Farrelli Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 5 minutes ago, boltondiver said: WHO say a lockdown is justified to buy time, to reorganise, regroup, rebalance resource, protect health workers who are exhausted. By and large, they’d rather not do it. Starmer isn’t claiming any of those. And, I think we know from experience, it is highly unlikely to be 2-3 weeks. There is no rationale in closing chunks of the country with low infection rates. Nonsense. He said in PMQ's that the Tier 3 restrictions are ineffective and cause economic harm without getting the virus under control. Hard to argue with that on the evidence so far. The whole principle of a short circuit breaker is to allow the NHS to re-group and reduce the R rate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter Steejay Posted October 21, 2020 Site Supporter Share Posted October 21, 2020 3 hours ago, Spider said: Boris just said it’s reviewed every 28 days. Thought it was a fortnight? Whats the actual chances of getting out of tier 3? Pretty good if you're diagnosed as terminal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrelli Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 4 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said: It’s a last last resort and starmer wanting a full national lockdown even in very low infection rate areas is mentalist, just taking opposite view to the government as per usual. Not fit for power. The R rate keeps rising so only a mentalist would propose doing the same things and expect a different result. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Zico Posted October 21, 2020 Moderators Share Posted October 21, 2020 10 minutes ago, gonzo said: Brazil rolling out a vaccine. Provided by the Chinese. Whod ave thunked. happy to let them go first Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweep Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 16 minutes ago, birch-chorley said: Flip side, if you restrict a business from operating then the government needs to pay, really it should pay more than what’s on the table currently So, can public finances take that sort of cost for the next couple of years? Eventually the pot runs dry and public sector workers don’t get their wages. That won’t do the vulnerable any good either Agreed...but we keep mentioning that word "vulnerable".....somebody on the radio the other day, said if we do lock up the vulnerable, then depending what parameters we use to decide who is and who isn't, we could potentially have over 1/3 or the current adult population shielding for the foreseeable future. That wouldn't work either As I said earlier, I'm happy for us to try and work through it, but make sure the rules are followed, tighten them up even, but make sure they're followed by coming down massively hard on those caught breaking the rules. There is no right or wrong at the minute (no matter what anybody says) as we've not been in this situation before. We can't let everybody crack on, we cant lock everybody down......it's up to our Leaders to find the ideal position in between Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ani Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 16 minutes ago, gonzo said: Brazil rolling out a vaccine. Provided by the Chinese. Whod ave thunked. Quite funny since they said it did not. exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweep Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 16 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said: It’s a last last resort and starmer wanting a full national lockdown even in very low infection rate areas is mentalist, just taking opposite view to the government as per usual. Not fit for power. I agree, he's not fit for power.....sadly neither are those running the show 😃 You're right though, putting very low infection rate places (like where I live) into full lockdown would be an utterly mentalist thing to do......although we do know we will be locked down at some point in the near future, as will everybody else Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Zico Posted October 21, 2020 Moderators Share Posted October 21, 2020 Just now, Sweep said: Agreed...but we keep mentioning that word "vulnerable".....somebody on the radio the other day, said if we do lock up the vulnerable, then depending what parameters we use to decide who is and who isn't, we could potentially have over 1/3 or the current adult population shielding for the foreseeable future. That wouldn't work either As I said earlier, I'm happy for us to try and work through it, but make sure the rules are followed, tighten them up even, but make sure they're followed by coming down massively hard on those caught breaking the rules. There is no right or wrong at the minute (no matter what anybody says) as we've not been in this situation before. We can't let everybody crack on, we cant lock everybody down......it's up to our Leaders to find the ideal position in between aye those classed as obese, disabetics and asthmatics are classed as clinicially vunerable fuck me the economy would be ruined in days if only the obese stayed in all the time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweep Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 19 minutes ago, gonzo said: Brazil rolling out a vaccine. Provided by the Chinese. Whod ave thunked. They're not starting to roll it out until January or February at the earliest though......so I'm guessing they've not tested it properly yet, although I guess somebody has to go first 🙂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birch-chorley Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, Sweep said: Agreed...but we keep mentioning that word "vulnerable".....somebody on the radio the other day, said if we do lock up the