Coronavirus

[Boby Brno]

Had a customer in yesterday. Didn’t have a mask so I politely asked and they obliged. During our conversation, they said they would be happy for another lockdown. They got paid and got loads of jobs done at home. Said they had plenty more to do. What chance do we have.

[Escobarp]

7 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Its becoming apparent that conurbations are the places more at risk. Not surprising really. 

Higher proportion of cunts.

Scotland and Wales have significantly fewer and a lower population density, so might have less of an issue in that regard. The same trouble within these areas though.

Entire area of Caerphilly being locked down this evening. The day after a Welsh politician was advocating their efforts.

When it comes down to it, all 4 nations have broadly similar approaches, and are experiencing broadly similar issues.

 

When I was up in the highlands and speaking to various folk in hotels etc they hadn’t seen a case or known anybody who had been infected. But they saw that as a primary reason to keep following the guidelines. They haven’t had it and don’t want it so try and prevent it. It’s that mentality in a lot of these areas with low or Non existent case numbers that will see them right. 
 

Plus in general the quality of people appears to be better in these areas as in far less knobheads and scumbags with feral children. 
 

 

[mickbrown]

6 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Swanny has had it.

I do work outside. My choice, if you dont want to teach, do something else.

Won't be my lad's fault if he catches it neither, but he, like most folk, understands the necessity. Its a risk of course, and in all honesty, if I felt the school wasn't following to rules, or too many scrotes were making attendance too risky, I'd pull him out.

That doesnt mean we shouldn't try.

I don't understand why you are not prepared to accept the scientific evidence- its your own child's education at the most key year of schooling.

Swanny thinks he's had it. He doesn't know for sure. Was probably man flu the big fanny 😀

She's in school, but it wasn't a scientific decision that has them back in. It was an economic one. You know that as well as I do.

Edited September 8, 2020 by mickbrown

[Tonge moor green jacket]

2 minutes ago, ZicoKelly said:

Yeah, I'm well on board with our approach so far

There was a huge clamour to just crack on

I suspect we will need a plan B where schools are concerned

Apart from Casino in the early stages, and one or two others later, there are very few who on here who have said crack on.

Certainly not from offialdom, the message has been a gradual release and, as you say, that's happening.

School plans are already in place. 

[Escobarp]

3 minutes ago, mickbrown said:

Swanny thinks he's had it. He doesn't know for sure. Was probably man flu the big fanny 😀

She's in school, but it wasn't a scientific decision that has them back in. It was an economic one. You know that as well as I do.

Nothing to do with the education of children as well? Not sure myself if that’s true 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

2 minutes ago, mickbrown said:

Swanny thinks he's had it. He doesn't know for sure. Was probably man flu the big fanny 😀

She's in school, but it wasn't a scientific decision that has them back in. It was an economic one. You know that as well as I do.

It was a political/economic decision, based on the science. You know that.

Otherwise, they'd just go back fully. 

Why are so many restrictions and rules in place within schools, and indeed within the workplace. 

Whats the alternative?

No kids in, few at work. No tax take, no money to pay nhs etc.

Sooner or later, public employees would have to be made redundant. Where would you start- with those not working fully. If teachers are purely doing stuff online perhaps from home are they not some of the first to cull?

[Burndens Bogs]

Had to go to my daughters school in Bolton yesterday, it was a teacher training day + it doesn't open proper till today.

Every single person i saw in that school (including myself) wore a mask or a face visor.

The only exceptions were an Asian lad and his mother waiting to see a teacher, when asked by a member of staff if they had masks they both just shook their heads, then carried on looking at their phones.

JSL.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

4 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

Nothing to do with the education of children as well? Not sure myself if that’s true 

Never!

Daft thing is, we could have a large swathe with reduced education, poorer prospects and lower incomes.

But thats OK, because its something else to blame a government for.

[mickbrown]

4 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

Nothing to do with the education of children as well? Not sure myself if that’s true 

No, of course. They need to go back, for sure. And for their own mental health. I get that.

