Boris

[Dougy]

Stuff it, we're all going to die in the next couple of months or so. 

 

So in the mean time lets all be as miserable as we possibly can, while we're at it lets all stick pins in our eyes. 

 

As for john750 or something or other, what planet are you on   I bet your a laugh when your allowed out LOL 

[old man]

On 18/03/2020 at 23:50, 12gauge82 said:

Totally agree with everything you say, with one caveat, the way the western world is run, with greed being rewarded and every penny being squeezed out of the system and the working masses, it has led to people with no money saved who are unable to self isolate, small businesses looking at closing, some permanently.

If we'd learnt the lessons from the last financial crash and sorted greedy banks and corporations, the country and the wider world would be alot better placed to deal with something like this.

This ^^^^^^^^^^^

[Vince Green]

On 20/03/2020 at 12:45, loriusgarrulus said:

I spray or wipe all delivery packages with 70% isopropyl alcohol. I am lucky OH kept IPA in as one of his hobbies is electronics and he always has plenty in for cleaning electrics with. I have baby wipes that have been soaked in 70% IPA and put in a plastic box to stop evaporation kept by the front door.

You could do this with hand soap grated in hot water to make a soap solution and sponge it over packages and wash your hands too.

 

I have some iso in the garage, good call

[jonny705]

On 20/03/2020 at 15:08, AVB said:

Sorry but you are. I can’t make much sense of your ramblings but the reality is that the government is closing down the country but by bit. The fact is that all you achieve by shutting the country down is that it slows down the infections rate. It doesn’t stop it, people still die, and when the restrictions are eased the virus flares up again.  

The quicker a country gets the majority of the population immune the quicker it will recover. 

In your earlier post you talk about people just going into debt as though that is a small thing. Well what when Credit dries up (and it will)? We are talking about no money at all, and therefore nobody paying any income tax therefore nobody contributing to the government coffers aka the NHS. We are in a slow death spiral to economic destruction. 

Out of interest where is your money to pay the bills coming from? Because you may find that drying up. 

So I am a fool for reading up on what all the other scientists and countries have done?

Yet you quote” “The fact is that all you achieve by shutting the country down is that it slows down the infections rate. It doesn’t stop it, people still die, and when the restrictions are eased the virus flares up again.  -The quicker a country gets the majority of the population immune the quicker it will recover”

You came from the same school of thought as Bojo then – basically rambling nonsense – what other counties agree to your musings?

The Uk has same rate as Italy now haven’t it? – your gamble better work , are we not going to lockdown this week-now- Like all the other counties then ?

Also if you cannot make sense of my ‘ramblings’, I suggest you take some time out to learn English a bit better.

“In your earlier post you talk about people just going into debt as though that is a small thing.”

Actually I said this- “But the economy I guess would tumble and normal people would as mostly in debt, go quickly into negative equity, so IMO the reason for ‘heard immunity’ it always about the Green”

So slight misinterpretation on your part then, and ironically for you actually agree with me, it’s all about the green.

Go and charge you Tesla, and save the Planet, but discard the people over 65 that live on it.

I would say I hope you sleep well at night, but the sad thing is you and so many others will, dreaming of money not sheep.

 

I always wondered how any Government would introduce Eugenics’ into our society, like the Guy Bojo employed-Andrew Sabisky, if you bother reading any of his papers, you realise he talks some real honest sense- problem is ethically its way Taboo hence why he lasted 24 hours.

The ever increasing sophistication of AI means we will soon have little labour left which needs human involvement, ,boredom like we will find out in 9 months, means breeding , who will pay for our welfare in the future if no-one hardly works?

So you label me a conspiracy theorist like Sabisky then the guy Bojo employed? How did he slip through the net if your man is so clever?

Like Sabisky , I think that it would have been slowly brought in via, sterilization or reduction of children allowed, as we cannot afford the social system, when less and less people will work.

