Gonk Posted October 17, 2020 Share Posted October 17, 2020 5 hours ago, Casino said: you do know its not just random They know exactly the question thats coming A decent PM would have been all over the znswer Maybe if he had answered, id believe he had a clue of a way out of this Instead, he couldnt be arsed They have no prior knowledge of the question https://www.gov.uk/ask Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 17, 2020 Share Posted October 17, 2020 21 minutes ago, Gonk said: They have no prior knowledge of the question https://www.gov.uk/ask Tsk facts! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Carlos Posted October 17, 2020 Moderators Share Posted October 17, 2020 2 hours ago, Boby Brno said: Listening to the Jeremy Vine show yesterday lunchtime on the radio. They had some guy on who was an expert on the rules. A typical question went something like this. ‘I live in Bristol which is medium but I need to go to my sister’s house in Wales who have their own rules to collect a parcel that I’m going to deliver to my mother who lives in Liverpool who are on very high. On the way I will travel through Birmingham that is on high. Will I be breaking any rules?’ Jeremy Vine. ‘That’s all very confusing’ I’ve said before, I look at the rules that affect me, my family and my business. Too many people inventing Imaginary scenarios to undermine the message. Here's the problem, people are deliberately looking for flaws, what, to make themselves look smart? You can't go into Liverpool without a good reason. End of. Is the correct answer, no confusion. Travelling through Birmingham on the M6 doesn't really actually count does it, seriously? Pedantic fuckers everywhere. Post the cunt, like Zico says. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevieb Posted October 17, 2020 Share Posted October 17, 2020 I'm supposed to be going glamping 1 mile over the Welsh border on Tuesday. I'm taking everything I need for my two nights away and won't leave the site until I come home again. The site owner will disinfect after we leave. It's as low risk as me going to aldi 1 mile away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rudy Posted October 17, 2020 Author Members Share Posted October 17, 2020 5 minutes ago, stevieb said: I'm supposed to be going glamping 1 mile over the Welsh border on Tuesday. I'm taking everything I need for my two nights away and won't leave the site until I come home again. The site owner will disinfect after we leave. It's as low risk as me going to aldi 1 mile away. Glamping? Gay Camping? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevieb Posted October 17, 2020 Share Posted October 17, 2020 4 minutes ago, Rudy said: Glamping? Gay Camping? Sleeping in a tent for £180 a night. Might as well be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rudy Posted October 17, 2020 Author Members Share Posted October 17, 2020 9 minutes ago, stevieb said: Sleeping in a tent for £180 a night. Might as well be. They throw in a brass and a gram of Cecil? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevieb Posted October 17, 2020 Share Posted October 17, 2020 3 minutes ago, Rudy said: They throw in a brass and a gram of Cecil? I hope so. Agreed to book it for the Mrs birthday a few weeks back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Escobarp Posted October 17, 2020 Share Posted October 17, 2020 28 minutes ago, Rudy said: They throw in a brass and a gram of Cecil? I sense a business venture here pal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rudy Posted October 17, 2020 Author Members Share Posted October 17, 2020 6 minutes ago, Escobarp said: I sense a business venture here pal. Let’s meet tomorrow morning over bacon sarnies and marijuana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Escobarp Posted October 17, 2020 Share Posted October 17, 2020 3 minutes ago, Rudy said: Let’s meet tomorrow morning over bacon sarnies and marijuana Sure we could rent a field off a farmer shove some shit tents in it get some brasses on standby and some bing and pills and offer a new staycation venue to the discerning punters of WW. I follow free zone too. We are onto a winner here all for 179.99. Bargain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rudy Posted October 17, 2020 Author Members Share Posted October 17, 2020 5 minutes ago, Escobarp said: Sure we could rent a field off a farmer shove some shit tents in it get some brasses on standby and some bing and pills and offer a new staycation venue to the discerning punters of WW. I follow free zone too. We are onto a winner here all for 179.99. Bargain Well we know one sucker who will buy it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ani Posted October 18, 2020 Share Posted October 18, 2020 Are cases starting to drop in the North ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Not in Crawley Posted October 18, 2020 Share Posted October 18, 2020 20 hours ago, jeep said: I agree. What a dick..... Hes a dick as even at the height of lockdown you could still pick your kids up, Boris is a dick as he didn't know this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tombwfc Posted October 18, 2020 Share Posted October 18, 2020 On 17/10/2020 at 10:16, birch-chorley said: I assume every country will be different for thousands of reasons However, If a country is successful in shielding the vulnerable then total cases - hospitalisations - deaths would look very different to a country that fails to shield the vulnerable I think there's a massive difference between what people are classing as the 'vulnerable'. You seem to be talking about the clinically extremely vulnerable (circa 2.2m people). I'm not sure what data exists on how many of those are still shielding, and how many are currently catching the virus and ending up in hospital. Either way it seems like sound advice, albeit not a solution that'll allow everyone else to get back to normal. Generally the 'lock up the olds and crack on' seems to be understood to mean everyone even moderately vulnerable - the old, the fat, the ill. This might have more of an impact on stopping deaths - but there are 12m over 65s in this country. Add in the rest and their households and there'd be no-one left to keep the country going. