Jump to content
Wanderers Ways - passion not fashion

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, boltondiver said:

What should that inform us?

Not sure but Bolton is the lowest in Greater Manchester (sorry)

Most of Bolton must have avoided the Trafford Centre during the Christmas break. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 43.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Escobarp

    3457

  • Spider

    2756

  • Tonge moor green jacket

    2664

  • boltondiver

    2451

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

That was one of the loveliest things to ever happen. Stood in my garden sobbing like a baby! Proud to work for the NHS 👏👏👏👏❤️

My uncle lost his battle to this in Royal Bolton this morning, so he will be one of today’s numbers.  last rites over the phone held by a nurse with no family there. made an exception yester

I’ve sat with my mum who is slipping away, literally breathing her last today. She idolises the Queen, and whilst she didn’t in all likelihood hear that, I know she would have loved every single

Posted Images

Just now, Boby Brno said:

Not sure but Bolton is the lowest in Greater Manchester (sorry)

Most of Bolton must have avoided the Trafford Centre during the Christmas break. 

What because it’s only 300???? 
 

90 here after Xmas lockdown. We must just have avoided people’s houses?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Boby Brno said:

Not sure but Bolton is the lowest in Greater Manchester (sorry)

Most of Bolton must have avoided the Trafford Centre during the Christmas break. 

That it is, substantively, a seasonal respiratory disease.

You can, run, but you can’t hide.

Various restrictions have been tried, but hardly any have worked.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, boltondiver said:

That it is, substantively, a seasonal respiratory disease.

You can, run, but you can’t hide.

Various restrictions have been tried, but hardly any have worked.

 

What would have happened in your opinion if we were just cracking on right now? Genuine question? No restrictions at Xmas etc new year and pubs open. What numbers would be seeing in your opinion? I’m interested ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

What because it’s only 300???? 
 

90 here after Xmas lockdown. We must just have avoided people’s houses?

Not bragging pal. Our figure is up 70% in the last 7 days. For whatever reason, this thing is spreading rapidly and moving north.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Boby Brno said:

Not bragging pal. Our figure is up 70% in the last 7 days. For whatever reason, this thing is spreading rapidly and moving north.

No I wasn’t having a pop sorry if it came across that way. 
 

sadly people will Be believing it’s a success because London is so high. 300 2 months ago was seen as catastrophic. Now it’s a drop in the ocean. 
 

yet some people think there’s no problem still. 🤯

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Site Supporter
16 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

What would have happened in your opinion if we were just cracking on right now? Genuine question? No restrictions at Xmas etc new year and pubs open. What numbers would be seeing in your opinion? I’m interested ?

Sean of the Dead stuff I reckon

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

What would have happened in your opinion if we were just cracking on right now? Genuine question? No restrictions at Xmas etc new year and pubs open. What numbers would be seeing in your opinion? I’m interested ?

Good question, let me think.

My point was as much to those who said that cases declined in summer because of the first lockdown, that the cases picked up because of the Eat Out scheme, and, as ever, the government should have done this, that or other sooner. Whatever most Governments have tried, aside of extreme lockdowns, has hardly scratched the surface. Witness the surge of cases in London that must have started during the last lockdown.

I do get that the risks of letting it rip would have been untenable for the NHS/Govt.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, boltondiver said:

Good question, let me think.

My point was as much to those who said that cases declined in summer because of the first lockdown, that the cases picked up because of the Eat Out scheme, and, as ever, the government should have done this, that or other sooner. Whatever most Governments have tried, aside of extreme lockdowns, has hardly scratched the surface. Witness the surge of cases in London that must have started during the last lockdown.

I do get that the risks of letting it rip would have been untenable for the NHS/Govt.

But what do you think would have happened to case numbers? Based on your statement that lockdowns don’t work. So by virtue they can only have had , at best , a neutral effect on numbers? Correct or have I misunderstood?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Escobarp said:

But what do you think would have happened to case numbers? Based on your statement that lockdowns don’t work. So by virtue they can only have had , at best , a neutral effect on numbers? Correct or have I misunderstood?