I really thought it would be a hard sell for any ‘civilised’ Government to achieve.

Yet this recent event, has made me realise the idea of the survival of the fittest, is very real and easily accepted and justified, peoples easy acceptance of allowing the less productive members of our society to be sacrificed is the thin end of the wedge, and a reflection on how our society would accept it.

For me it’s an awful sobering thought, yet it will become reality at some point I am sure, I cannot see how if there is no use for the population, the government will want or care to feed us.

We have to have some USE else clearly, as shown recently will quickly be discarded.

Just didn’t think it would be accepted thinking so quickly.

I knew this post would maybe wind people up as its content, but I don’t care if you agree or not, just felt the urge to post as such Hypocrisy in our world, and a lot of us including me are guilty of it.

[grrclark]

52 minutes ago, jonny705 said:

So I am a fool for reading up on what all the other scientists and countries have done?

Yet you quote” “The fact is that all you achieve by shutting the country down is that it slows down the infections rate. It doesn’t stop it, people still die, and when the restrictions are eased the virus flares up again.  -The quicker a country gets the majority of the population immune the quicker it will recover”

You came from the same school of thought as Bojo then – basically rambling nonsense – what other counties agree to your musings?

The Uk has same rate as Italy now haven’t it? – your gamble better work , are we not going to lockdown this week-now- Like all the other counties then ?

Also if you cannot make sense of my ‘ramblings’, I suggest you take some time out to learn English a bit better.

“In your earlier post you talk about people just going into debt as though that is a small thing.”

Actually I said this- “But the economy I guess would tumble and normal people would as mostly in debt, go quickly into negative equity, so IMO the reason for ‘heard immunity’ it always about the Green”

So slight misinterpretation on your part then, and ironically for you actually agree with me, it’s all about the green.

Go and charge you Tesla, and save the Planet, but discard the people over 65 that live on it.

I would say I hope you sleep well at night, but the sad thing is you and so many others will, dreaming of money not sheep.

I always wondered how any Government would introduce Eugenics’ into our society, like the Guy Bojo employed-Andrew Sabisky, if you bother reading any of his papers, you realise he talks some real honest sense- problem is ethically its way Taboo hence why he lasted 24 hours.

The ever increasing sophistication of AI means we will soon have little labour left which needs human involvement, ,boredom like we will find out in 9 months, means breeding , who will pay for our welfare in the future if no-one hardly works?

So you label me a conspiracy theorist like Sabisky then the guy Bojo employed? How did he slip through the net if your man is so clever?

Like Sabisky , I think that it would have been slowly brought in via, sterilization or reduction of children allowed, as we cannot afford the social system, when less and less people will work.

I really thought it would be a hard sell for any ‘civilised’ Government to achieve.

Yet this recent event, has made me realise the idea of the survival of the fittest, is very real and easily accepted and justified, peoples easy acceptance of allowing the less productive members of our society to be sacrificed is the thin end of the wedge, and a reflection on how our society would accept it.

For me it’s an awful sobering thought, yet it will become reality at some point I am sure, I cannot see how if there is no use for the population, the government will want or care to feed us.

We have to have some USE else clearly, as shown recently will quickly be discarded.

Just didn’t think it would be accepted thinking so quickly.

I knew this post would maybe wind people up as its content, but I don’t care if you agree or not, just felt the urge to post as such Hypocrisy in our world, and a lot of us including me are guilty of it.

 

More rambling statements and assumptions.  You have built yourself an outcome, as you see it, that the government wish to sacrifice the vulnerable/elderly as part of some Machiavellian plot.  The measures announced by the government are to try and shield the most medically vulnerable as it is they who will be the biggest burden on the health service.

What would you have done?  Lock down the country 4 weeks ago when the public conscience around this disease was only a fraction of what it is now?  We would have had riots and wide scale non-compliance.  What would you do then, if people can blatantly disregard the rule of law without penalty then society breaks down, so how would you police that?