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tombwfc Posted October 18, 2020 Share Posted October 18, 2020 The last slide on that post. The answer to 'what's killing people' and 'what's killing the economy' are both largely the same thing. Control the virus, you'll be ok. Get fucked by it, and your economy goes with too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birch-chorley Posted October 18, 2020 Share Posted October 18, 2020 4 minutes ago, Tombwfc said: I think there's a massive difference between what people are classing as the 'vulnerable'. You seem to be talking about the clinically extremely vulnerable (circa 2.2m people). I'm not sure what data exists on how many of those are still shielding, and how many are currently catching the virus and ending up in hospital. Either way it seems like sound advice, albeit not a solution that'll allow everyone else to get back to normal. Generally the 'lock up the olds and crack on' seems to be understood to mean everyone even moderately vulnerable - the old, the fat, the ill. This might have more of an impact on stopping deaths - but there are 12m over 65s in this country. Add in the rest and their households and there'd be no-one left to keep the country going. It appears that the advice for the extremely vulnerable (2.2m) is broadly in line with the rest of us, certainly not shielding https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-on-shielding-and-protecting-extremely-vulnerable-persons-from-covid-19/guidance-on-shielding-and-protecting-extremely-vulnerable-persons-from-covid-19 Madness that someone who is extremely vulnerable can go to the pub, yet a few miles down the road in tier 3 nobody can, change the rules I assume most over 65’s rely on pension payments so won’t need furlough money, other people of working age who are vulnerable could then be supported by the government (rather than millions requiring support no matter their health as their industry is shut down) Keeping the hospitality sector open for 40m people would be much better than shutting it to protect 15m Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birch-chorley Posted October 18, 2020 Share Posted October 18, 2020 15 minutes ago, Tombwfc said: The last slide on that post. The answer to 'what's killing people' and 'what's killing the economy' are both largely the same thing. Control the virus, you'll be ok. Get fucked by it, and your economy goes with too. Seems obvious if you’ve managed to keep the virus out then you would fair better. However once the virus is out how do you then react? Looking at that graph we have fucked our economy by at least double when compared to the US, Brazil and Sweden. If you’d offer me similar death rates to what we have had but with only half the economic damage I’d snap your arm off People seem to think your heartless if you believe the economy should come before healthcare. However healthcare rely’s on the Economy (as does Education, welfare etc etc). You show me a country that has a shit economy but has a great health service? What we are doing now will damage our economy for generations, the impact on public finances will lead to savage cuts in spending in the NHS that will kill many more people than we are saving now. If you want to save lives, put the economy first and protect the NHS for years to come Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggy Posted October 18, 2020 Share Posted October 18, 2020 1 hour ago, birch-chorley said: Keeping the hospitality sector open for 40m people would be much better than shutting it to protect 15m Or... Keeping the hospitality sector open for 40m people isn’t an option if it means asking 15m people to stay home indefinitely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birch-chorley Posted October 18, 2020 Share Posted October 18, 2020 3 minutes ago, wiggy said: Or... Keeping the hospitality sector open for 40m people isn’t an option if it means asking 15m people to stay home indefinitely. Ok, ask 66m to stay at home instead, seems a bizarre logic to me The vulnerable now will be the same ones who are vulnerable when we get out the other side of this mess. They will be the ones paying the price with a vastly diminished health service that they rely so heavily on Allow 40m to continue to function in some form in the economy, reduce job losses, reduce welfare spending, maintain better tax coming in, maintain the health service as we know it, protect the vulnerable over a longer period of time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gonzo Posted October 18, 2020 Share Posted October 18, 2020 We dont even know who are the ones that need protecting. Some people simply don't contract or show no symptoms. Fella that works for me got it, his wife didnt. Theres thousands of cases like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 18, 2020 Share Posted October 18, 2020 30 minutes ago, birch-chorley said: Ok, ask 66m to stay at home instead, seems a bizarre logic to me The vulnerable now will be the same ones who are vulnerable when we get out the other side of this mess. They will be the ones paying the price with a vastly diminished health service that they rely so heavily on Allow 40m to continue to function in some form in the economy, reduce job losses, reduce welfare spending, maintain better tax coming in, maintain the health service as we know it, protect the vulnerable over a longer period of time All correct I hope we can gather rational decision making soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter MickyD Posted October 18, 2020 Site Supporter Share Posted October 18, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiggy Posted October 18, 2020 Share Posted October 18, 2020 42 minutes ago, birch-chorley said: Ok, ask 66m to stay at home instead, seems a bizarre logic to me The vulnerable now will be the same ones who are vulnerable when we get out the other side of this mess. They will be the ones paying the price with a vastly diminished health service that they rely so heavily on Allow 40m to continue to function in some form in the economy, reduce job losses, reduce welfare spending, maintain better tax coming in, maintain the health service as we know it, protect the vulnerable over a longer period of time I promise you I’m not trying to be difficult. I don’t think most people would have a problem asking the “vulnerable” to shield if we were talking about a known period of time. Or if it meant others could carry on do the “essentials”. I think what people have an issue with, is the suggestion by some that the vulnerable should shield forever so that others can go back to living what we might consider a “normal” life. The life we all live for the foreseeable is going to be shit. Anyone who thinks any different is deluded and / or massively selfish. Personally I think we need to find the balance which allows us to keep the virus under control without meaning 15 million people face the threat of 3 years, 5 years or longer stuck at home. And this is all assuming you think we can actually lock those people away in safety. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter Spider Posted October 18, 2020 Site Supporter Share Posted October 18, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.