-coronavirus-social-distancing/12231780