Even now when public awareness and the public conscience is so much more elevated people are still being tools, as and when a lockdown is announced there has to be measures also made available to police conformance, otherwise we are in a world of trouble.

On your point about AI, that is a massive assumption that would lead to a reduction of human based employment, but you use that assumption to support your position on Eugenics. AI will without doubt change the manner in which we work, but what it does do is free up human capacity to do tasks that are not applicable or suitable for AI. The Luddites smashed the machines in the industrial revolution for fear of creating this under employed society you talk about, when large scale computing was introduced into the workplace 40+ years ago there were fears of the same thing, but now we have the Internet that has created a genuine global market that was otherwise unobtainable and in this country alone millions are employed in the creative industries popping up around that.  Why should AI be different to mechanisation or computing?  

Is it really all about the green?  No it's not, but quite frankly as money is the transactional basis for absolutely everything we do then it has to sit pretty high up there in the priority list.  Until we become a completely egalitarian society and everyone works for the collective and common good (never going to happen) then money is critically important.

As to the bit in bold in your quote, who is being discarded?

[Retsdon]

2 hours ago, grrclark said:

What would you have done?  Lock down the country 4 weeks ago

Yes.

 

2 hours ago, grrclark said:

when the public conscience around this disease was only a fraction of what it is now?

And there's the problem. Probably not much more than a week ago Gingercat, posting on these boards, was pooh poohing my warnings, and saying that the nurses in his local A&E didn't believe that the corona virus was anything much to be concerned about. Well, I bet those nurses aren't so sanguine now!! But why were they so off-hand about the biggest pandemic the world has seen for 100 years? I'll tell you. It's because this government has been utterly derelict in its duty.

1) The government did NOT explain the dangers of this virus to people properly. Oh, it's only old people need to worry, most people get a mild cold, etc, etc. That was always absolute ****,  because death rate from a disease is not the same thing at all as overall mortality from it. Ebola might kill 90% of people who get it  but that's why so it's not so dangerous. There are far fewer people carrying it so the reservoir of infection is much smaller. With this corona virus a|) it's highly infectious and b) because it doesn't kill anything like as often, the reservoir of infection is potentially massive - about 3/4 of the  whole population. And what's a 4% death rate of 50 million? If the virus doesn't mutate, and if infected people maintain an immunity to it, all well and good. You only  lose 4% once - a couple of million or so. But absent either of those and you're talking 3-4% of deaths as long as the reservoir stays filled. Which is indefinitely. In other words the virus has the potential to cull the population by 3-4% every year! So how many is that? And what price the economic cost? Now, if that had been properly explained to people 4 weeks ago, don't worry, they'd have been more than happy to go into lock down and stay there - as long as it took to bring the virus under control (the R0 to less than 1). But it still hasn't even been explained yet - which is bordering on criminal.

2) The government did no planning. Perhaps the UK might have been lucky and avoided a massive epidemic. But the WHO and others have  been warning for months and months that the potential for a huge global pandemic from this virus was a very real one. So how come there was no contingency planning done? How come Owee's daughter and other medical staff are being worked 70 hours a week without proper PPE? Who is responsible for this complete shambles? Sure, it was always going to be difficult- but this stuff should have been gamed. If this happens, we move to B, if B happens we move to C, etc, etc, And plans put in place so that everyone knew what was expected of them in a given set of circumstances- from GPs, to nurses, to the general public.  None of it. 1) W're going to do nothing and ask a lot of people to take one for the herd 2) Oh gosh! that's not going to work! - scramble, panic, scramble, bs,scramble, panic, bs, etc,etc,.

The level of sheer blinding incompetence from this government has been something to behold. The tragic part is that an awful lot of people are going to die because of it. This pandemic was never going to be easy. But with less arrogance and more foresight it needn't have been anything like as bad as it's going to be.

