Coronavirus

[Mikey10]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1316264977213394944

Its gathering pace now.

Said on here three or four weeks ago it was pretty much bolted on. We’re doing what we have done right through this; allowing things to get to a crisis point (ie hospitals becoming overwhelmed) and then we are forced into action.

We’ve been literally behind the curve since the Prime Minister spent a week at Chequers in February sorting out his divorce, and since he missed five COBRA meetings in the early part of the year. We had a chance to prepare for the winter in July and August; unfortunately that time was spent fighting culture wars, re-writing a supposedly oven-ready Brexit deal, and trying to disband the civil service in the midst of a pandemic. Bonkers.

 

[scaramanga]

Preposterous to your wallet. Stiff upper lip and carry on doesn't fly any more. You need to adapt, I thought psychopaths were good at that?

It has to fly. It's not just my wallet, it's everyone's.

Obviously those shouting loudest to fudge the economy in order to extend a few people's lives by a couple of months are those with least to lose and those who represent them.

Anyone taking the opinions of those with nothing to lose is a cretin.

 

[nayenezgani]

It has to fly. It's not just my wallet, it's everyone's.

Obviously those shouting loudest to fudge the economy in order to extend a few people's lives by a couple of months are those with least to lose and those who represent them.

Anyone taking the opinions of those with nothing to lose is a cretin.

But it's not everyone's, is it? It's those failing to adapt to the situation. They're the ones shouting loudest to willingly let people die.

 

[tommysvr]

It has to fly. It's not just my wallet, it's everyone's.

Obviously those shouting loudest to fudge the economy in order to extend a few people's lives by a couple of months are those with least to lose and those who represent them.

Anyone taking the opinions of those with nothing to lose is a cretin.

It’s just so offensive it’s impossible to take you seriously anymore.

 

[Grays_1890]

Why the beating around the bush? Just come out and say it. You don’t care if vulnerable people or the elderly die.

You are writing your own theories when I have consistently said on nearly every thread protect those most at risk of the virus

 

[scaramanga]

But it's not everyone's, is it? It's those failing to adapt to the situation. They're the ones shouting loudest to willingly let people die.

How can any business adapt to 0 turnover?

Adapting isn't an option for anyone but govt run services. Once everyone else loses their jobs then they'll see the pinch too.

 

[scaramanga]

It’s just so offensive it’s impossible to take you seriously anymore.

In case you hadn't noticed, there aren't any easy options. This is the only one that works.

 

[Grays_1890]

I’m not quite sure what your point is, other than it’s okay for these people to get seriously ill/die.

First pete and now repeat

TBH mate where the hell have I said that? I have been nothing but consistent in the fact that I believe we are ignoring the facts that are glaringly obvious based on who dies and are most at risk and that we should be looking at protecting them more and allowing those not at risk from the virus to have a life that does not lead them down the road of silent killers such as suicide, drug abuse and huge daily welfare issues such as poverty and abuse?

I will counter your inaccurate assumption and make one to you. Are you willing to see the daily figures of loss of life across all age ranges such as Cancer and heart disease from, in cancers case around 450 deaths a day because people are not getting treatment? Are you willing to see suicide rates in the UK rise from around 13 in 100,000 where we are now because we are on course for Christmas and new year job losses of nearly 10 percent? The UN has declared the horrific rise in domestic abuse which includes child abuse as a shadow pandemic because of global lockdowns and continued restrictions?

Im sorry if I am someone who has an eye on EVERYONE in society now, I guarantee you would be on here shouting from the hilltops about unemployment numbers and the affects on society when the virus dies down, I see it and live it like millions every day already. I have a wife dealing with mental health issues since lockdown, kids in education an elderly father at risk of any virus and staff at risk and already in the abyss so how dare you manipulate what I have said to be something it clearly was not

I am not quite sure what your point is other than its ok for people who are not at risk from the virus to get ill be it physically or mentally and die in large numbers

 

[Grays_1890]

But it's not everyone's, is it? It's those failing to adapt to the situation. They're the ones shouting loudest to willingly let people die.

