Coronavirus update - NO MORE RESTRICTIONS

[lisvaneblue]

The Government has said that responding to a wider pandemic of coronavirus may require further emergency legislation. The Government announced on 8 March 2020 that it intended to introduce a “Covid-19 emergency bill”.

https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/c...y-legislation/

The powers didn't come into place on the 8th March. The announcement that emergency powers were going to be granted was on that date.

I think you owe me an apology.

Just picked up ITV news 8 March 2020 on line

Welsh Government Granted emergency to tackle the coronavirus crisis

If you know better then of course I apologise

[Vindec]

"Yep completely agree, I don't understand being so deep in support of a political party that anyone could defend this."

I was replying to this. I suggest you read the posts quoted to understand the point being made. And who was defending it? I suggest you re-read my post where I criticised the government on many occasions.

It's a bit lame to suggest that the argument has been lost when comparisons are being made. If you follow the thread you wouldn't say that.

[A Quiet Monkfish]

That's interesting... But did you believe him? I ask this question because you have continuously played down the seriousness of the pandemic and think there's been a massive overreaction to it.

I do, have known him years. RE. the pandemic my two bones of contention are the way the media - eg BBC have presented it, a non-stop assault on people's emotions, fears etc. It's got to the stage where the news items are getting more 'brutal' by the day because the Govt. believes some folk have become immune to what was being shown and presented. The public have been and are being treated like specimens in a tank. Secondly I do not think a Government has the right - morally or legally to instruct people to remain inside their homes. We've had scores of lockdowns of varying scope and yet we're worse off than ever. Lockdowns haven't worked. They've been counter-productive. Controls, precautions, yes, but shutting everything down has been a collective madness, a madness which seems to have no end in sight. In fact there's more precaution, doom and gloom now, than at any other time, even though we're getting to the point where most of the over 80's have 70% protection.

[lardy]

You only have to look at the number of cases to see that lockdowns work. Monkfish has said before there is no scientific evidence they work - it's nonsense to say that.

Are they fun? Do we want them? Do we want them for months on end? Obviously no.

Are they successful in reducing cases, which is the point? Yes.

Are there other, awful side effects of lockdowns? Yes.

But they absolutely work.

[Heisenberg]

Just picked up ITV news 8 March 2020 on line

Welsh Government Granted emergency to tackle the coronavirus crisis

If you know better then of course I apologise

I saw that too but only on the ITV news site.. Did you bother reading anything further than the headline?

Perhaps you will just take this as evidence instead?

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/g...ainst-covid-19

Notice the date: 8th March 2020

[Feedback]

Shutting Cardiff would have had minimal effect in Wales compared to shutting airports in England.

Because the passenger numbers are considerably higher, and people move around within the UK.

So when you say that England decisions didn't impact on Wales, you are wrong. Sorry my friend, I know you deal with that quite badly

That's not what I said. however you make a valid point and its something that has contributed to the spread of Covid in the UK and the number of deaths. London is a travel hub, and the UK is quite densely populated. Apparently, there were 1300 separate cases of Covid entering the UK (according to genetic studies) so its hard to see how it could have been contained. Closing the borders may have helped, but hindsight is wonderful - back in March daily deaths were so low that closing the borders would have seemed outrageous. If only we knew then what we know now.

[the other bob wilson]

We’re now at the stage it seems where it’s being said that Wales could have gone into a firebreak lockdown in the autumn without a furlough scheme after it was denied the money to operate such a plan by the UK Chancellor because the Government he was a member of were ignoring the advice of the SAGE committee to implement a UK lockdown.
What would’ve been the purpose of ordering a lockdown in Wales with no furlough scheme? As far as I can see it would be to show that opponents of Drakeford’s Government on a Cardiff City messageboard were right when they argued that it wasn’t a case of Welsh health policy being dictated by UK Government financial considerations.- how else would it have benefited anyone?
A lockdown without furlough would, as has already been remarked, been traumatic for those affected and it seems obvious to me that this would have led to the lockdown rules being poorly observed, thereby making the whole thing pretty pointless (by their actions over a period of almost a year, the UK Government know it would be electorally suicidal as well).
The WAG were denied the opportunity to have the lockdown they wanted to have at the time they wanted to have it, but, like so many others, they probably knew that the UK Government would have to succumb to the inevitable soon whereby they would have to announce a lockdown with furlough payments to all four nations.