Edited March 23, 2020 by Retsdon

[bavarianbrit]

So clearly explained.

A British political sickness that is known to opticians as blindness.

[grrclark]

Retsdon, in your perfect theoretical world where everyone would conform like good little clockwork toys and the UK may have have been a beacon of purity amongst the sea of poop, but that just isn't how real life works.  If we were also an island of purity amidst the sea of poop how long do you reckon we would stay pure?

You are also taking a position of extreme as part of your argument to explain why the government did not explain anything properly, but I have seen commentary from very many experts in epidemiology, public health and virology who have all said exactly the same thing that this government has.  It is no surprise that you are taking a catastrophic position, it is rather in your make up, but you should recognise that in yourself and try to consider things looking through a different lens.

I've also not seen any official guidance that only the old had to worry, what I have seen is the government saying that the vast majority of people will experience a mild illness and recover.  That is true based on all the evidence to date.  The government has also said there is a significantly increased risk for the elderly, also true based on all evidence to date.

The WHO will recommend the most extreme measures, it is their job to do so and there is absolutely no consequence to them of making that recommendation either, they are something of a single purpose organisation.  It is the job of government to balance a multitude of things in a vastly complex and complicated machine.

According to who you might listen to, there are numbers being bandied around like 64,000 otherwise avoidable deaths as a result of austerity over the last 10 years, so 6,400 additional deaths per year.  That is on the basis of an initial 5% reduction in public expenditure reducing to something like 2% based on 2010 levels.

You advocate the country should have taken extreme measures to avoid Covid19 that is going to continue to exist beyond the shores of Blighty anyhow, but what cost or consequence of those extreme measures would would we see in elevated mortality?  Where does that figure in your theoretical model?

We have had Brexit doom mongers suggest an uptick in mortality as a consequence of the economic impact of that (i'm pretty sure you must have said such a thing at some point too, given your propensity to take a posture of the worst outcome), we even had a "whistleblower" in the medical profession suggest such a thing that embroiled the Mogg.  That was based on some additional tariffs around a broadly normal exchange of goods, yet you are advocating no exchange of goods at all as we would be in full lockdown, should we extrapolate mortality rate accordingly.

Just for the record the cost of the UK bailout announced so far is around 20% of GDP, and that will grow, and that will still leave us in a significant recession; that dwarves the bailout in support of the 2008 financial crash and that prompted a relatively gentle round of austerity.

So covid19 would continue to surround our shores, as from what I see every single one of our near neighbours is experiencing the same issue as we are and if this disease develops into a position of extreme that you have highlighted, i.e. bifurcating into multiple deadly strains, then the disease isn't going to go away anytime soon.

So our little locked down bastion of sanctity does what exactly?  Turn into one bloody great egalitarian kibutz closing our doors to the disease that is rampant and killing 4% of the population every year just 22 short miles across the channel.  Don't you think aspiring glances might be cast our way, or might the utter depression of our shattered economy keep those folk away.

In practical terms how easy do you think it is to get all of the public machine to engage in catastrophe planning when they are still trying to do the day job?  There are still near 1800 people dying in this country every day anyway, there are all the usual goings on around law and order and managing society that still need doing.  Now of course some will seek political opportunism to say the last 10 years of austerity stripped out our public services so they had no capacity to plan for anything like this, but take a look around at every single developed nation that is not an autocracy or polished up dictatorship.  NONE of them have had capacity to plan for this and all are facing the same challenge as we are.  Even the autocracies and dictatorships didn't plan, just easier for them to take brutal measures on their own already limited populace.

In some of those countries that did take exceptional measures they are now seeing a secondary phase of infection, so much for the early measures to lock the front door when it sneaks in the back a few weeks later.

It is so easy to throw rocks from a position of academic or theoretical purity, it is easy to find the cracks or gaps and howl protest and derision that they are there, they should be closed, that people should be doing this or doing that.  Ever tried making that happen?