But its not, its those in a certain comfort zone financially and within the age of retirement who are demanding a lockdown on those

 

[Diamond Lights]

This isn't true, individual NHS trusts are allowed to set their own limt on how long they can stay after. My mate had a kid 2 weeks back and was able to stay there for 2 days until they left hospital.

think you've missed the point of my post, and i said nothing on who sets the rules, and to say "this isn't true". Er, it is, there's plenty of info available and even an attempt to have Parliamnet discuss the rules specifically. Well done to your mate, he's a lucky one, because nearly every hospital has restricted birthing partners. But everyone is allowed in a pub from 12-10pm basically.

 

[Grays_1890]

In case you hadn't noticed, there aren't any easy options. This is the only one that works.

And lets put things into real perspective. In a normal year the budget per head you have within the NHS is around £3000 quid based on the population of the UK, we are currently operating at around £100,000 per person based on how much this is costing, thats on perfectly healthy people, thats more than we allocate on seriously sick people for needed treatment. We are spending the equivalent of a years worth of cancer treatment on every person in society, that includes 45% who experts are now saying have had the virus to no serious effect. Again, nut meet Mr Sledgehammer

 

[Glenda's Legs]

TBH mate where the hell have I said that? I have been nothing but consistent in the fact that I believe we are ignoring the facts that are glaringly obvious based on who dies and are most at risk and that we should be looking at protecting them more and allowing those not at risk from the virus to have a life that does not lead them down the road of silent killers such as suicide, drug abuse and huge daily welfare issues such as poverty and abuse?

I will counter your inaccurate assumption and make one to you. Are you willing to see the daily figures of loss of life across all age ranges such as Cancer and heart disease from, in cancers case around 450 deaths a day because people are not getting treatment? Are you willing to see suicide rates in the UK rise from around 13 in 100,000 where we are now because we are on course for Christmas and new year job losses of nearly 10 percent? The UN has declared the horrific rise in domestic abuse which includes child abuse as a shadow pandemic because of global lockdowns and continued restrictions?

Im sorry if I am someone who has an eye on EVERYONE in society now, I guarantee you would be on here shouting from the hilltops about unemployment numbers and the affects on society when the virus dies down, I see it and live it like millions every day already. I have a wife dealing with mental health issues since lockdown, kids in education an elderly father at risk of any virus and staff at risk and already in the abyss so how dare you manipulate what I have said to be something it clearly was not

I am not quite sure what your point is other than its ok for people who are not at risk from the virus to get ill be it physically or mentally and die in large numbers

I agree you have been consistent throughout in saying that the vulnerable should be protected. I don't think it's necessarily that straightforward however, because the "underlying condition" thing covers a huge range of people who would not necessarily be obviously at risk, but certainly more could have been done to protect care home residents and others at more immediate and obvious risk.

However - and this is a general question, not directed just at you - given that the government did not take the opportunity of the summer months to put in place any meaningful plan to protect those most vulnerable to any resurgence, nor to ensure an adequate and trustworthy track and trace programme, now that numbers are rapidly increasing and hospital beds are getting full (Liverpool hospital ICU beds already at 95% capacity, not all due to covid) what is the answer now to getting even some semblance of control over the situation (never mind get ahead of things) so that the examples you give of the horrendous indirect impacts on people can be avoided?
Due to a lack of any other visible plan, I can't see anything other than a merry-go-round of local restrictions and circuit-breaker lockdowns ongoing over the coming months.

 

[johnola]

You are writing your own theories when I have consistently said on nearly every thread protect those most at risk of the virus

Ah but did you mean it lol.

 

[LutonSpurs]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1316283049445855232

 

[Grays_1890]

I agree you have been consistent throughout in saying that the vulnerable should be protected. I don't think it's necessarily that straightforward however, because the "underlying condition" thing covers a huge range of people who would not necessarily be obviously at risk, but certainly more could have been done to protect care home residents and others at more immediate and obvious risk.

However - and this is a general question, not directed just at you - given that the government did not take the opportunity of the summer months to put in place any meaningful plan to protect those most vulnerable to any resurgence, nor to ensure an adequate and trustworthy track and trace programme, now that numbers are rapidly increasing and hospital beds are getting full (Liverpool hospital ICU beds already at 95% capacity, not all due to covid) what is the answer now to getting even some semblance of control over the situation (never mind get ahead of things) so that the examples you give of the horrendous indirect impacts on people can be avoided?
Due to a lack of any other visible plan, I can't see anything other than a merry-go-round of local restrictions and circuit-breaker lockdowns ongoing over the coming months.

