Theres good news and bad news on the Coronavirus front from the BBC.
The bad news is more than 900 new deaths despite the BH lag the good news "Boris is playing Sudoku".
I fear you allow your political bias too much to cloud your views. There are fewer deaths than yesterday. Better than the other way around. The UK is probably moving through the peak period right now. The time it is most critical that people focus on ensuring the lockdown sacrifices are made worthwhile by sticking with it.
Todays numbers are terrible.
It's for a BH day look back at weekend drops would have expected same effect on a BH.
Weekend numbers for last couple of weeks have shown a circa 20% lag.
You are right that we should be at or close to peak on new numbers infected. I fear we are not there yet on deaths peak. I think we will top 1000 new deaths next Wednesday.i really hope I am wrong.
It's not about ones politics it's about ending up with most deaths iof any country in Europe, an honour I fear the UK may hold by this time next month.
There is your nonsense again - countries vary in size, population, density, types of lockdownetc., etc., Depsite your efforts to hide it we all know your politics and it's clear your desperate for the UK somehow to be worst. Shame on you.
This was the guy that said the NHS was going to be ripped off by the private sector, which offered additional bed capacity at £100 per bed below the NHS cost. Not to mention the nonsense he spouted about respirators.
'I bought a bottle of the red blend and, after I stared at the sad man for a while, I tasted it. Sweet and tannic, that was my reaction, and better chilled sangria-style than straight up. Not to my taste, but I am not the target audience.'
Otoh, Nick P. seems to be flirting with the wild side, only a step away from multi identity thriller writer excess.
'Well, the answer is that 19 Crimes seems to have been rather precisely engineered to appeal to an important demographic — millennial men, especially those who see themselves as a bit of a rogue. Outlaws, if you know what I mean, who identify with others who defy convention. Outlaw wine for self-styled renegades? Now you are beginning to see the 19 Crimes logic.'
Indeed. You realise SeanT and I are actually the same person? I enjoyed posting as him for a long while, but in the end I got worried that the real thriller-writer might sue - that's why you no longer see posts from him.
As for the wine, my normal drink is Coca-Cola, so I'm not the ideal man to advise. But I tend to find red wine either bitter or tasteless, and this wasn't either.
We Are All SeanT
Gtf outta here.
I'm Byronic.
We Are All Aspects Of SeanT
I have my Coca Cola purchase response to the Officer ready when I am caught in the nonessential aisle.
"Why are you buying that bottle of Coca Cola, Sir?"
The difference with Corbyn is the government is trying to address the issue, not deny it.
How many times years was Corbyn asked about anti-semitism?
Not a good look when you cant apologise for lack of PPE
If she had you'd have been cheering Patel for landing Hancock in the sh*t.
Whatever they do, in your books, they cannot win.
From this starting point probably not. We are pretty much going to be 2nd worst or worst in terms of outcomes of any European country so spin that as a triumph if you wish.
As for Hancock he should go after his accusation yesterday that those on the front line are wasting precious PPE
No matter how bad our numbers are you will never point out Government failings I presume?
Do you really think half the Government is going to resign just because unreconstructed Corbynites don't like them?
I have not heard the press conference but you sound deranged
Big G I'm very disappointed that now, as the level of depression and mental illness increases, you should be so callous as to accuse a fellow poster of having a mental illness.
The difference with Corbyn is the government is trying to address the issue, not deny it.
How many times years was Corbyn asked about anti-semitism?
Not a good look when you cant apologise for lack of PPE
If she had you'd have been cheering Patel for landing Hancock in the sh*t.
Whatever they do, in your books, they cannot win.
From this starting point probably not. We are pretty much going to be 2nd worst or worst in terms of outcomes of any European country so spin that as a triumph if you wish.
As for Hancock he should go after his accusation yesterday that those on the front line are wasting precious PPE
No matter how bad our numbers are you will never point out Government failings I presume?
Your desperation to turn a crisis into a league table is shameful.
The difference with Corbyn is the government is trying to address the issue, not deny it.
How many times years was Corbyn asked about anti-semitism?
Not a good look when you cant apologise for lack of PPE
If she had you'd have been cheering Patel for landing Hancock in the sh*t.
Whatever they do, in your books, they cannot win.
From this starting point probably not. We are pretty much going to be 2nd worst or worst in terms of outcomes of any European country so spin that as a triumph if you wish.
As for Hancock he should go after his accusation yesterday that those on the front line are wasting precious PPE
No matter how bad our numbers are you will never point out Government failings I presume?
Do you really think half the Government is going to resign just because unreconstructed Corbynites don't like them?
