Coronavirus

[IDM]

BB can say what he likes.  I followed very closely what the government was saying about over 70s when this all kicked off, as like millions of people I have a relative in that age group.

Unless there is an actual ruling for MPs which I have missed, this point isn’t even an issue for opinion, it’s black and white..

[Bentley Bullet]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52575594

[IDM]

That’s the same link I posted on the last page..

Over 70s can do the same as under 70s, but should take “particular care”.

Taking particular care does not mean self isolating.

Try harder.

[DonnyOsmond]

Egg > Face

[Bentley Bullet]

 "The government's rules for the lockdown identified groups of "clinically vulnerable" people who should take particular care to minimise contact with anyone outside their household.

They included those aged 70 or over, "regardless of medical conditions".

[IDM]

And the rest.?

The next two paras:

“ At the moment, the rules for this group are not different, so they are allowed out to take exercise or can leave their homes to go to work if they cannot work from home, but they are strongly advised to "take particular care".
This group is different from those who are defined as being "clinically extremely vulnerable". That group should be taking "shielding" measures, and include people with particular cancers and severe respiratory conditions such as cystic fibrosis.”

[IDM]

The original thought was that over 70s we’re going to be included with the clinically vulnerable groups, but they never were.

If that was the case, why did/do some supermarkets have special opening times for old folks.?

I remember questioning at the time, what “taking particular care” meant as opposed to “taking care” which was aimed at under 70s.  That’s probably on here somewhere but I can’t be arsed to look.

[Bentley Bullet]

And when asked whether he'd abide by those rules he declined to say. What a great example to the public.

Corbyn is clinically if not extremely vulnerable, and should lead by example in any case, if only to protect those around him and those who will be following his example

[BillyStubbsTears]

He did lead by example. He clearly, unambiguously and publicly sat many metres away from anyone around him.

As far as I'm aware, he didn't drive to a hospital whilst so ill with CV-19 that apparently he was unable to get out of bed. Nor did he drive a 4 year old 270 miles without a piss break. Nor did he brazenly and unequivocally lie in a public statement about what he did. Nor did he claim newspapers were lying about his actions when they weren't. Nor did refuse to apologise about actions he'd taken which the police have indicated broke RULES.

Oh yeah. And not did he rush home to find his wife apparently symptomatic with CV-19, then immediately go back to Downing Street for meetings.

Apart from that, you're probably right that the two cases have similarities.

[Bentley Bullet]

They are similar in respect to the carnage they could cause if the response of the public was to follow their example.

[SydneyRover]

I'm claiming the fiver, Syd is doing a grand impression of one of the journalists at the daily press conferences. Ask the same question over and over to try and get that "gotcha" soundbite

When I have a conversation with someone I prefer they are honest with me and me them, because johnson and cumming and gove and have been shown to be lying f**ks and tory voters accept this and don't mind so I have to be careful when tory voters tell me stuff because they may be doing the same. if that's ok with you ldr

I haven't caught up with the days comment yet but you accused Glyn of altering his comment so you are in no position to question anyone hound  until of course provide the proof





Blackpool answered your question at least four times Sydney.

[BillyStubbsTears]

They are similar in respect to the carnage they could cause if the response of the public was to follow their example.

Right. There would be carnage if some non-symptomatic 70 year olds went outside their houses and carefully and diligently practiced social distancing?

[SydneyRover]

It's turned into the show about nothing again, I wonder why 

[SydneyRover]

This is the important stuff, that 60,000 people are dead and it didn't have to be like this, why because the government are incompetent liars and those that vote and support them condone it.

"The standard you walk past is the standard you accept"

Knowing this what sort of standard do you accept if you then go and vote for them?

Government rejected radical lockdown of England's care homes
Exclusive: health officials put forward plan last month to stem soaring coronavirus deaths

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/28/government-rejected-radical-lockdown-england-care-homes-coronavirus

[BillyStubbsTears]

I do agree though that the side show about Cummings's self-important stupidity in f**king off to Daddy's farm is not the real issue.

The real issue is this.

When we could have been taking sensible precautions to suppress the virus, like they did in South Korea, Germany, Denmark, Portugal, Greece and Norway among others, that self-important f**king idiot (who has had a long interest in herd immunity) was implementing a policy of  "Herd Immunity, protect the economy and if a few old people die, too bad." [1]

And this is what has happened as a result of that.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52837593

60,000+ excess deaths and we are still barely 1/10th of the way towards developing Herd Immunity. Just think what we'd have faced if he hadn't been reined in.

And there are still people who refuse to get angry at what that egotistical maniac (who most likely added a few to those numbers by his own personal behaviour when he had the virus) has done to this country.

[1] Of course in a functioning Government, decisions like that wouldn't be delegated to an adviser who has a decade-long record of ramblings about crank science. They would be taken by the Prime Minister. But in OUR democracy, there was no-one to stop him, because, at the crucial time, the Prime Minister had f**ked off on holiday to sort out his messy divorce. So our policy, in the most awful crisis in three-quarters of a century, has been determined by a man that no-one ever voted for, and no-one can hold accountable.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Like I keep saying, I truly do wonder what it would take to make some people get angry at our Govt. Because an entirely avoidable 30, 40, or 50,000 deaths is clearly not enough to make them inspect what they believe.

[SydneyRover]

Until scientists show that having the virus has improved one's immunity herd immunity is not a valid option, if it ever was.

[IDM]

And when asked whether he'd abide by those rules he declined to say. What a great example to the public.

Corbyn is clinically if not extremely vulnerable, and should lead by example in any case, if only to protect those around him and those who will be following his example

Why is he clinically vulnerable.?

Do you know what if any health issues he may have.?

No.?  In other words you’re talking b*llocks again.. 

I’m happy to be proved wrong, and will admit so if you produce evidence..