Even being a CEO of a decent sized business, where you can be autocratic and ruthless and rule with an iron rod, you still face challenges because every single person with an opinion that differs to yours will try and subvert to suit their own agenda.  Scale that up to governmental level in a country that is fundamentally liberal in terms of social freedoms, where you are elected on a popularity vote and so far removed, necessarily, from the day to day operational mechanics and what chance to do you have.  Throw in political and idealogical rivalries and it gets harder still.

So so easy to say 'should do', infinitely harder to actually make it so

None of that matters of course when you don't actually have to be called into account for what you do, really easy for the likes of the Guardian to shout boldly from their pages about how the government are so inadequate and should be doing such and such, but that is just playing to the gallery of the like minded.

The blunt truth is there is not an easy way out of this, a global contagion is exactly that and it is going to reach everywhere.  Yeah it really sucks that if your worst case scenario comes to pass and we have increased mortality by 3-4%, but show me where there is a rulebook for the world saying such things shouldn't happen.  If it does happen then we are going to have more people die and that is sad, but we will simply have to adjust and come to terms with that because sometimes bad things happen that we cannot control, that is life (and death).

We cannot close the doors to everything else forever to save ourselves from the invisible bogeyman.

 

[AVB]

1 hour ago, Retsdon said:

Yes.

 

And there's the problem. Probably not much more than a week ago Gingercat, posting on these boards, was pooh poohing my warnings, and saying that the nurses in his local A&E didn't believe that the corona virus was anything much to be concerned about. Well, I bet those nurses aren't so sanguine now!! But why were they so off-hand about the biggest pandemic the world has seen for 100 years? I'll tell you. It's because this government has been utterly derelict in its duty.

1) The government did NOT explain the dangers of this virus to people properly. Oh, it's only old people need to worry, most people get a mild cold, etc, etc. That was always absolute ****,  because death rate from a disease is not the same thing at all as overall mortality from it. Ebola might kill 90% of people who get it  but that's why so it's not so dangerous. There are far fewer people carrying it so the reservoir of infection is much smaller. With this corona virus a|) it's highly infectious and b) because it doesn't kill anything like as often, the reservoir of infection is potentially massive - about 3/4 of the  whole population. And what's a 4% death rate of 50 million? If the virus doesn't mutate, and if infected people maintain an immunity to it, all well and good. You only  lose 4% once - a couple of million or so. But absent either of those and you're talking 3-4% of deaths as long as the reservoir stays filled. Which is indefinitely. In other words the virus has the potential to cull the population by 3-4% every year! So how many is that? And what price the economic cost? Now, if that had been properly explained to people 4 weeks ago, don't worry, they'd have been more than happy to go into lock down and stay there - as long as it took to bring the virus under control (the R0 to less than 1). But it still hasn't even been explained yet - which is bordering on criminal.

2) The government did no planning. Perhaps the UK might have been lucky and avoided a massive epidemic. But the WHO and others have  been warning for months and months that the potential for a huge global pandemic from this virus was a very real one. So how come there was no contingency planning done? How come Owee's daughter and other medical staff are being worked 70 hours a week without proper PPE? Who is responsible for this complete shambles? Sure, it was always going to be difficult- but this stuff should have been gamed. If this happens, we move to B, if B happens we move to C, etc, etc, And plans put in place so that everyone knew what was expected of them in a given set of circumstances- from GPs, to nurses, to the general public.  None of it. 1) W're going to do nothing and ask a lot of people to take one for the herd 2) Oh gosh! that's not going to work! - scramble, panic, scramble, bs,scramble, panic, bs, etc,etc,.

The level of sheer blinding incompetence from this government has been something to behold. The tragic part is that an awful lot of people are going to die because of it. This pandemic was never going to be easy. But with less arrogance and more foresight it needn't have been anything like as bad as it's going to be.