PRONOUNCE THE FUCKING "G"s AT THE END OF YOUR WORDS PATEL YOU ******* ****
Why?
BECAUSE IT IS FUCKIN IRRITATIN
Her pronouncing words with a silent ‘g’ (or ‘correctly’ as it’s also known) is irritating?
She is not pronouncin words correctly and yes it is irritatin.
It is amazing to me how many in the the media, politics and celebrity have some form of speech impediment/ defect.
Defects and impediments I can live with as should everyone. This is an affectation nothin else. The rest of her speech is RP but she insists on droppin her gs which just makes her sound weird and irritatin.
PRONOUNCE THE FUCKING "G"s AT THE END OF YOUR WORDS PATEL YOU ******* ****
Why?
BECAUSE IT IS FUCKIN IRRITATIN
Her pronouncing words with a silent ‘g’ (or ‘correctly’ as it’s also known) is irritating?
She is not pronouncin words correctly and yes it is irritatin.
It is amazing to me how many in the the media, politics and celebrity have some form of speech impediment/ defect.
Defects and impediments I can live with as should everyone. This is an affectation nothin else. The rest of her speech is RP but she insists on droppin her gs which just makes her sound weird and irritatin.
She may just be tryin to sound like Lord Peter Wimsey.
The difference with Corbyn is the government is trying to address the issue, not deny it.
How many times years was Corbyn asked about anti-semitism?
Not a good look when you cant apologise for lack of PPE
If she had you'd have been cheering Patel for landing Hancock in the sh*t.
Whatever they do, in your books, they cannot win.
From this starting point probably not. We are pretty much going to be 2nd worst or worst in terms of outcomes of any European country so spin that as a triumph if you wish.
As for Hancock he should go after his accusation yesterday that those on the front line are wasting precious PPE
No matter how bad our numbers are you will never point out Government failings I presume?
I've frequently criticised the government, for example for its handling of arrivals from abroad.
Earlier in this thread I wished someone asked Patel that question.
The difference is my criticism is specific, yours is general.
What difference would "an apology" have made - apart from open the government to wrongful death suits?
What constructive criticism of the government have you offered that didn't involve a time machine?
PRONOUNCE THE FUCKING "G"s AT THE END OF YOUR WORDS PATEL YOU ******* ****
She's from Essex, be glad you can understand most of what she's saying.
It is the worst of the worst type of affectations. Does she somehow think it makes her sound of the people? Like Tony and his adaptive accent depending on company.
******* ****
It's up there with public schoolboys trying to fob themselves as working class.
Remember she was in favour of the death penalty because we don't wrongly convict innocent people.
She supported hangin' and floggin' ?
Most Tory members do
It have just remembered why I am not a member of the Tory Party.
No we do not
Sorry BigG. it is there in black and white for us all to see, straight from the keyboard of the Chair and spokesperson for Epping and Theydon Bois Conservatives.
Priti Patel is not my cup of tea and I do not belong to her wing of the party.
She is very stange and not a great positive for HMG, but her focus on domestic violence is correct and to be honest, because she has history of poor judgment, she is judged on that and she will have to live with it
PRONOUNCE THE FUCKING "G"s AT THE END OF YOUR WORDS PATEL YOU ******* ****
Why?
BECAUSE IT IS FUCKIN IRRITATIN
Her pronouncing words with a silent ‘g’ (or ‘correctly’ as it’s also known) is irritating?
She is not pronouncin words correctly and yes it is irritatin.
It is amazing to me how many in the the media, politics and celebrity have some form of speech impediment/ defect.
Defects and impediments I can live with as should everyone. This is an affectation nothin else. The rest of her speech is RP but she insists on droppin her gs which just makes her sound weird and irritatin.
She may just be tryin to sound like Lord Peter Wimsey.
That is excellent - I just listened to him (ie Iain Carmichael) on youtube. The spittin image.
Remember she was in favour of the death penalty because we don't wrongly convict innocent people.
She supported hangin' and floggin' ?
Most Tory members do
It have just remembered why I am not a member of the Tory Party.
No we do not
Sorry BigG. it is there in black and white for us all to see, straight from the keyboard of the Chair and spokesperson for Epping and Theydon Bois Conservatives.
There was a YouGov poll of Tory members last year that had support for the death penalty at just under 60%.
The difference with Corbyn is the government is trying to address the issue, not deny it.
How many times years was Corbyn asked about anti-semitism?
Not a good look when you cant apologise for lack of PPE
If she had you'd have been cheering Patel for landing Hancock in the sh*t.