Go on..

[Glyn_Wigley]

I'm claiming the fiver, Syd is doing a grand impression of one of the journalists at the daily press conferences. Ask the same question over and over to try and get that "gotcha" soundbite

When I have a conversation with someone I prefer they are honest with me and me them, because johnson and cumming and gove and have been shown to be lying f**ks and tory voters accept this and don't mind so I have to be careful when tory voters tell me stuff because they may be doing the same. if that's ok with you ldr

I haven't caught up with the days comment yet but you accused Glyn of altering his comment so you are in no position to question anyone hound  until of course provide the proof





Blackpool answered your question at least four times Sydney.

No, he accused me of altering what he had written when I quoted him. Which is complete and utter b*llocks and why he won't prove a slur as despicable as that, even though all it takes is to point to his original comment and then show in which post of mine that I've changed it to something else.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Christ, Brazil is looking to be in a shocking state.

They've just posted their highest daily figures for positive tests and deaths again. No country has had new confirmed cases and deaths increasing this rapidly, this far into the epidemic. The next few weeks are going to be horrific for them.

[SydneyRover]

When this whole mess has been sorted and without a vaccine it's going to be a while the sorry story has to come out but I don't hold out much hope. If we can't get to the bottom of a bunch of chidlike lies about a senior aide telling a crock about why the rules don't apply to him, how will it happen.

Previous deceptions have taken decades to come out and some never will, this government is likely to ensure that an enquiry does not release its findings until after the next election, there is more than an even chance.

[SydneyRover]

Yep bolzano, trump, johnson, putin.

[SydneyRover]

Twitter needs to start appending fact checks to government messages here? and fb, the press, tv ....

[DonnyOsmond]

Until scientists show that having the virus has improved one's immunity herd immunity is not a valid option, if it ever was.

Plus theres no idea what the long term affects are.

[Donnywolf]

When this whole mess has been sorted and without a vaccine it's going to be a while the sorry story has to come out but I don't hold out much hope. If we can't get to the bottom of a bunch of chidlike lies about a senior aide telling a crock about why the rules don't apply to him, how will it happen.

Previous deceptions have taken decades to come out and some never will, this government is likely to ensure that an enquiry does not release its findings until after the next election, there is more than an even chance.

I do hope that (speaking non politically) that someone will have the whole timeline of who did what a when and hold a far reaching / comprehensive review of everything that has and has not taken place

It needs to be done as a priority (Grenfell Tower - still nothing after 3 years) and published in full for everyone to see and take note of

When (not if) the next Pandemic arises we as a Country need to be ready to pounce with whatever equipment we need (maybe PPE stockpiled and replenished as stock rotation would be useful - maybe Test Kits and a host of other must haves)

We must have a lockdown plan that kicks in when needed and help prevent such a terrible death toll.

Again I stress not having a go at the Govt - but they and subsequesnt ones MUST learn from this debacle as it seems South Korea did do

[IDM]

You don’t seem to wonder why Scotland have an arbitrary number of eight though IDM.
Which do you think is the better number to use.

Here’s my thoughts on this.

Scotland says 8 people can meet, from two different households.  Now I didn’t know what the average household/family size is in Scotland, but that would allow two neighbouring families of 4 each to enjoy a barbecue together, it allows families of up to 6 to visit grandparents.

So yes, 8 seems a better number.  Whether 8
Is an appropriate limit or not is another matter but I agree you have to draw a line somewhere.

But I don’t see how 8 people from a maximum of two households meeting outside, is any more of a risk than 6 from up to 6 households.

Also, Scotland announced their changes yesterday, to begin today ahead of another sunny weekend.

England’s were also announced yesterday, but to start on Monday after the weekend.  I think that is because Johnson is fixated on targets and dates - if the 5 indicators are saying it is now safe to relax lockdown some more, what difference does 3 days make.?

Folks in England will start to relax their lockdowns today I reckon. 

[Filo]

You don’t seem to wonder why Scotland have an arbitrary number of eight though IDM.
Which do you think is the better number to use.

Here’s my thoughts on this.

Scotland says 8 people can meet, from two different households.  Now I didn’t know what the average household/family size is in Scotland, but that would allow two neighbouring families of 4 each to enjoy a barbecue together, it allows families of up to 6 to visit grandparents.

So yes, 8 seems a better number.  Whether 8
Is an appropriate limit or not is another matter but I agree you have to draw a line somewhere.

But I don’t see how 8 people from a maximum of two households meeting outside, is any more of a risk than 6 from up to 6 households.

Also, Scotland announced their changes yesterday, to begin today ahead of another sunny weekend.

England’s were also announced yesterday, but to start on Monday after the weekend.  I think that is because Johnson is fixated on targets and dates - if the 5 indicators are saying it is now safe to relax lockdown some more, what difference does 3 days make.?

Folks in England will start to relax their lockdowns today I reckon. 

Englands were announced yesterday to deflect attention

[IDM]

That is probably partly the reason, but don’t forget we had that broadcast on a Sunday night, announcing changes for the Wednesday..

[SydneyRover]

(Thanks IDM)

Maybe the number reflects what the government feels they can contain wiith T&T if there's an outbreak, it's hard to understand why the different numbers over the border.
Modify message

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Twitter needs to start appending fact checks to government messages here? and fb, the press, tv ....

Sorry i disagree completely with that, surely goes fundamentally against the right to free speach?  There's plenty of opposition, media etc who can do that, but the points themselves should not be censored unless they are directly pushing hate and violence and against the law.  How long before we get in to disputes over what is a fact etc?

The use of bots, fake accounts etc is a different matter though and they should focus on that prevention.

What's interesting on this view is the case of Hong Kong, where they are actively fighting for free speach rights etc, yet in the western world many are trying to tighten free speech?