What you don’t say is that is your opinion. I don’t be know who you are or what’s your speciality other than you live in Saudi. Clearly you are so well informed that you are wasted there, unless you are advising the Saudi rulers, that I suggest you get back to the UK quickly and sort out the problem. 

Now I am not an expert in anything relevant but I do value the opinion of those who are. In the last few days I have personally spoken to the 2ic of one of the London Health trusts, the CEO of one of the County councils, and somebody very well connected within the Security Services. They said amongst other things:

Plans for dealing with this have been worked on since January. Like all plans they are continually adapted as the situation evolves. There is also a genuine fear over a breakdown in law and order especially if the lockdown was to go on for a long time especially when the Banks get into difficulty and the money supply/credit lines dry up.

So in my opinion, based upon the experts I have spoken to and listened to, we are as well organised as we could do. There are no easy decisions to make here, despite what you say.

2 minutes ago, grrclark said:

Retsdon, in your perfect theoretical world where everyone would conform like good little clockwork toys and the UK may have have been a beacon of purity amongst the sea of poop, but that just isn't how real life works.  If we were also an island of purity amidst the sea of poop how long do you reckon we would stay pure?

You are also taking a position of extreme as part of your argument to explain why the government did not explain anything properly, but I have seen commentary from very many experts in epidemiology, public health and virology who have all said exactly the same thing that this government has.  It is no surprise that you are taking a catastrophic position, it is rather in your make up, but you should recognise that in yourself and try to consider things looking through a different lens.

I've also not seen any official guidance that only the old had to worry, what I have seen is the government saying that the vast majority of people will experience a mild illness and recover.  That is true based on all the evidence to date.  The government has also said there is a significantly increased risk for the elderly, also true based on all evidence to date.

The WHO will recommend the most extreme measures, it is their job to do so and there is absolutely no consequence to them of making that recommendation either, they are something of a single purpose organisation.  It is the job of government to balance a multitude of things in a vastly complex and complicated machine.

According to who you might listen to, there are numbers being bandied around like 64,000 otherwise avoidable deaths as a result of austerity over the last 10 years, so 6,400 additional deaths per year.  That is on the basis of an initial 5% reduction in public expenditure reducing to something like 2% based on 2010 levels.

You advocate the country should have taken extreme measures to avoid Covid19 that is going to continue to exist beyond the shores of Blighty anyhow, but what cost or consequence of those extreme measures would would we see in elevated mortality?  Where does that figure in your theoretical model?

We have had Brexit doom mongers suggest an uptick in mortality as a consequence of the economic impact of that (i'm pretty sure you must have said such a thing at some point too, given your propensity to take a posture of the worst outcome), we even had a "whistleblower" in the medical profession suggest such a thing that embroiled the Mogg.  That was based on some additional tariffs around a broadly normal exchange of goods, yet you are advocating no exchange of goods at all as we would be in full lockdown, should we extrapolate mortality rate accordingly.

Just for the record the cost of the UK bailout announced so far is around 20% of GDP, and that will grow, and that will still leave us in a significant recession; that dwarves the bailout in support of the 2008 financial crash and that prompted a relatively gentle round of austerity.

So covid19 would continue to surround our shores, as from what I see every single one of our near neighbours is experiencing the same issue as we are and if this disease develops into a position of extreme that you have highlighted, i.e. bifurcating into multiple deadly strains, then the disease isn't going to go away anytime soon.

So our little locked down bastion of sanctity does what exactly?  Turn into one bloody great egalitarian kibutz closing our doors to the disease that is rampant and killing 4% of the population every year just 22 short miles across the channel.  Don't you think aspiring glances might be cast our way, or might the utter depression of our shattered economy keep those folk away.