Mate I can take its not straightforward, I know sometimes I have used language such as logic and obvious but thats always been to make a point, I dont think it is simple. Thanks for acknowledging that I have not said to hell with those at risk, I can 100percent get behind a chat about ideas and disagree but not inaccurate representation of clear points made.

I think you are right in your second paragraph, the horse in many ways has bolted now and lockdown seems to be where we are heading because we never got a real hold on this at the start.

The major issues with a major lockdown followed by none planned and frankly slap dash restrictions and mini lockdowns at the drop of a hat, which this is, people cant get a break, you are asking people to live and plan a life logically around obstacles that we dont know are coming, if the government had stuck us in a 6 month lockdown at least it has four corners and a start/finish, not that I would have been in anyway a fan, it would have been easier. At the minute people can not get their heads straight on what is what and its a huge risk on peoples mental health to just drop the green flag on a lockdown at a weeks notice, take them out of it, potentially put them back into it. Thats not just financial or workwise, thats before you even get to that and explore how companies are expected to operate in that back and forth. Its just no way to run things even in a pandemic, not when the months between the last lockdown and the next has been filled with uncertainty and nothing but bad news for most as it is.

 

[nayenezgani]

Ah but did you mean it lol.

Protect everyone at risk of the virus, but open everything back up, remove restrictions and lockdowns!!!

oxymoron
/ˌɒksɪˈmɔːrɒn/
noun
a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction (e.g. faith unfaithful kept him falsely true ).

 

[Grays_1890]

Ah but did you mean it lol.

Clearly not

 

[P.D.]

think you've missed the point of my post, and i said nothing on who sets the rules, and to say "this isn't true". Er, it is, there's plenty of info available and even an attempt to have Parliamnet discuss the rules specifically. Well done to your mate, he's a lucky one, because nearly every hospital has restricted birthing partners. But everyone is allowed in a pub from 12-10pm basically.

I understood the point you were making perfectly and I agree it's silly you can potentially spend longer in the pub than you can at hospital but writing factually incorrect statements to demonstrate something also isn't correct. Show me the law or guidance which states birthing partners can only stay for 2 hours after the birth because the NHS website just says there may be limits but there's nothing official (https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/people-at-higher-risk/pregnancy-and-coronavirus/).

 

[Grays_1890]

because nearly every hospital has restricted birthing partners.

I call BS

Unless you have evidence to that or have taken a poll of nearly every hospital then I think you have made that up to make a point.

 

[glasgowspur]

I agree you have been consistent throughout in saying that the vulnerable should be protected. I don't think it's necessarily that straightforward however, because the "underlying condition" thing covers a huge range of people who would not necessarily be obviously at risk, but certainly more could have been done to protect care home residents and others at more immediate and obvious risk.

However - and this is a general question, not directed just at you - given that the government did not take the opportunity of the summer months to put in place any meaningful plan to protect those most vulnerable to any resurgence, nor to ensure an adequate and trustworthy track and trace programme, now that numbers are rapidly increasing and hospital beds are getting full (Liverpool hospital ICU beds already at 95% capacity, not all due to covid) what is the answer now to getting even some semblance of control over the situation (never mind get ahead of things) so that the examples you give of the horrendous indirect impacts on people can be avoided?
Due to a lack of any other visible plan, I can't see anything other than a merry-go-round of local restrictions and circuit-breaker lockdowns ongoing over the coming months.

The fact the government has fudged it up from start to finish (should we ever get to the finish) isn't the discussion.
During the quieter summer months efforts should have been made to catch up with waiting lists, and clear hospitals for the second wave.
Efforts should also have been made to get a proper system for dealing with the next round of cases, and what path we want to take for it. A clear and precise message of what we should all be doing, why we should be doing it and the benefits of sticking to it.
Instead they have passed summer doing GHod knows what.
That doesn't make any real difference to what @Grays_1890, @scaramanga, myself and others have been saying, there was three months of almost nothing that a plan could have been formulated and put in place. Any plan.
Not to mention that we are now almost 10 months into it, it's been obvious for a long time thus isn't a flash in the pan, yet we have no plan that seems to look further than three weeks.

I have some sympathy for governments, they are in a terrible no win situation, but many, ours included are handling terribly.