Jump to content
Wanderers Ways. Neil Thompson 1961-2021

Rudy

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Sweep
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Supporter
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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! 😁

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Supporter
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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.