Jump to content

Coronavirus


faraway saint

Recommended Posts


THAT'S it in a nutshell.
If more people played by the rules, and while I think plenty of the restrictions are utter madness i comply, businesses would not be getting unfairly punished. 
That is my biggest issue with the new restrictions...

The ones ignoring the "guidelines" will continue to do so, whether individuals or businesses.

The only people likely to suffer are the people who are already complying with all the advice.

This is only going to lead to more people rebelling.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(Reply to bazil is last post)

Sigh... why do I bother?  You neither understand nor listen to others.

All economies are driven by money being exchanged As payment for labour or or products and services.

if people are unemployed they have little money.  If they have no money they can't buy things, go to movies, theatres or pubs.  So even more businesses are forced to close causing even more unemployment.   
Shops shut.  Food isn’t produced/manufactured and sold.

people starve, people get depressed enough to commit suicide.

The capability is there and resources may be there but these things are joined up by a successful economy.  Ours is currently faltering.

If you knew and understood anything about the depression - and even rationing into the 1950s - you would perhaps have a more mature understanding about why a functioning economy might be a good thing.

Word

Edited by antrin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, antrin said:

Sigh... why do I bother?  You neither understand nor listen to others.

All economies are driven by money being exchanged As payment for labour or or products and services.

if people are unemployed they have little money.  If they have no money they can't buy things, go to movies, theatres or pubs.  So even more businesses are forced to close causing even more unemployment.   
Shops shut.  Food isn’t produced/manufactured and sold.

people starve, people get depressed enough to commit suicide.

The capability is there and resources may be there but these things are joined up by a successful economy.  Ours is currently faltering.

If you knew and understood anything about the depression - and even rationing into the 1950s - you would perhaps have a more mature understanding about why a functioning economy might be a good thing.

Word

But I do, I just disagree. What you are really saying is, "why do I bother when you don't come round to my worldview?" 

I feel it is absolutely within the collective nations capability to better support people during the economic downturn but certain political decisions prevent it. I simply ask why you don't think that is the case? 

You then summarise a scenario we aren't in as a country and needn't be in globally.  Virus or not, there are still the resources and capability to support the people, the political choice is not to do that to an acceptable (again in my opinion) level. Some choices they could make that many would support. Raise taxes, scrap trident, scrap needless and costly rail-link development, the choices are there to be made. 

I understand the situations the world has previously been in, I fully believe in 2020 the capability to avoid that is infinitely more available than pre 1950s. 

You don't have to agree with me and you are welcome to try and change my mind, you have provided nothing that suggests my view isn't right though. If you were to present that, I would happily change it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BuddieinEK said:

That is my biggest issue with the new restrictions...

The ones ignoring the "guidelines" will continue to do so, whether individuals or businesses.

The only people likely to suffer are the people who are already complying with all the advice.

This is only going to lead to more people rebelling.

People are different. In any society you'll find at least 10-20% who are not compliant sheep, content to be ordered around. That groups don't necessarily care about other people and there's no obligation (moral or otherwise) on them to do so. This is the reality and governments must know and accept this.

Having a policy which requires 100% compliance would be the height of stupidity.

Sturgeon gave a hint as to her thinking in June or July when she said that we were on the verge of eradicating the virus. She saw herself as the saviour of our nation. It hasn't sunk in yet that covid is never going to die away completely. Unless we fancy one lockdown after another for the rest of time, she's going to have to realise that we need to learn to live with it and plan accordingly. IMO we need to open up the country and let this thing do whatever it needs to do. There's really nothing we can do to stop it anyway. All we are doing is delaying the inevitable and f**king up our economy and the life chances of a generation of young people to save a handful of predominantly 80 year olds.

By the way, for all this "Don't kill granny" shite, I can tell you that any granny worth her salt will be absolutely mortified that the life chances of her grandchildren are being sacrificed away on the altar of prolonging her life for a few more months on average. I would never ask this of any of my grandchildren if I had any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, antrin said:

(Reply to bazil is last post)

Sigh... why do I bother?  You neither understand nor listen to others.

All economies are driven by money being exchanged As payment for labour or or products and services.

if people are unemployed they have little money.  If they have no money they can't buy things, go to movies, theatres or pubs.  So even more businesses are forced to close causing even more unemployment.   
Shops shut.  Food isn’t produced/manufactured and sold.

people starve, people get depressed enough to commit suicide.

The capability is there and resources may be there but these things are joined up by a successful economy.  Ours is currently faltering.