[Feedback]

Use semantics on a word in my post if it makes you feel superior (although qualifications and experience are not the same).


This is what the current Tories have been doing and I don't think any previous government would have gone as far as they have during a deadly health crisis.

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/po...-donors/27/10/

"The Government has handed out PPE worth more than half a billion pounds to firms with links to the Conservative Party – without letting other firms compete for the contracts, reports suggest."

the London economic is a leftist alternative news organisation. Of course they're going to be critical of this government no matter what they do. Putting that to one side, you'll be aware that all government contracts above a certain size are put before the parliamentary scrutiny committee made up of SNP and Labour MPs. I'd have thought that any malfeasance would have been highlighted by this committee, if there was indeed any wrongdoing. Likewise, all contracts are put before the minister by the civil service, who review the tenders according to pre-determined criteria. But all of this doesn't match the narrative so its ignored.

[Feedback]

You only have to look at the number of cases to see that lockdowns work. Monkfish has said before there is no scientific evidence they work - it's nonsense to say that.

Are they fun? Do we want them? Do we want them for months on end? Obviously no.

Are they successful in reducing cases, which is the point? Yes.

Are there other, awful side effects of lockdowns? Yes.

But they absolutely work.

do they work or do they just delay the inevitable? genuine question here, because after every lockdown, we've seen cases balloon

[Heisenberg]

Just picked up ITV news 8 March 2020 on line

Welsh Government Granted emergency to tackle the coronavirus crisis

If you know better then of course I apologise

https://gov.wales/bill-responds-wels...virus-covid-19

'Bill responds to Welsh Ministers' requests for new emergency powers to tackle coronavirus (COVID-19)
Health Minister Vaughan Gething has welcomed confirmation that the emergency powers sought by Wales to tackle coronavirus (COVID-19) will be introduced by the UK government.'

The bill would grant them emergency powers... But they didn't get them until it passed through law.

Even Hancock said the bill would provide them with short-term powers once it passed.

Come on now.

[Feedback]

We’re now at the stage it seems where it’s being said that Wales could have gone into a firebreak lockdown in the autumn without a furlough scheme after it was denied the money to operate such a plan by the UK Chancellor because the Government he was a member of were ignoring the advice of the SAGE committee to implement a UK lockdown.
What would’ve been the purpose of ordering a lockdown in Wales with no furlough scheme? As far as I can see it would be to show that opponents of Drakeford’s Government on a Cardiff City messageboard were right when they argued that it wasn’t a case of Welsh health policy being dictated by UK Government financial considerations.- how else would it have benefited anyone?
A lockdown without furlough would, as has already been remarked, been traumatic for those affected and it seems obvious to me that this would have led to the lockdown rules being poorly observed, thereby making the whole thing pretty pointless (by their actions over a period of almost a year, the UK Government know it would be electorally suicidal as well).
The WAG were denied the opportunity to have the lockdown they wanted to have at the time they wanted to have it, but, like so many others, they probably knew that the UK Government would have to succumb to the inevitable soon whereby they would have to announce a lockdown with furlough payments to all four nations.

What I'm taking from this is Mark Drakeford put finances over health. If Lockdown was so essential, then it should not matter whether we had furlough or not.

and for the record, since you don't know, WG has been pumping money into Welsh business since March 2020 so there was no reason why it had to rely on the furlough scheme, when it has had several rates/grant schemes of its own. The money could have been given to business just through a different mechanism.

WG chose not to enter lockdown, citing HMT as the reason, but that just does not hold up when WG has been using its own funds to support Welsh business all through lockdown

[Feedback]

https://gov.wales/bill-responds-wels...virus-covid-19

'Bill responds to Welsh Ministers' requests for new emergency powers to tackle coronavirus (COVID-19)
Health Minister Vaughan Gething has welcomed confirmation that the emergency powers sought by Wales to tackle coronavirus (COVID-19) will be introduced by the UK government.'