In practical terms how easy do you think it is to get all of the public machine to engage in catastrophe planning when they are still trying to do the day job?  There are still near 1800 people dying in this country every day anyway, there are all the usual goings on around law and order and managing society that still need doing.  Now of course some will seek political opportunism to say the last 10 years of austerity stripped out our public services so they had no capacity to plan for anything like this, but take a look around at every single developed nation that is not an autocracy or polished up dictatorship.  NONE of them have had capacity to plan for this and all are facing the same challenge as we are.  Even the autocracies and dictatorships didn't plan, just easier for them to take brutal measures on their own already limited populace.

In some of those countries that did take exceptional measures they are now seeing a secondary phase of infection, so much for the early measures to lock the front door when it sneaks in the back a few weeks later.

It is so easy to throw rocks from a position of academic or theoretical purity, it is easy to find the cracks or gaps and howl protest and derision that they are there, they should be closed, that people should be doing this or doing that.  Ever tried making that happen?

Even being a CEO of a decent sized business, where you can be autocratic and ruthless and rule with an iron rod, you still face challenges because every single person with an opinion that differs to yours will try and subvert to suit their own agenda.  Scale that up to governmental level in a country that is fundamentally liberal in terms of social freedoms, where you are elected on a popularity vote and so far removed, necessarily, from the day to day operational mechanics and what chance to do you have.  Throw in political and idealogical rivalries and it gets harder still.

So so easy to say 'should do', infinitely harder to actually make it so

None of that matters of course when you don't actually have to be called into account for what you do, really easy for the likes of the Guardian to shout boldly from their pages about how the government are so inadequate and should be doing such and such, but that is just playing to the gallery of the like minded.

The blunt truth is there is not an easy way out of this, a global contagion is exactly that and it is going to reach everywhere.  Yeah it really sucks that if your worst case scenario comes to pass and we have increased mortality by 3-4%, but show me where there is a rulebook for the world saying such things shouldn't happen.  If it does happen then we are going to have more people die and that is sad, but we will simply have to adjust and come to terms with that because sometimes bad things happen that we cannot control, that is life (and death).

We cannot close the doors to everything else forever to save ourselves from the invisible bogeyman.

 

Actually ignore my post as this post is far more eloquent and well written than mine. Clearly somebody who spent more time listening at school. 

[lancer425]

I think overall The government have done a good job, its the public that is letting the public down not the government.

  The guidelines are there to try and save lives not be ignored.

•  

Reply to this topic...

elves to the fact when many of us need medical help to live, we could well not be able to get it. 

[JohnfromUK]

6 minutes ago, lancer425 said:

I think overall The government have done a good job, its the public that is letting the public down not the government.

This /\ - many times over;

I despair when I read in a local paper https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/whats-on/whats-on-news/gloucester-car-boot-sale-busiest-3973493

that a car boot sale had it's busiest weekend ever.  So much for the public doing as they are told.   The London tube was apparently 'packed' today - despite people being warned to not use it except when unavoidable.

Johnson has followed the official scientists advice - and I know there are other scientists saying everything from a 'full lockdown' to 'just let it happen and build immunity'.  But he has stuck with the two main scientific advisers and (certainly as far as we can tell) followed their advice.

Edited March 23, 2020 by JohnfromUK

[eddoakley]

On 18/03/2020 at 20:43, Ultrastu said:

When i say do nothing .i mean protect the infirm and vunerable .but the working masses let them work .

Exactly what I've been saying.

The government have found all of this money to pay 80% wages etc so why not divert all of that to those most at risk and let everyone else carry on. 

If I get ill then it's likely to be a week in bed- shot happens. I'd have to deal with that.

If those that would suffer worse consequences have been given help and support beforehand then surely that's better? Food delivered to them. Hand sanitizer etc provided. Help to isolate the vulnerable not the masses.

Edd

[Newbie to this]

2 minutes ago, eddoakley said:

If I get ill then it's likely to be a week in bed

And if it's a lot worse than a week in bed?

[eddoakley]

Just now, Newbie to this said:

And if it's a lot worse than a week in bed?

In what way?