If you knew and understood anything about the depression - and even rationing into the 1950s - you would perhaps have a more mature understanding about why a functioning economy might be a good thing.

Word

For some context here antrin, the UK has racked up a £210 billion bill for just the first 6 months of the virus. So that's £420 billion for a year.

The UK taxman collects about £600 billion per year and it's all accounted for.

That spangle you are talking with has suggested that we simply raise taxes to cover the bill. So that would need tax increases of around 70% just to balance the books with regard to covid. He said he would accept any proof you could give him about why we can't just simply supply the money for covid. Those numbers are your proof but he won't accept them and he won't change his mind because he's not a reasonable person by any definition of the word.

He's not affected in any way by covid and that's why he holds the position he holds. Nothing will change until he loses his job.

Oh and of course we need a functioning economy to be able to raise taxes in the first place.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

People are different. In any society you'll find at least 10-20% who are not compliant sheep, content to be ordered around. That groups don't necessarily care about other people and there's no obligation (moral or otherwise) on them to do so. This is the reality and governments must know and accept this.

Having a policy which requires 100% compliance would be the height of stupidity.

Sturgeon gave a hint as to her thinking in June or July when she said that we were on the verge of eradicating the virus. She saw herself as the saviour of our nation. It hasn't sunk in yet that covid is never going to die away completely. Unless we fancy one lockdown after another for the rest of time, she's going to have to realise that we need to learn to live with it and plan accordingly. IMO we need to open up the country and let this thing do whatever it needs to do. There's really nothing we can do to stop it anyway. All we are doing is delaying the inevitable and f**king up our economy and the life chances of a generation of young people to save a handful of predominantly 80 year olds.

By the way, for all this "Don't kill granny" shite, I can tell you that any granny worth her salt will be absolutely mortified that the life chances of her grandchildren are being sacrificed away on the altar of prolonging her life for a few more months on average. I would never ask this of any of my grandchildren if I had any.

FFS brutal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

OK smart arse. What's your brilliant alternative?

What's the plan and what's the end game?

We don't make decisions to kill big volumes of the vulnerable population at this point. We continue work on a possible vaccination and the younger, fitter people suck it up and accept life isn't going to be so normal for the foreseeable.

We take the economic hit and spend money in the best way we can to sustain and support our communities including those impacted with other conditions both physically and mentally. We continue with give and take measures such as some pain in the hospitality sector (with them being supported) so that we can take some reasonable normalised steps with schools, education, children etc. 

If it comes to it in a year/ two years or so that a vaccine isn't forthcoming, then we have conversations as a population on the long-term approach we want to take.

Jesus the first cases were barely recorded by Valentines day and you're wanting death warrants signed before Halloween! We have more time before we nuclear option a large chunk of people in the world. 😪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

We don't make decisions to kill big volumes of the vulnerable population at this point. We continue work on a possible vaccination and the younger, fitter people suck it up and accept life isn't going to be so normal for the foreseeable.

We take the economic hit and spend money in the best way we can to sustain and support our communities including those impacted with other conditions both physically and mentally. We continue with give and take measures such as some pain in the hospitality sector (with them being supported) so that we can take some reasonable normalised steps with schools, education, children etc. 

If it comes to it in a year/ two years or so that a vaccine isn't forthcoming, then we have conversations as a population on the long-term approach we want to take.

Jesus the first cases were barely recorded by Valentines day and you're wanting death warrants signed before Halloween! We have more time before we nuclear option a large chunk of people in the world. 😪

:lol:

The economy is getting hammered right now and you are quite happy to keep things as they are, or increase restrictions, for a fecking YEAR or TWO or SO? 

As for your last sentence, shows you are a drama queen of the highest order. :byebye

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, faraway saint said:

:lol:

The economy is getting hammered right now and you are quite happy to keep things as they are, or increase restrictions, for a fecking YEAR or TWO or SO? 

As for your last sentence, shows you are a drama queen of the highest order. :byebye

 

 

Yes, yes I am. When it comes to human life, it isn't even a question for me. 

As for your last point, we are seeing worrying increasing trends despite heavy restrictions, there is no one in their right mind that can deny it's a concern. Do you genuinely not think that number will go up considerably under Oaksters BAU solution?

But hey, as long as you don't miss out on another summer holiday and can go to the boozer again, who cares? 🤷‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bazil85 said:

Yes, yes I am. When it comes to human life, it isn't even a question for me. 

As for your last point, we are seeing worrying increasing trends despite heavy restrictions, there is no one in their right mind that can deny it's a concern. Do you genuinely not think that number will go up considerably under Oaksters BAU solution?

