Coronavirus update - NO MORE RESTRICTIONS

[Eric Cartman]

Re: Coronavirus update

Monitored, assessed, reported on sure. Determining course of action based on woefully incomplete information? Works for you, I guess.
Ooooh, I'm a multi, eh? Some would think only those with a multi would make that incorrect assumption. Not me, though.

At what point did the government gain their complete information? Or have they been making decisions based on incomplete information throughout?

[Elwood Blues]

Re: Coronavirus update

At what point did the government gain their complete information? Or have they been making decisions based on incomplete information throughout?

There will have to be a public inquiry into this afterwards.

We may not find definitive answers until then

[chrisp_1927]

Re: Coronavirus update

A lot of the people against lockdown seem to parrot the idea that this is no worse than flu. Firstly it is worse than flu, even flu in a bad year would struggle to kill this many. Factor in on top that we are at the back end of flu season, so many of the very weakest would have succumbed to flu over the last 5 months. Coronavirus is literally killing thousands of people that have survived the flu season.

Although to be blunt and heartless, the death rate alone from coronavirus probably is just about low enough that governments would try to push through it. But looking at the deaths alone isnt taking into account the 10/15 people in critical care for weeks/months for every death recorded. The pressure on hospitals is also leading to virtually all other operations being cancelled, this will also lead to potentially hundreds/thousands more deaths. The 'experts' dont really have a scooby about this virus, that much is obvious. So our only option is a lockdown(along with increasing testing), it's the only way we have of trying to slow the spread and take the pressure off the healthcare system. For people to argue against it is crazy. Without a lockdown the numbers would continue to increase for weeks and weeks. Aswell as the thousands of coronavirus victims what would happen to all the poor people whose cancer or other life saving ops were cancelled. A belief in rolling back the lockdown is verging on a eugenics arguement in my opinion. Its arguing that all who are ill should be left out for sacrifice, so that the strongest can have a good economy. Its a sick belief, and thankfully one that only a minority seem to hold

[Veg1960]

Re: Coronavirus update

I do love people thinking a Burberry scarf will prevent it...

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-back-americans-covering-faces-task-force-debates/story?id=69914514

[az city]

Re: Coronavirus update

A lot of the people against lockdown seem to parrot the idea that this is no worse than flu. Firstly it is worse than flu, even flu in a bad year would struggle to kill this many. Factor in on top that we are at the back end of flu season, so many of the very weakest would have succumbed to flu over the last 5 months. Coronavirus is literally killing thousands of people that have survived the flu season.

Although to be blunt and heartless, the death rate alone from coronavirus probably is just about low enough that governments would try to push through it. But looking at the deaths alone isnt taking into account the 10/15 people in critical care for weeks/months for every death recorded. The pressure on hospitals is also leading to virtually all other operations being cancelled, this will also lead to potentially hundreds/thousands more deaths. The 'experts' dont really have a scooby about this virus, that much is obvious. So our only option is a lockdown(along with increasing testing), it's the only way we have of trying to slow the spread and take the pressure off the healthcare system. For people to argue against it is crazy. Without a lockdown the numbers would continue to increase for weeks and weeks. Aswell as the thousands of coronavirus victims what would happen to all the poor people whose cancer or other life saving ops were cancelled. A belief in rolling back the lockdown is verging on a eugenics arguement in my opinion. Its arguing that all who are ill should be left out for sacrifice, so that the strongest can have a good economy. Its a sick belief, and thankfully one that only a minority seem to hold

My friend, I realize you are just pontificating but it isn't helpful. You're promoting misinformation. A lot of experts do have a "scooby". Unfortunately, a lot of political types are interfering.

[Elwood Blues]

Re: Coronavirus update

My friend, I realize you are just pontificating but it isn't helpful. You're promoting misinformation. A lot of experts do have a "scooby". Unfortunately, a lot of political types are interfering.

But equally eminent experts are saying different things.

Which ones do you believe?

[chrisp_1927]

Re: Coronavirus update

I think actually the truth is probably half way between mine and your statements. There will be a lot of scientists out there with very strong theories on this virus, but there's not a huge amount that's certain yet. Studies around transmission especially are evolving quite quickly. As for the stats guys doing the modelling, you can find vast differences between their respective models. Personally I think It needs strong public health figures and politicians to err on the side of caution while these theories are given time to be tested. Unfortunately we had Patrick Vallance and Boris Johnson, 2 quite weak individuals who seemed to be very reluctant to take this seriously

[az city]

Re: Coronavirus update

The gloomier ones with no axe to grind.

[az city]

Re: Coronavirus update

[QUOTE=chrisp_1927;5061059]I think actually the truth is probably half way between mine and your statements. There will be a lot of scientists out there with very strong theories on this virus, but there's not a huge amount that's certain yet. Studies around transmission especially are evolving quite quickly. As for the stats guys doing the modelling, you can find vast differences between their respective models. Personally I think It needs strong public health figures and politicians to err on the side of caution while these theories are given time to be tested. Unfortunately we had Patrick Vallance and Boris Johnson, 2 quite weak individuals who seemed to be very reluctant to take this seriously[/QUOTE

"Caution" as in a longer, more restrictive lockdown or more allowance for personal freedom?

[chrisp_1927]

Re: Coronavirus update

With the benefit of hindsight, the decision to go ahead with the Cheltenham festival looks like lunacy, but, even at the time, I'm sure I wasn't the only one who was questioning it. The Government could have stepped in and ordered it to be abandoned, but I suppose that was back in the "herd mentality" days.

Totally agree. What really annoyed me was the way that the public health guys were talking about it being an open air event and that Corona doesn't particularly like the outdoors. Were they that daft that they didn't take into account the beer tents, the packed public transport and the full to the rafters pubs that most definitely are transmission dangers. They seemed to think it was equivalent to the Chelsea flower show with everyone wandering around in pairs and no one really getting close to each other 😂

[chrisp_1927]

Re: Coronavirus update

[QUOTE=az city;5061062]

I think actually the truth is probably half way between mine and your statements. There will be a lot of scientists out there with very strong theories on this virus, but there's not a huge amount that's certain yet. Studies around transmission especially are evolving quite quickly. As for the stats guys doing the modelling, you can find vast differences between their respective models. Personally I think It needs strong public health figures and politicians to err on the side of caution while these theories are given time to be tested. Unfortunately we had Patrick Vallance and Boris Johnson, 2 quite weak individuals who seemed to be very reluctant to take this seriously[/QUOTE

"Caution" as in a longer, more restrictive lockdown or more allowance for personal freedom?

Personally I think we need caution in terms of keeping people safe. So a longer lockdown to be sure.


Although I think that the caution Johnson and Vallance had was a caution of action. they were scared to respond. Although to be fair, they did do the right thing quite quickly after

[tell it like it is]

Re: Coronavirus update

At what point did the government gain their complete information? Or have they been making decisions based on incomplete information throughout?

Of course they've been working off incomplete information, that should be fairly obvious.

WHO proclamations in January were inaccurate. Each day gives more information about the nature of the virus and other factors.

[Rjk]

Re: Coronavirus update

IMG_20200401_210159.jpg

[Croesy Blue]

Re: Coronavirus update

[Hilts]

Re: Coronavirus update

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3653[/ATTACH]

😂😂😂😂😂