Whatever they do, in your books, they cannot win.
From this starting point probably not. We are pretty much going to be 2nd worst or worst in terms of outcomes of any European country so spin that as a triumph if you wish.
As for Hancock he should go after his accusation yesterday that those on the front line are wasting precious PPE
No matter how bad our numbers are you will never point out Government failings I presume?
Your desperation to turn a crisis into a league table is shameful.
Got to turn it into an attack on the wicked tories
The difference with Corbyn is the government is trying to address the issue, not deny it.
How many times years was Corbyn asked about anti-semitism?
Not a good look when you cant apologise for lack of PPE
If she had you'd have been cheering Patel for landing Hancock in the sh*t.
Whatever they do, in your books, they cannot win.
From this starting point probably not. We are pretty much going to be 2nd worst or worst in terms of outcomes of any European country so spin that as a triumph if you wish.
As for Hancock he should go after his accusation yesterday that those on the front line are wasting precious PPE
No matter how bad our numbers are you will never point out Government failings I presume?
I've frequently criticised the government, for example for its handling of arrivals from abroad.
Earlier in this thread I wished someone asked Patel that question.
The difference is my criticism is specific, yours is general.
What difference would "an apology" have made - apart from open the government to wrongful death suits?
What constructive criticism of the government have you offered that didn't involve a time machine?
The Home Secretary could easily have said:
“These are awful times and our front line workers need all the PPE they can get. We are painfully aware that we need to get still more to them. We are doing everything we can to fulfil our responsibilities and I have unyielding admiration for the amazing work they are doing in unimaginably difficult circumstances.”
No apology but some actual empathy and a recognition of facts without an admission of responsibility for the gap.
Priti Patel is not my cup of tea and I do not belong to her wing of the party.
She is very stange and not a great positive for HMG, but her focus on domestic violence is correct and to be honest, because she has history of poor judgment, she is judged on that and she will have to live with it
Strange or not. She is Boris' choice for Secretary of State for the Home Department, she is YOUR Home Secretary!
Remember she was in favour of the death penalty because we don't wrongly convict innocent people.
She supported hangin' and floggin' ?
Most Tory members do
It have just remembered why I am not a member of the Tory Party.
No we do not
Sorry BigG. it is there in black and white for us all to see, straight from the keyboard of the Chair and spokesperson for Epping and Theydon Bois Conservatives.
Yes but I do not agree with HYUFD on this and many other subjects.
Patel IDS and HYUFD and others are not goung to prevail in the conservative party post covid 19.
Compassion has to be the way forward from now on and I expect Boris to lead the change going forward and it will make labour's job much more difficult
The difference with Corbyn is the government is trying to address the issue, not deny it.
How many times years was Corbyn asked about anti-semitism?
Not a good look when you cant apologise for lack of PPE
If she had you'd have been cheering Patel for landing Hancock in the sh*t.
Whatever they do, in your books, they cannot win.
From this starting point probably not. We are pretty much going to be 2nd worst or worst in terms of outcomes of any European country so spin that as a triumph if you wish.
As for Hancock he should go after his accusation yesterday that those on the front line are wasting precious PPE
No matter how bad our numbers are you will never point out Government failings I presume?
I've frequently criticised the government, for example for its handling of arrivals from abroad.
Earlier in this thread I wished someone asked Patel that question.
The difference is my criticism is specific, yours is general.
What difference would "an apology" have made - apart from open the government to wrongful death suits?
What constructive criticism of the government have you offered that didn't involve a time machine?
The Home Secretary could easily have said:
“These are awful times and our front line workers need all the PPE they can get. We are painfully aware that we need to get still more to them. We are doing everything we can to fulfil our responsibilities and I have unyielding admiration for the amazing work they are doing in unimaginably difficult circumstances.”
No apology but some actual empathy and a recognition of facts without an admission of responsibility for the gap.
She would never have said that. She would have said the govt were doin everythin and that she has unyieldin admiration for the amazin work they are doin.
The difference with Corbyn is the government is trying to address the issue, not deny it.
How many times years was Corbyn asked about anti-semitism?
Not a good look when you cant apologise for lack of PPE
If she had you'd have been cheering Patel for landing Hancock in the sh*t.
Whatever they do, in your books, they cannot win.
From this starting point probably not. We are pretty much going to be 2nd worst or worst in terms of outcomes of any European country so spin that as a triumph if you wish.
As for Hancock he should go after his accusation yesterday that those on the front line are wasting precious PPE
No matter how bad our numbers are you will never point out Government failings I presume?