vulnerable, then depending what parameters we use to decide who is and who isn't, we could potentially have over 1/3 or the current adult population shielding for the foreseeable future. That wouldn't work either As I said earlier, I'm happy for us to try and work through it, but make sure the rules are followed, tighten them up even, but make sure they're followed by coming down massively hard on those caught breaking the rules. There is no right or wrong at the minute (no matter what anybody says) as we've not been in this situation before. We can't let everybody crack on, we cant lock everybody down......it's up to our Leaders to find the ideal position in between If it is really for the ‘foreseeable future’ then restrictions to the extent we are seeing at the moment aren’t an option surely I think the only way we can live with these restrictions is if we can see light at the end of the tunnel, I.e a vaccine in Spring / Summer latest If tgat ain’t coming then we will definitely need a Plan B If we have 15m in the vulnerable group then we could give them all £1,000 a month to shield, given the vast majority in this group don’t work (retired) it’s a considerable amount of additional money. That would cost £15bn a month, £90bn over 6 months. Considerably less than the £400bn we have burnt through already. If it means it better protects the economy then it saves more in year 2 / 3 / 4.... as we cause less damage now I don’t think anyone is saying 45m should go back to normal. Things like masks, WFH if you can, washing hands, disinfecting shopping trolleys, social distancing, is here to stay and all of them will bring down the R number to reduce the number of cases. If we can then reduce the numbers in the vulnerable groups who catch it then we will reduce the flow into hospitals. Shutting down businesses in order to bring R below 1 shouldn't take priority over the Economy IMO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ani Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 1 minute ago, birch-chorley said: If it is really for the ‘foreseeable future’ then restrictions to the extent we are seeing at the moment aren’t an option surely I think the only way we can live with these restrictions is if we can see light at the end of the tunnel, I.e a vaccine in Spring / Summer latest If tgat ain’t coming then we will definitely need a Plan B If we have 15m in the vulnerable group then we could give them all £1,000 a month to shield, given the vast majority in this group don’t work (retired) it’s a considerable amount of additional money. That would cost £15bn a month, £90bn over 6 months. Considerably less than the £400bn we have burnt through already. If it means it better protects the economy then it saves more in year 2 / 3 / 4.... as we cause less damage now I don’t think anyone is saying 45m should go back to normal. Things like masks, WFH if you can, washing hands, disinfecting shopping trolleys, social distancing, is here to stay and all of them will bring down the R number to reduce the number of cases. If we can then reduce the numbers in the vulnerable groups who catch it then we will reduce the flow into hospitals. Shutting down businesses in order to bring R below 1 shouldn't take priority over the Economy IMO Align this was serious fines for businesses and people that carry on ignoring rules and you have a basis to go forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mounts Kipper Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 12 minutes ago, Ani said: Align this was serious fines for businesses and people that carry on ignoring rules and you have a basis to go forward. Not all in the vulnerable group want to shield, if they don’t then they shouldn’t be forced to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweep Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 (edited) 18 minutes ago, birch-chorley said: If it is really for the ‘foreseeable future’ then restrictions to the extent we are seeing at the moment aren’t an option surely I think the only way we can live with these restrictions is if we can see light at the end of the tunnel, I.e a vaccine in Spring / Summer latest If tgat ain’t coming then we will definitely need a Plan B If we have 15m in the vulnerable group then we could give them all £1,000 a month to shield, given the vast majority in this group don’t work (retired) it’s a considerable amount of additional money. That would cost £15bn a month, £90bn over 6 months. Considerably less than the £400bn we have burnt through already. If it means it better protects the economy then it saves more in year 2 / 3 / 4.... as we cause less damage now I don’t think anyone is saying 45m should go back to normal. Things like masks, WFH if you can, washing hands, disinfecting shopping trolleys, social distancing, is here to stay and all of them will bring down the R number to reduce the number of cases. If we can then reduce the numbers in the vulnerable groups who catch it then we will reduce the flow into hospitals. Shutting down businesses in order to bring R below 1 shouldn't take priority over the Economy IMO It makes sense what you're saying....but I'm not sure we've got the spare £15B per month to give away. Firstly, if people are retired already and don't have a job, then sorry, but they can fuck off and not get a penny, tough shit.....but they have to stay shielded, no sneaking out of a crafty stroll. Where it's tricky is those with cancers and other such things - do they have to be removed from their family? - or does the entire family have to shield? - people who work in cancer units and hospitals, who are always in contact with the vulnerable, do they also have to shield...or do we force them, when at work to wear full hazmat type suits, to prevent any cross