The bill would grant them emergency powers... But they didn't get them until it passed through law.

Even Hancock said the bill would provide them with short-term powers once it passed.

Come on now.

this does not change the fact that WG had the same powers as the UK government both before and after the bill.

and before you go off on one, i have not made comment on this bill at all. My comment has always been about WG and UKG having the same powers, no what those powers were, or when they were granted.

[Heisenberg]

this does not change the fact that WG had the same powers as the UK government both before and after the bill.

and before you go off on one, i have not made comment on this bill at all. My comment has always been about WG and UKG having the same powers, no what those powers were, or when they were granted.

"this does not change the fact that WG had the same powers as the UK government both before and after the bill"

What's the point of it then? I asked you this earlier but you ignored it.

[Heisenberg]

That's my lot for the day. I don't know if I have been as productive as Feedback says he has been.

[Feedback]

"this does not change the fact that WG had the same powers as the UK government both before and after the bill"

What's the point of it then? I asked you this earlier but you ignored it.

what is the point of what? I'm not being difficult, I really don't understand your question.

My earlier comment was about WG having the same powers as UKG but not being held accountable by the Tory bashers. WG should be held accountable in the same way ha UKG should be held accountable. Both have made mistakes, both could have done better

[xsnaggle]

Definitely, it seems a disingenuous way of trying to disguise this mess we are in.

I'm not trying to diguise anything. That fact is that 100,000 people have not been directly killed by the virus. The majority would have died anyway sooner rather than later, given the figures on underlying health conditions. As I said what matters is the excess deaths and whilst these or some of them may be attributable to government acting too late, the figure is nowhere near the 100,000 that people are using as a stick to beat people with. And of those excess deaths some are certainly attributal to the acts or omissions of central government and some to devolved governments.

Two other points: It was recorded in the summer when the first wave abated that there were less than normal numbers of deaths being recorded presumably because some poor folks had died earlier. So that adjusts the figure a little more.
the same will undoubtedly be true after this wave subsides.
I know a lot of people on here dont want to accept these things but it doesn't alter the fact that they remain true.

The seocod thing is when comparing UK's death trate to other countries we need to be careful that we compare like with like. We don't know how other countries may be gathering and collating their information nor how they may massage figures for domestic consumption

[the other bob wilson]

What I'm taking from this is Mark Drakeford put finances over health. If Lockdown was so essential, then it should not matter whether we had furlough or not.

and for the record, since you don't know, WG has been pumping money into Welsh business since March 2020 so there was no reason why it had to rely on the furlough scheme, when it has had several rates/grant schemes of its own. The money could have been given to business just through a different mechanism.

WG chose not to enter lockdown, citing HMT as the reason, but that just does not hold up when WG has been using its own funds to support Welsh business all through lockdown

talk about desperate.

[Feedback]

talk about desperate.

if stating facts is desperate then so be it. you clearly were not aware that WG had been providing support to business using their own funds, they could have done the same to push through a firebreak but chose not to.

[Feedback]

I'm not trying to diguise anything. That fact is that 100,000 people have not been directly killed by the virus. The majority would have died anyway sooner rather than later, given the figures on underlying health conditions. As I said what matters is the excess deaths and whilst these or some of them may be attributable to government acting too late, the figure is nowhere near the 100,000 that people are using as a stick to beat people with. And of those excess deaths some are certainly attributal to the acts or omissions of central government and some to devolved governments.

Two other points: It was recorded in the summer when the first wave abated that there were less than normal numbers of deaths being recorded presumably because some poor folks had died earlier. So that adjusts the figure a little more.
the same will undoubtedly be true after this wave subsides.
I know a lot of people on here dont want to accept these things but it doesn't alter the fact that they remain true.