I've frequently criticised the government, for example for its handling of arrivals from abroad.
Earlier in this thread I wished someone asked Patel that question.
The difference is my criticism is specific, yours is general.
What difference would "an apology" have made - apart from open the government to wrongful death suits?
What constructive criticism of the government have you offered that didn't involve a time machine?
Importance of testing would be the main one.
Government policy is belatedly what I was saying weeks in advance.
The difference with Corbyn is the government is trying to address the issue, not deny it.
How many times years was Corbyn asked about anti-semitism?
Not a good look when you cant apologise for lack of PPE
If she had you'd have been cheering Patel for landing Hancock in the sh*t.
Whatever they do, in your books, they cannot win.
From this starting point probably not. We are pretty much going to be 2nd worst or worst in terms of outcomes of any European country so spin that as a triumph if you wish.
As for Hancock he should go after his accusation yesterday that those on the front line are wasting precious PPE
No matter how bad our numbers are you will never point out Government failings I presume?
Your desperation to turn a crisis into a league table is shameful.
Got to turn it into an attack on the wicked tories
Not at all but there will be a point where countries with the worst outcomes blame their Governments I am just ahead of the curve as with the importance of ramping up testing
The difference with Corbyn is the government is trying to address the issue, not deny it.
How many times years was Corbyn asked about anti-semitism?
Not a good look when you cant apologise for lack of PPE
If she had you'd have been cheering Patel for landing Hancock in the sh*t.
Whatever they do, in your books, they cannot win.
From this starting point probably not. We are pretty much going to be 2nd worst or worst in terms of outcomes of any European country so spin that as a triumph if you wish.
As for Hancock he should go after his accusation yesterday that those on the front line are wasting precious PPE
No matter how bad our numbers are you will never point out Government failings I presume?
Your desperation to turn a crisis into a league table is shameful.
Germany and S Korea already won their respective leagues.
Priti Patel is not my cup of tea and I do not belong to her wing of the party.
She is very stange and not a great positive for HMG, but her focus on domestic violence is correct and to be honest, because she has history of poor judgment, she is judged on that and she will have to live with it
Strange or not. She is Boris' choice for Secretary of State for the Home Department, she is YOUR Home Secretary!
And because we have shut the world, we haven't (and hopefully won't) see far more people in their thirties and forties die. Because we'd run out of centenarians quite quickly, and we'd still be seeing huge numbers of people dying, so the younger echelons would arithmetically have had to catch up (because there's so many more of them).
Jeez - how many people are going to continue to say "because we succeeded, we've somehow proved that we didn't have to do anything in the first place"?
PRONOUNCE THE FUCKING "G"s AT THE END OF YOUR WORDS PATEL YOU ******* ****
Why?
BECAUSE IT IS FUCKIN IRRITATIN
Her pronouncing words with a silent ‘g’ (or ‘correctly’ as it’s also known) is irritating?
She is not pronouncin words correctly and yes it is irritatin.
But you said you wanted her to pronounce the ‘g’ at the end of words.
Which would be wrong.
So why are you getting worked up?
You seem to be wron about this, what English word has a silent final g? Egg?
Sighs.
All of them.
Starting with ‘wrong.’
Tisn't silent, it's contributin to the diphthon. In fact your point makes the offence even worse because you are not merely omittin somethin, you are substitutin a new sound that wasn't there before (a standalone n where there was the n component of the diphthon).
Priti Patel is not my cup of tea and I do not belong to her wing of the party.
She is very stange and not a great positive for HMG, but her focus on domestic violence is correct and to be honest, because she has history of poor judgment, she is judged on that and she will have to live with it
Strange or not. She is Boris' choice for Secretary of State for the Home Department, she is YOUR Home Secretary!
It is possibl but: there is so far no evidence for this claim, the peak can only be identified with at least 3 days data following th epeak (probably more) and people on this forum have been claimg the we have reached the peak for at least 2 and a half weeks now.
The difference with Corbyn is the government is trying to address the issue, not deny it.
How many times years was Corbyn asked about anti-semitism?
Not a good look when you cant apologise for lack of PPE
If she had you'd have been cheering Patel for landing Hancock in the sh*t.
Whatever they do, in your books, they cannot win.
From this starting point probably not. We are pretty much going to be 2nd worst or worst in terms of outcomes of any European country so spin that as a triumph if you wish.
As for Hancock he should go after his accusation yesterday that those on the front line are wasting precious PPE
No matter how bad our numbers are you will never point out Government failings I presume?
Your desperation to turn a crisis into a league table is shameful.
Germany and S Korea already won their respective leagues.