I mean the clamour to get them back in wasn't based on the fact that it would be 100% safe for them to do so. They were seen as keeping parents at home.

The dirty little bastards are going to catch it and they are going to give it to parents etc. I'm saying the risk of that has been deemed acceptable it seems.

[mickbrown]

5 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

It was a political/economic decision, based on the science. You know that.

Otherwise, they'd just go back fully. 

Why are so many restrictions and rules in place within schools, and indeed within the workplace. 

Whats the alternative?

No kids in, few at work. No tax take, no money to pay nhs etc.

Sooner or later, public employees would have to be made redundant. Where would you start- with those not working fully. If teachers are purely doing stuff online perhaps from home are they not some of the first to cull?

I get all that, but what science? That's the bit I'm questioning.

My kid is in a 'bubble' consisting of her entire school year. That's over 200 kids. And which by definition includes all their parents.  And siblings. You could conservatively put that number at 800 people. That ain't a bubble. That ain't science.

[Escobarp]

5 minutes ago, mickbrown said:

No, of course. They need to go back, for sure. And for their own mental health. I get that.

I mean the clamour to get them back in wasn't based on the fact that it would be 100% safe for them to do so. They were seen as keeping parents at home.

The dirty little bastards are going to catch it and they are going to give it to parents etc. I'm saying the risk of that has been deemed acceptable it seems.

Ah ok I agree. This virus hasn’t stopped being contagious so it was absolutely going to happen

[peelyfeet]

1 minute ago, mickbrown said:

No, of course. They need to go back, for sure. And for their own mental health. I get that.

I mean the clamour to get them back in wasn't based on the fact that it would be 100% safe for them to do so. They were seen as keeping parents at home.

The dirty little bastards are going to catch it and they are going to give it to parents etc. I'm saying the risk of that has been deemed acceptable it seems.

In my opinion, risk should be reduced at every possible stage.

If kids can school from home with a parent, and the parent is OK with it, let them stay. Even if its just 1 day a week.

Shut the pubs that don't have open-air provision. If they dont have any, build some.

Get folks temperatures tested before they get on any public transport, like they've been doing in S korea for 8 months.

Don't let folk in shops without masks on.

Get someone to stand outside school politely asking parents to distance.

Restrictions need enforcing. They aren't being, so they won't work as well.

[Spider]

Furlough 2 won't happen, that's for certain.

Make no mistake, millions have had a really easy ride and many will kick off like fuck to try and get another round. 

We can all go back to work and school and see this out, though it may involve shutting pubs again and no big events until 2021.

We just need bigger fines for people acting the cunt. The police need help in terms of bodies on that but the cost against this carrying on for another year would be worth it.

We have to work, the kids have to go to school. At any cost.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

10 minutes ago, mickbrown said:

No, of course. They need to go back, for sure. And for their own mental health. I get that.

I mean the clamour to get them back in wasn't based on the fact that it would be 100% safe for them to do so. They were seen as keeping parents at home.

The dirty little bastards are going to catch it and they are going to give it to parents etc. I'm saying the risk of that has been deemed acceptable it seems.

Science saying kids spread it less than adults. Not that they dont spread it at all. Primary should be easier.

I agree with the 'bubble' concern, but thats the way they've approached it. Won't be just plucked out of thin air.

And they get sent home as we've seen.

You've said they need to get back, so don't know what your issue is. Loads of work put in place to try to do it as safely as possible. 100% on line teaching wouldn't bother me in the sense that I know lad would do it, but more to it than that.

I would imagine schools are going to be far more controlled than the pub, back gardens, supermarkets etc.

[Escobarp]

13 minutes ago, Spider said:

Furlough 2 won't happen, that's for certain.

Make no mistake, millions have had a really easy ride and many will kick off like fuck to try and get another round. 

We can all go back to work and school and see this out, though it may involve shutting pubs again and no big events until 2021.

We just need bigger fines for people acting the cunt. The police need help in terms of bodies on that but the cost against this carrying on for another year would be worth it.

We have to work, the kids have to go to school. At any cost.