I’m thinking

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Spider said:

Sean of the Dead stuff I reckon

I wonder how much further case numbers need to rise in Bolton for hospital to implode?

im told Glasgow and lanarkshire it’s almost at crisis point now and won’t be able to take any more patients in very shortly. What happens then is anyone’s guess 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

Ok pal. Ive got all night 😊

Funny

here is my overall view on lockdowns;

1. We have no evidence that they work. The scientists say that if we don’t lock down, then this will happen. We’ve never seen the non-lockdown outcome. 

2. We do know the damage they have caused; financially, other health, education etc. @birch-chorleyhas gone quiet, perhaps he’s just too frustrated.

I would think that when the future checklist is analysed, it will be that the cure will be far greater than the disease.

As I’ve said, I think, from very early, the job was to keep those vulnerable out of the way of the virus. Hardly any healthy under 60s have died, so, again, could we have better allocated resource?

But, from where we are, we have to, it seems, look after the NHS.

But, is there a lot of spin there?

as ever, I’m happy to be wrong, especially with this virus 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, boltondiver said:

Funny

here is my overall view on lockdowns;

1. We have no evidence that they work. The scientists say that if we don’t lock down, then this will happen. We’ve never seen the non-lockdown outcome. 

2. We do know the damage they have caused; financially, other health, education etc. @birch-chorleyhas gone quiet, perhaps he’s just too frustrated.

I would think that when the future checklist is analysed, it will be that the cure will be far greater than the disease.

As I’ve said, I think, from very early, the job was to keep those vulnerable out of the way of the virus. Hardly any healthy under 60s have died, so, again, could we have better allocated resource?

But, from where we are, we have to, it seems, look after the NHS.

But, is there a lot of spin there?

as ever, I’m happy to be wrong, especially with this virus 

So back to my point. Where do YOU think case numbers would be if we hadn’t locked down or had these current restrictions and had the pubs open at new year? Neutral impact yes? In your opinion?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Site Supporter

Having read up a bit more on viruses

The only way to stop them, is to stop letting the spread.

The new variant is a reminder that without a vaccine, we are entirely at the mercy of an invisible menace

Link to post
Share on other sites

The virus spreads as people have contact with other people. 
 

If as a result of a lockdown people have less contacts it slows the spread. 
 

Surely that is not in doubt ? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

So back to my point. Where do YOU think case numbers would be if we hadn’t locked down or had these current restrictions and had the pubs open at new year? Neutral impact yes? In your opinion?

Answer; probably not as bad as some of the scientists outlined

Not neutral, but not end of the world. Probably.

Number of cases? Double?

Only my view. I’d love to know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

What would have happened in your opinion if we were just cracking on right now? Genuine question? No restrictions at Xmas etc new year and pubs open. What numbers would be seeing in your opinion? I’m interested ?

000000 cause COVID dont go in pubs if your having a meat ITK FACT 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, boltondiver said:

Funny

here is my overall view on lockdowns;

1. We have no evidence that they work. The scientists say that if we don’t lock down, then this will happen. We’ve never seen the non-lockdown outcome. 

2. We do know the damage they have caused; financially, other health, education etc. @birch-chorleyhas gone quiet, perhaps he’s just too frustrated.

I would think that when the future checklist is analysed, it will be that the cure will be far greater than the disease.

As I’ve said, I think, from very early, the job was to keep those vulnerable out of the way of the virus. Hardly any healthy under 60s have died, so, again, could we have better allocated resource?

But, from where we are, we have to, it seems, look after the NHS.

But, is there a lot of spin there?

as ever, I’m happy to be wrong, especially with this virus 

Wrong. Lockdowns do have an effect.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ani said:

The virus spreads as people have contact with other people. 
 

If as a result of a lockdown people have less contacts it slows the spread. 
 

Surely that is not in doubt ? 

It’s not in doubt but we can see it only delays the virus and deaths, if the vaccine hadn’t come deaths would have been same with or without lockdown just over longer period. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was the first lockdown the right course of action?

I understand why the govt did it, but history might show it to be a mistake

2nd

They should have had better solutions by then

3rd

same

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mounts Kipper said:

It’s not in doubt but we can see it only delays the virus and deaths, if the vaccine hadn’t come deaths would have been same with or without lockdown just over longer period. 

But there is a vaccine coming. 

Link to post
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.

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.

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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