The seocod thing is when comparing UK's death trate to other countries we need to be careful that we compare like with like. We don't know how other countries may be gathering and collating their information nor how they may massage figures for domestic consumption

we don't know what the true Covid19 death count is, but this article has a good graphic that tries to explain various measurements of Covid19 deaths

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55814751

[Dorcus]

USA has just recently reached the tragic milestone of 200,000 Covid deaths. This in a country where the loony previous administration's mismanagement of the crisis has rightly attracted global distain. One wonders how many more would have succumbed had they taken the former President's advice and ingested disinfectant.

The USA has a population 5 times greater than the UK so in broad terms even if we had only suffered 40,000 deaths our Government should have been ashamed of their failure. Just what perspective does that put on losing 100k people? "Eat out to help out", "Get back to work if you're able", "Have yourselves a merry little Christmas'..... criminal?

[A Quiet Monkfish]

You only have to look at the number of cases to see that lockdowns work. Monkfish has said before there is no scientific evidence they work - it's nonsense to say that.

Are they fun? Do we want them? Do we want them for months on end? Obviously no.

Are they successful in reducing cases, which is the point? Yes.

Are there other, awful side effects of lockdowns? Yes.

But they absolutely work.

What are lockdowns ? Essentially they are designed to stop people mixing in a way that they will pass the virus onto another person. If I can go into Tesco with a mask on, then there's no logical reason why I shouldn't go into a pub, restaurant, Department Store, where control measures are ten times stricter. On top of that, the lack of external social interaction that the majority of us crave has increased the need to visit people/families in their own homes. I seriously doubt they've worked. We're over a year into this with 100,000 dead. Even if any of our leaders, medical or political though the same, I doubt they would risk being lyched by admitting it now.

[A Quiet Monkfish]

USA has just recently reached the tragic milestone of 200,000 Covid deaths. This in a country where the loony previous administration's mismanagement of the crisis has rightly attracted global distain. One wonders how many more would have succumbed had they taken the former President's advice and ingested disinfectant.

The USA has a population 5 times greater than the UK so in broad terms even if we had only suffered 40,000 deaths our Government should have been ashamed of their failure. Just what perspective does that put on losing 100k people? "Eat out to help out", "Get back to work if you're able", "Have yourselves a merry little Christmas'..... criminal?

We have an ageing population with more obesity that most Countries. We also have one of the highest population densities in Europe. Three major factors

[Taunton Blue Genie]

What are lockdowns ? Essentially they are designed to stop people mixing in a way that they will pass the virus onto another person. If I can go into Tesco with a mask on, then there's no logical reason why I shouldn't go into a pub, restaurant, Department Store, where control measures are ten times stricter. On top of that, the lack of external social interaction that the majority of us crave has increased the need to visit people/families in their own homes. I seriously doubt they've worked. We're over a year into this with 100,000 dead. Even if any of our leaders, medical or political though the same, I doubt they would risk being lyched by admitting it now.

Shopping in a supermarket involves a more essential activity than visiting a pub and restaurant - and people visiting the latter two establishments would remove their masks as well. The former represents a calculated risk but opening bars and restaurant would increase that risk. And the consumption of alcohol would increase the risk factor even more.

[Croesy Blue]

What are lockdowns ? Essentially they are designed to stop people mixing in a way that they will pass the virus onto another person. If I can go into Tesco with a mask on, then there's no logical reason why I shouldn't go into a pub, restaurant, Department Store, where control measures are ten times stricter. On top of that, the lack of external social interaction that the majority of us crave has increased the need to visit people/families in their own homes. I seriously doubt they've worked. We're over a year into this with 100,000 dead. Even if any of our leaders, medical or political though the same, I doubt they would risk being lyched by admitting it now.

**** me how do you still not get it

[cyril evans awaydays]

USA has just recently reached the tragic milestone of 200,000 Covid deaths. This in a country where the loony previous administration's mismanagement of the crisis has rightly attracted global distain. One wonders how many more would have succumbed had they taken the former President's advice and ingested disinfectant.

The USA has a population 5 times greater than the UK so in broad terms even if we had only suffered 40,000 deaths our Government should have been ashamed of their failure. Just what perspective does that put on losing 100k people? "Eat out to help out", "Get back to work if you're able", "Have yourselves a merry little Christmas'..... criminal?

I am afraid the US death toll is over double that above 400k