IOM Covid removing restrictions

[Beelzebub3]

Just now, pongo said:

Deliberately? Like some kind of conspiracy? Who do you imagine is behind this?

At face value it seems as if you are confirming my point.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion you have yours I have mine. btw what outstanding qualities does Boris possess to think that he should be PM because from the start he has been fucking useless and that is being polite!

[pongo]

Just now, TheTeapot said:

Don't suppose you'd be able to copy and paste that article could you, its behind a paywall.

Could you share your login details please @Utah 01

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

44 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

Oh it would be of course. Do you have any links or data to support that allegation?

No. As usual.

Look around you.  Jesus wept.

[pongo]

Just now, Beelzebub3 said:

Everyone is entitled to an opinion you have yours I have mine. btw what outstanding qualities does Boris possess to think that he should be PM because from the start he has been fucking useless and that is being polite!

The point is your unlikely belief that someone has deliberately handpicked him because "he is a complete fool".

[Beelzebub3]

Just now, pongo said:

The point is your unlikely belief that someone has deliberately handpicked him because "he is a complete fool".

I never suggested a single entity handpicked him, however he has got into a position which imo he is not fit for purpose and will bring the UK to it's knee's before he has finished he needs to be removed from his role pronto.  If you think I am wrong, look across the Atlantic and see what that other lunatic Trump is up to and they are both as bad as each other.

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

45 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

I wonder what exactly it'll take to convince the scamdemic people to change their minds?

The outright corruption is clear to see in the pandemic contracts handed out to the mates of senior tories, certain people will always profit from crisis, but to claim the wrecking of the economy (whatever that actually means) is the plan is just weird. And stupid. 

I don't think it's a "plan".  But that is what is happening. 

The main problem appears to be the government simply can't be seen to take a more sensible tack because it would be a glaring admission they have been wrong.

The government simply seem to stumble from one shambolic approach to the next.

 

[AcousticallyChallenged]

50 minutes ago, Utah 01 said:

Would you really expect him to put anything else but the government's data?  To every chart he has put up, another could be shown to disprove it.  Remember, this is The State making its case to continue a policy of repression of 99% of the population for whom this CV is a non-event- and faux justification for the wrecking of the economy with the dire ramifications to health that inevitably follows.

This is a virus.  It can neither be 'controlled' nor 'defeated' (this is what a classics degree is worth to idiot Johnson).  It's here and we have to live with it.

Please, tell me how we managed to control viruses in the past then. See polio, mumps, measles etc. So viruses can be controlled, and in the case of polio, defeated. So you can 'the state' this and 'the state' that.

Have you ever actually seen any level of bureacracy? There are always fuck-ups at every level. Trying to get governments who are usually all at eachother's throats to collude would be like trying to get a bunch of cats to play Beethoven's fifth.

CV is an event for a good proportion of people, median age for complications is somewhere about the 40s, where actually, unless you live in a very poor country, you end up with a lot of people to start worrying about. I know people who were seriously knocked sideways by it and they're in the 'healthy and low-risk' brackets.

Bear in mind, that the real danger, is that with an underwhelmed health system, those death figures might be comparatively low, but as soon as care is stretched for the people who would usually make it, their odds start to plummet too.

[pongo]

1 minute ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

The main problem appears to be the government simply can't be seen to take a more sensible tack because it would be a glaring admission they have been wrong.

The government simply seem to stumble from one shambolic approach to the next.

Our government and health people here have done a mostly excellent job so far.

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

1 minute ago, pongo said:

Our government and health people here have done a mostly excellent job so far.

On the whole I agree with you.  I do disagree with certain aspects of the approach.

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

2 minutes ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

Please, tell me how we managed to control viruses in the past then. See polio, mumps, measles etc. So viruses can be controlled, and in the case of polio, defeated. So you can 'the state' this and 'the state' that.

Have you ever actually seen any level of bureacracy? There are always fuck-ups at every level. Trying to get governments who are usually all at eachother's throats to collude would be like trying to get a bunch of cats to play Beethoven's fifth.