If I need medical help or if I die?

If medical help then I would hope that it would be available, I completely understand that the NHS is struggling and why we should "flatten the curve" but if rescources are improved for the NHS then it should hopefully be sufficient.

Why have there been cuts for 10 years yet now we can pay everyone's wages. Just push all of that to help those that desperately need the help. 

Money doesn't actually exist- it's not a physical entity where the government has a box full of coins that that can hand out- just create more debt if necessary and do whatever is needed to help people. The economy is completely screwed anyway so why not?

Edd

[eddoakley]

Unless there is more to it than we are told. 

It's seems that it's a variation on the flu. A bit more severe. The problem seems to me to be the lack of vaccination for the masses not the actual symptoms.

There are many reports coming through of people who have recovered, surely for the vast majority that would be the case?

Edd

[Retsdon]

1 hour ago, grrclark said:

 Yeah it really sucks that if your worst case scenario comes to pass and we have increased mortality by 3-4%, but show me where there is a rulebook for the world saying such things shouldn't happen.  

China, South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong..

You think they don't have economies? You think they don't have populations that don't like staying indoors? Nevertheless they have all taken hard measures to reduce their infection rates below Ro1, which in turn gives them some leeway to relax. And that's the irony. If Britain had locked down solid 4 weeks ago for three weeks, the worst would be past. Of course, you're always going to get re-infections, and of course you're always going to have to be testing, testing, testing, to keep the virus at bay. But mostly, as they're proving out east,  your economy can get back to work albeit under some constraint.

But there's another point here.  Although I don't like Boris and his government, their miserable and chaotic response hasn't been unique. While Britain's response (along with the US's) to this pandemic has perhaps been the most egregiously disorganized (and that will be borne out when the final butcher's bill is tallied up), this virus has also exposed terrible weaknesses in  Europe and North America, both economically and politically. The drastic economic and social measures which  have allowed Asian nations to get on top of this virus have proved ( so far at least) to be completely beyond the ability of western democracies to enact. And that's a worry because it looks as if this virus could be a catalyst, or at least a harbinger, for one of those massive paradigm shifts of power that occur from time to time throughout history. And personally, I don't want to live in a word that's dominated both politically and economically by Asia. I've seen to much of the place up close.

And that's the biggest issue. Political weakness (as in the inability to act decisively and robustly in the face of danger) has never been a happy portent of things to come.

[JohnfromUK]

25 minutes ago, eddoakley said:

Unless there is more to it than we are told. 

It's seems that it's a variation on the flu. A bit more severe. The problem seems to me to be the lack of vaccination for the masses not the actual symptoms.

There are many reports coming through of people who have recovered, surely for the vast majority that would be the case?

Edd

The majority will recover - but a lot (estimates seem to be between 50,000 and 250,000) won't.  And if the spread is fast - there will be nothing like enough beds, doctors, ventilators and other medical wizardry to allow everyone who does get it badly to be treated.  Some will miss out - and probably die as a consequence.

IF the spread is slowed - there is a much better chance that the beds, doctors, ventilators and other medical wizardry won't all be needed at once - and so more urgent cases will get the use of it - and more will survive.

Those who get seriously ill will be dominated by those with 'underlying conditions', the over 60s, and the overweight.  However - a significant number of 'healthy' young and middle aged will get it seriously and need treatment in hospital.

Yes - it is like the flu ......... but we have good antibodies to combat 'flu.  We don't for this - and so EVERYONE has a greater risk.

[stumfelter]

7 hours ago, jonny705 said:

 

 

 

 

The ever increasing sophistication of AI means we will soon have little labour left which needs human involvement, ,boredom like we will find out in 9 months, means breeding , who will pay for our welfare in the future if no-one hardly works?

 

 

 

Cancel your subscription to science fiction monthly and stop watching reruns of tomorrow's world! There are countless jobs that aren't and never will be achievable by robots.