But hey, as long as you don't miss out on another summer holiday and can go to the boozer again, who cares? 🤷‍♂️

You sir, are a buffoon of the highest order and I pity your boss.

It must be a nightmare digging out simple repetitive jobs to keep you busy every day.

We're done. :byebye

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, faraway saint said:

You sir, are a buffoon of the highest order and I pity your boss.

It must be a nightmare digging out simple repetitive jobs to keep you busy every day.

We're done:byebye

I have again clearly upset you by having a different view and you again lash out.

You've also went back to the old, tired lie that you tell yourself often. Catch you back on here to continue the conversation soon. :whistle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

We don't make decisions to kill big volumes of the vulnerable population at this point. We continue work on a possible vaccination and the younger, fitter people suck it up and accept life isn't going to be so normal for the foreseeable.

We take the economic hit and spend money in the best way we can to sustain and support our communities including those impacted with other conditions both physically and mentally. We continue with give and take measures such as some pain in the hospitality sector (with them being supported) so that we can take some reasonable normalised steps with schools, education, children etc. 

If it comes to it in a year/ two years or so that a vaccine isn't forthcoming, then we have conversations as a population on the long-term approach we want to take.

Jesus the first cases were barely recorded by Valentines day and you're wanting death warrants signed before Halloween! We have more time before we nuclear option a large chunk of people in the world. 😪

Two years of lockdown?

That is absolutely insane?

In your fantasy world, who pays the mortgages and bills of the millions who will be out of work by then?

Who puts food on their tables?

What taxes need to go up and by how much to pay for all of this?

What do we do with cancer patients and dying kids?

What about those needing organ transplants?

What about the 200 people per day dying of diabetes?

What about all those lives? All to be discarded because of 70 UK deaths a day due to covid?

When your grand plan is done you'll have well over 1 million young graduates turfed out onto a destroyed emplyment market.

You are insane and fortunately nowhere near a position of responsibility as regards covid.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite a drop in cases today, that'll upset Bazil.

Fatalities still very low, hospital cases still low...............................yet the economy is struggling, and the wave is coming, not cases or death, redundancies at the end of this month.

It's ok everybody, only a year or two or so of this, you'll all be fine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

Two years of lockdown?

That is absolutely insane?

In your fantasy world, who pays the mortgages and bills of the millions who will be out of work by then?

Who puts food on their tables?

What taxes need to go up and by how much to pay for all of this?

What do we do with cancer patients and dying kids?

What about those needing organ transplants?

What about the 200 people per day dying of diabetes?

What about all those lives? All to be discarded because of 70 UK deaths a day due to covid?

When your grand plan is done you'll have well over 1 million young graduates turfed out onto a destroyed emplyment market.

You are insane and fortunately nowhere near a position of responsibility as regards covid.

We aren't in lockdown, we are in a situation where we can still have a number of freedoms and many people can continue working. 

There is more than enough resource and financial capability to support the people out of work. Decisions not to are political ones, as I have said before politics shouldn't steer choices on protecting lives. If my taxes or anyone elses taxes need to go up, so be it. Small price to pay to support the covid19 vulnerable groups. 

Regarding cancer patients how does your approach address them any easier? You want "all" restrictions lifted which means hospitals/ ICU units go nuts with people with Covid19. So how exactly under your solution do the cancer patients get the priority treatment they need? Is it more we don't only let a bunch of old people die, we let them die without any real medical care so we can treat other people? Oh, who by the way will have a far higher risk of getting it in the community under your (final) solution. 

I'm not sure what dying kids have to do with anything but with organ transplants, diabetes patients, etc the same logic above applies. In a world where we let things run, observably (earlier this year) one of the first thing that happens is hospitals fills up. Your solution sees a lot more short-term pain for the apparent long-term good. A long-term good that we could resolve in the next few months with a vaccine... Without killing many thousands more. 

I also don't think you're ignorant enough to think that number would still be 70 if we had lifted all restrictions when you first suggested it. 

Employment markets bounce back. Support people now, see what we can do regarding Covid19 without hitting the nuclear button on the vulnerable. 

The decisions made by the people in power are much, much, much closer to my view than your "anyone over the age of 70 or in poor health is expendable" one. You're not only insane, you're a sociopath. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, faraway saint said:

Quite a drop in cases today, that'll upset Bazil.

Fatalities still very low, hospital cases still low...............................yet the economy is struggling, and the wave is coming, not cases or death, redundancies at the end of this month.