CV is an event for a good proportion of people, median age for complications is somewhere about the 40s, where actually, unless you live in a very poor country, you end up with a lot of people to start worrying about. I know people who were seriously knocked sideways by it and they're in the 'healthy and low-risk' brackets.

Bear in mind, that the real danger, is that with an underwhelmed health system, those death figures might be comparatively low, but as soon as care is stretched for the people who would usually make it, their odds start to plummet too.

Your very poor country mention - why are many very poor countries not fairing any worse even though they have many people below the poverty line and living in squalid and over crowded conditions?

 

[AcousticallyChallenged]

8 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

Your very poor country mention - why are many very poor countries not fairing any worse even though they have many people below the poverty line and living in squalid and over crowded conditions?

 

Well, look at the average age. If you've got a massively young population, then for the most part, it'll pass through quite readily. There aren't nearly as many people in anywhere near the vulnerable age groups.

The problem we have is that there's no way to keep it in the young population. They mix at too many points, from care settings to family homes.

[The Dog's Dangly Bits]

1 minute ago, AcousticallyChallenged said:

Well, look at the average age. If you've got a massively young population, then for the most part, it'll pass through quite readily. There aren't nearly as many people in anywhere near the vulnerable age groups.

The problem we have is that there's no way to keep it in the young population. They mix at too many points, from care settings to family homes.

Places like India and Brazil have massive populations living in very close proximity to each other.  Of all ages.  Yet, the numbers are relatively low.

I'm not sure these huge lock downs and the associated damage being caused has really achieved much more than countries who have imposed lesser measures.

[Feelslike]

1 minute ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

I don't think it's a "plan".  But that is what is happening. 

The main problem appears to be the government simply can't be seen to take a more sensible tack because it would be a glaring admission they have been wrong.

The government simply seem to stumble from one shambolic approach to the next.

 

I would largely agree with this.

To build on your point a little - Ostensibly, nothing with Covid-19 itself has changed since it first reached Europe and shortly thereafter decimated Italy. There is no vaccine and no definitive evidence that it has mutated into a significantly less dangerous version. So how do they walk-back the measures they took before and not apply it again now that cases are increasing at a seemingly near out of control rate? 

They shut the country, encouraged people to work from home, closed schools, set up a separate pot of money to pay those who needed it - how can they now say "Yeah, we probably didn't need to do that". And how do we definitely know they didn't need to do it? Are we now, after over half century of social care and doing everything we can to prolong everyone's lives, deciding that entire swathes of society aren't worth protection and telling them to get on and shield themselves if they want to minimise exposure? 

At what point do we decide, after telling parents and carers that they can take their children out of school if they're not comfortable with the risk to their household, that those children and families are not as 'valuable' a part of society as others? How do we bridge the education gap between the kids who will be removed from school, and the kids whose parents are happy to manage the risk themselves?

It's a class thing too, poor families are more likely to have underlying health conditions and be affected by Covid. It affects races differently too, and very obviously the elderly. These are known facts. So the Government now are to write those people off as "collateral damage" in getting the country to return to normal prior to a viable vaccine being developed and given? 

I don't know, I wouldn't like to be in possession of all of the facts that those higher in Government should have and then have to try to make these decisions. It's obvious that there does need to be a more balanced approach, but where you make those compromises, I have no idea.

I am generally happy with the fact we are separated from it at the moment and I think that currently, our Government wouldn't make the compromises that are needed to get a better balance so on the whole, the current border situation is preferable to what they will deem a second wave and the inevitable lockdown that would follow. 

[trmpton]

2 hours ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

There wouldn't be any point in testing everyone anyway.

I disagree.  I am convinced it would turn up some Positive cases in the wild and so maybe people would realise the COVID free thing isn’t going to happen and might start chilling out a bit.

[TheTeapot]

10 minutes ago, The Dog's Dangly Bits said:

Places like India and Brazil have massive populations living in very close proximity to each other.  Of all ages.  Yet, the numbers are relatively low.

I'm not sure these huge lock downs and the associated damage being caused has really achieved much more than countries who have imposed lesser measures.

In what way are the numbers low in Brazil? They have the second highest number of confirmed deaths of any country. Their deaths per million are higher than the UK. The whole of South America is having a very hard time of it really.