The cost is going to be deaths of predominantly elderly or those within certain ethnic minorities. Are you comfortable with that? Genuine question as I was saying this many many many pages back as were a couple of others and folk weren’t so keen about balancing economics with human loss 

[Spider]

1 minute ago, Escobarp said:

The cost is going to be deaths of predominantly elderly or those within certain ethnic minorities. Are you comfortable with that? Genuine question as I was saying this many many many pages back as were a couple of others and folk weren’t so keen about balancing economics with human loss 

We now know the risk groups. It's clear and obvious.

So shield them, explain the risks and if they want to chance it then that's up to them.

Maybe allow furlough for those who shield and sacrifice accordingly whilst the rest of us carry on.

Refinement is needed but only until the vaccine turns up. 

One massive effort to protect the vulnerable rather than stop everything in its tracks.

 

[Escobarp]

1 minute ago, Spider said:

We now know the risk groups. It's clear and obvious.

So shield them, explain the risks and if they want to chance it then that's up to them.

Maybe allow furlough for those who shield and sacrifice accordingly whilst the rest of us carry on.

Refinement is needed but only until the vaccine turns up. 

One massive effort to protect the vulnerable rather than stop everything in its tracks.

 

I agree completely. Give folk the choice.  Go to Asda etc and you might die. Shield and you might get through it.  It’s upto you. Simple really. Let them take the chance if they want but don’t clog up the hospitals with people who have made that choice. 

[peelyfeet]

Govmt about to reduce the number of folk allowed to gather inside according to sky news.

Edited September 8, 2020 by peelyfeet

[mickbrown]

21 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Science saying kids spread it less than adults. Not that they dont spread it at all. Primary should be easier.

I agree with the 'bubble' concern, but thats the way they've approached it. Won't be just plucked out of thin air.

And they get sent home as we've seen.

You've said they need to get back, so don't know what your issue is. Loads of work put in place to try to do it as safely as possible. 100% on line teaching wouldn't bother me in the sense that I know lad would do it, but more to it than that.

I would imagine schools are going to be far more controlled than the pub, back gardens, supermarkets etc.

My issue is that I reckon economics has been prioritised over safety.

My opinion.

You're free to hold an opposing one.

Edited September 8, 2020 by mickbrown

[peelyfeet]

https://www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/2020-09-07/north-of-england-has-had-highest-proportion-of-covid-19-deaths-since-national-lockdown-eased?s=09

What I was saying weeks ago - restrictions have been London centric. 

[peelyfeet]

Long-term optimism from Dr john

 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

32 minutes ago, mickbrown said:

My issue is that I reckon economics has been prioritised over safety.

My opinion.

You're free to hold an opposing one.

If folk weren't so readily tossing it off, I'd agree. However it seems most of the current infection rise is down to cuntdom and not particularly work related transmission, perhaps too many with time on their hands doing the devil's work. 

 

[birch-chorley]

33 minutes ago, mickbrown said:

My issue is that I reckon economics has been prioritised over safety.

My opinion.

You're free to hold an opposing one.

If that’s the case then they have done a really shit job of prioritising the Economy, our Economy has been hit harder than any other in the G7, which indicates we restricted it more than the others 

36 minutes ago, peelyfeet said:

Govmt about to reduce the number of folk allowed to gather inside according to sky news.

Don’t have people in your house, but please go back into your office to work, bizzare 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

35 minutes ago, peelyfeet said:

https://www.itv.com/news/tyne-tees/2020-09-07/north-of-england-has-had-highest-proportion-of-covid-19-deaths-since-national-lockdown-eased?s=09

What I was saying weeks ago - restrictions have been London centric. 

Get the point. Would an extra couple of weeks made a difference to the number of numb nuts though. 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

2 minutes ago, birch-chorley said:

If that’s the case then they have done a really shit job of prioritising the Economy, our Economy has been hit harder than any other in the G7, which indicates we restricted it more than the others 

Don’t have people in your house, but please go back into your office to work, bizzare 

Would imagine workplaces on the whole are more compliant than people's homes, especially if the booze has started to flow.