It's ok everybody, only a year or two or so of this, you'll all be fine. 

As I predicted, your go to lie... You just can't keep away. :whistle

Also don't be so ridiculous. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bazil85 said:

We aren't in lockdown, we are in a situation where we can still have a number of freedoms and many people can continue working. 

There is more than enough resource and financial capability to support the people out of work. Decisions not to are political ones, as I have said before politics shouldn't steer choices on protecting lives. If my taxes or anyone elses taxes need to go up, so be it. Small price to pay to support the covid19 vulnerable groups. 

Regarding cancer patients how does your approach address them any easier? You want "all" restrictions lifted which means hospitals/ ICU units go nuts with people with Covid19. So how exactly under your solution do the cancer patients get the priority treatment they need? Is it more we don't only let a bunch of old people die, we let them die without any real medical care so we can treat other people? Oh, who by the way will have a far higher risk of getting it in the community under your (final) solution. 

I'm not sure what dying kids have to do with anything but with organ transplants, diabetes patients, etc the same logic above applies. In a world where we let things run, observably (earlier this year) one of the first thing that happens is hospitals fills up. Your solution sees a lot more short-term pain for the apparent long-term good. A long-term good that we could resolve in the next few months with a vaccine... Without killing many thousands more. 

I also don't think you're ignorant enough to think that number would still be 70 if we had lifted all restrictions when you first suggested it. 

Employment markets bounce back. Support people now, see what we can do regarding Covid19 without hitting the nuclear button on the vulnerable. 

The decisions made by the people in power are much, much, much closer to my view than your "anyone over the age of 70 or in poor health is expendable" one. You're not only insane, you're a sociopath. 

 

I have realised that I can either discuss things with you, which is akin to talking to a brick wall, or I can allow you the oxygen of publicity, allow you to express your thoughts and let ohers decide whether retaining lockdown restrictions in the hope we find a vaccine in the next 2 years or so is a view worthy of supporting or worthy of derision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, faraway saint said:

Quite a drop in cases today, that'll upset Bazil.

Fatalities still very low, hospital cases still low...............................yet the economy is struggling, and the wave is coming, not cases or death, redundancies at the end of this month.

It's ok everybody, only a year or two or so of this, you'll all be fine. 

It beggars belief that there are apparently functioning adults out there who think it is a reasonable approach to keep us all locked up for 2 or more years in the hope we find a vaccine to magically cure us all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, oaksoft said:

It beggars belief that there are apparently functioning adults out there who think it is a reasonable approach to keep us all locked up for 2 or more years in the hope we find a vaccine to magically cure us all.

But "he's" not in that bracket.

Let's both agree to try, as hard as it is to not point and laugh, to leave him out if this as it's a complete waste of time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

I have realised that I can either discuss things with you, which is akin to talking to a brick wall, or I can allow you the oxygen of publicity, allow you to express your thoughts and let ohers decide whether retaining lockdown restrictions in the hope we find a vaccine in the next 2 years or so is a view worthy of supporting or worthy of derision.

People will ultimately have their own views. Just because I don't agree with you that we should write off the sick and vulnerable now, doesn't mean I don't think you're entitled to that opinion. 

I don't think it' unreasonable to restrict life longer in the hope of getting a vaccination. I would personally be fine waiting a year to two in order to develop a vaccination (in the hope it's much quicker) but I'm fully aware patience is waring thin with more and more people. It would ultimately get to a point in a world without a vaccine that we'd have to make difficult calls, making them at this stage is premature IMO.  

What I do think strange is you bringing up cancer & diabetes patience when your solution would observably cause them far more problems in getting treatment over the coming months and possibly years anyway. No one knows how fast Covid19 would run its course if we left its spread untreated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

It beggars belief that there are apparently functioning adults out there who think it is a reasonable approach to keep us all locked up for 2 or more years in the hope we find a vaccine to magically cure us all.

That's your opinion, my opinion is it beggars belief there are function adults out there that think we are already at a timeframe where we should be stopping protecting the old and vulnerable to let life get back to normal (obviously not for them). Very impatient and self serving view. 

6 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

But "he's" not in that bracket.

Let's both agree to try, as hard as it is to not point and laugh, to leave him out if this as it's a complete waste of time. 

It shouldn't be this hard surely...  

Ultimately lets not forget though, both your issues with me right now is that I don't think we should centre our covid19 approach on the expendability of the elderly and vulnerable. Imagine thinking that view point is a "waste of time" or being a "drama queen" 🤷‍♂️

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.

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.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...