contamination. To ask people to shield just isn't that straight forward - but I agree it's a start of a way out of this, as we won't all be getting vaccinated anytime in the next 7 or 8 months I wouldn't have thought, it'll be absolutely yonks before a vaccine is rolled out, I'd not be surprised if we're looking at some point in 2022 Edited October 21, 2020 by Sweep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweep Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 Just now, Mounts Kipper said: Not all in the vulnerable group want to shield, if they don’t then they shouldn’t be forced to. I get that they don't want to, and I wouldn't want to.....but at the minute plenty of people are being forced to do things they don't want. Surely it's just a case of "tough luck" pal - it'll never happen anyway, let's be honest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter Spider Posted October 21, 2020 Site Supporter Share Posted October 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said: Not all in the vulnerable group want to shield, if they don’t then they shouldn’t be forced to. Then sign a waiver excluding them from Covid treatment. They're the ones clogging up the hospitals because they can’t handle it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter MickyD Posted October 21, 2020 Site Supporter Share Posted October 21, 2020 17 hours ago, Casino said: and, i only got tonights farce on the radio but it sounded very much like our glorious leader was reading the first questions out Yet he doesnt know whats coming? He gets three days notice. https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/business/questions/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tombwfc Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 2 hours ago, Escobarp said: Thank Boby. Hopefully someone can give us the opposing view and let us know what they know that we don’t that makes lockdown financially more viable for all these business impacted by tier 3 cos I haven’t seen anything to back up that view point as yet The opposing view is simple I think - there isn't a scientist in the country who believes that the Tier 3 restrictions will be sufficient in getting the R rate below one. Therefore the epidemic in those places will only ever level off, and the restrictions will be permanently in place until there's a vaccine. The idea with a short lockdown is to reset the clock to August and try again to keep the virus down with contact tracing and better border controls. Jury might be out on the latter, but given no-one expects Plan A to work - I'd say persuing it is just wasting time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 50 minutes ago, Farrelli said: Nonsense. He said in PMQ's that the Tier 3 restrictions are ineffective and cause economic harm without getting the virus under control. Hard to argue with that on the evidence so far. The whole principle of a short circuit breaker is to allow the NHS to re-group and reduce the R rate. That’s a quote from WHO, so go argue with them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 Anyway, Martin Lewis WFH; google update Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ani Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 8 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said: Not all in the vulnerable group want to shield, if they don’t then they shouldn’t be forced to. For someone who claims to care about democracy you can not then say it is a free for all when it suits. We live in a society that has rules for the good of all. You do not get to choose which rules you follow. You can not sit in your local pub drinking the beer without paying whilst smoking indoors and then drive home without a seatbelt on especially when pissed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kent_white Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, Ani said: For someone who claims to care about democracy you can not then say it is a free for all when it suits. We live in a society that has rules for the good of all. You do not get to choose which rules you follow. You can not sit in your local pub drinking the beer without paying whilst smoking indoors and then drive home without a seatbelt on especially when pissed. Mounts can vote to leave the EU and then decide to go and retire there. I don't think cognitive dissonance is his thing! 😁 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrelli Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 5 minutes ago, boltondiver said: That’s a quote from WHO, so go argue with them Mixed in with some bullshit about Starmer. You've already been pulled up on it anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gonzo Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 20 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said: Not all in the vulnerable group want to shield, if they don’t then they shouldn’t be forced to. Indeed. Ask anyone in a care home if they want to see their last days out isolation without family. Reckon most would take their chances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweep Posted October 21, 2020 Share Posted October 21, 2020 12 minutes ago, boltondiver said: Anyway, Martin Lewis WFH; google update It might just be me......but the above doesn't make any sense. What are you asking us (or Martin Lewis) to do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter Spider Posted October 21, 2020 Site Supporter Share Posted October 21, 2020 4 minutes ago, Sweep said: It might just be me......but the above doesn't make any sense. What are you asking us (or Martin Lewis) to do? You can claim up to £150 tax relief if you’ve been working from home. Goes onto your tax code rather than cash I think 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.