Jump to content
Wanderers Ways. Neil Thompson 1961-2021

Rudy

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, mickbrown said:

I agree. But we should have done it earlier. That’s my only criticism of the lockdown 

Against the science?

Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, ZiggyStardust said:

 

Apologies.

You did not say that you said you would continue to go to the pub, despite many saying it was a bad idea, because it had not been outlawed.

It was playing golf that you said you would continue to go do, despite many saying it was a bad idea, because it had not been outlawed.

I apologise if my mistake has caused upset.

So back to my question, what is different to your approach above, and companies, that have not been ordered to close doors, continuing to open ?

No offence taken,  the difference is I expect companies to act with common sense and act honourably and with the best interest of their staff. I practice exactly the same standards for my personal well being. Playing a round of golf on my own 1 hole behind the group in front and the group behind posed zero danger to me or any one else. 

Edited by Mounts Kipper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Supporter
1 hour ago, Casino said:

It was a month ago, we were assured there was loads of PPE

There's still not enough were it needs to be

It's not good enough

Maybe so.

Going back to the start of all this, and referencing a select committee meeting I watched; the top Mon in the NHS said there was enough (stockpile). He hinted that production capacity to maintain demand may be another issue and this seems to have been borne out, by the fact that all sorts of companies are now making masks for example.

How much of this now, is genuine lack of availability, and how much is down to both external and internal distribution and internal difficulties in monitoring usage and ensuring adequate replacement?

All this needs to be investigated and improved, but I don't believe for one minute that all parties are doing their best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

Firstly I’m taking the factual account of someone who is on the front line who I trust to portray the truth. You don’t think Kent is telling the truth? 
 

secondly If im such hard work don’t engage with me simple as that. Won’t bother me in the slightest plenty will engage with me 

oh and I believe 1-5 are factual accounts yes  I believe 6 is sensationalized bullshit  which is backed up by Kent’s front line view of things 

I also saw as no 7 am account saying we have an oxygen shortage in  the nhs  turns out it’s not true  but it was also in the papers  so Do you believe It’s true point 7 as it was in the papers?

 

 

Point 7 I have never mentioned. But the fact is a hospital was dangerously low on oxygen. Again a fact. The element that was not at first accurately reported is that this happens on a reasonably regular basis and there is a process in place to meet that demand. 
The fact is that some nurses were using carrier bags and they are now reported to have the virus. As Kent says like the food bank stories this may be the exception rather than the rule, but are you saying that it never happened. I respect Kent’s view that it definitely not happening everywhere. 
Hancock said the effort to improve the distribution has been Herculean and acknowledged the distribution issues at first, so based on that are saying there have been no issues ? 
Kent also agrees the usage guidelines have been updated and that clarification has helped. So again you think there was no issue prior to the advice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Supporter
7 minutes ago, mickbrown said:

The original science was talking of herd immunity. 
 

What was happening in Italy and Spain should have been our ‘science’

Don't you believe the likes of Valance, Van Tam etc when they say they are learning all the time from data gathered from all over? Shared science.

Did you watch the BBC interview earlier with Italy's pm?

Western nations don't operate culturally like for eastern ones.

Given numbers of our population won't isolate according to instructions for a couple of weeks, why do you keep banging on about shutting things down earlier?

These are the guys looking at the whole picture: medically, I'm sure they'd have loved to lockdown severely, and early. However using behaviourists etc gives a slightly different picture. In the end a balanced approach.

 

 

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.