We are going for the wooden spoon
Someone told you yesterday that we were mid table - but that doesn't suit you it seems
The difference with Corbyn is the government is trying to address the issue, not deny it.
How many times years was Corbyn asked about anti-semitism?
Not a good look when you cant apologise for lack of PPE
If she had you'd have been cheering Patel for landing Hancock in the sh*t.
Whatever they do, in your books, they cannot win.
From this starting point probably not. We are pretty much going to be 2nd worst or worst in terms of outcomes of any European country so spin that as a triumph if you wish.
As for Hancock he should go after his accusation yesterday that those on the front line are wasting precious PPE
No matter how bad our numbers are you will never point out Government failings I presume?
I've frequently criticised the government, for example for its handling of arrivals from abroad.
Earlier in this thread I wished someone asked Patel that question.
The difference is my criticism is specific, yours is general.
What difference would "an apology" have made - apart from open the government to wrongful death suits?
What constructive criticism of the government have you offered that didn't involve a time machine?
The Home Secretary could easily have said:
“These are awful times and our front line workers need all the PPE they can get. We are painfully aware that we need to get still more to them. We are doing everything we can to fulfil our responsibilities and I have unyielding admiration for the amazing work they are doing in unimaginably difficult circumstances.”
No apology but some actual empathy and a recognition of facts without an admission of responsibility for the gap.
The difference with Corbyn is the government is trying to address the issue, not deny it.
How many times years was Corbyn asked about anti-semitism?
Not a good look when you cant apologise for lack of PPE
If she had you'd have been cheering Patel for landing Hancock in the sh*t.
Whatever they do, in your books, they cannot win.
From this starting point probably not. We are pretty much going to be 2nd worst or worst in terms of outcomes of any European country so spin that as a triumph if you wish.
As for Hancock he should go after his accusation yesterday that those on the front line are wasting precious PPE
No matter how bad our numbers are you will never point out Government failings I presume?
Your desperation to turn a crisis into a league table is shameful.
Germany and S Korea already won their respective leagues.
We are going for the wooden spoon
It is a long way away from losers and winners. There are myriads of variables in the way countries have dealt with this crisis and no one will be able to say with any certainty who got it right or wrong
Of course our scientist could have got it wrong in a big way but to try to claim victory after just 3 months of a pandemic lasting maybe years is far too premature
It is possibl but: there is so far no evidence for this claim, the peak can only be identified with at least 3 days data following th epeak (probably more) and people on this forum have been claimg the we have reached the peak for at least 2 and a half weeks now.
On what basis is the peak being evaluated? we were told that the sole reason for the lockdown was to protect the NHS from being overwhelmed. So how is NHS capacity? how are hospital admissions versus discharges?
Remember she was in favour of the death penalty because we don't wrongly convict innocent people.
She supported hangin' and floggin' ?
Most Tory members do
It have just remembered why I am not a member of the Tory Party.
No we do not
Sorry BigG. it is there in black and white for us all to see, straight from the keyboard of the Chair and spokesperson for Epping and Theydon Bois Conservatives.
There was a YouGov poll of Tory members last year that had support for the death penalty at just under 60%.
I suspect capital punishment, were it ever adopted as policy by the Party, could be a big pull to keep the former red-wall Tory voters on board, and a few million new former Labour voters too!
And because we have shut the world, we haven't (and hopefully won't) see far more people in their thirties and forties die. Because we'd run out of centenarians quite quickly, and we'd still be seeing huge numbers of people dying, so the younger echelons would arithmetically have had to catch up (because there's so many more of them).
Jeez - how many people are going to continue to say "because we succeeded, we've somehow proved that we didn't have to do anything in the first place"?
The entire “isn’t it overblown/is it working, it’s not is it, look at this irrelevant ‘evidence’/the cure is worse than the disease/they were going to all die anyway/hey just let the oldies die already” viewpoint seems concentrated in a certain sort of viewpoint online. And I just realised something:
It’s a small-c conservative desire (Not, for the avoidance of doubt, a necessarily big-C Conservative desire). “Let’s get back to how things were.”
Which mutates into We have to get back to how things were.
And people habitually start from their conclusions/make their minds up and then search for evidence and reasons to support that, so if you start from the premise we must be able to get back to how things were now, now, now, then you sort of have to assume that either it’s all overblown, or that the measures taken are ineffective or unnecessary, or are making things worse overall (even when economists almost universally say releasing the lockdown early would make things even worse economically).
And then you can search online and by the magic of cherrypicking, prove that green jelly beans cause acne your conclusion is correct, or pick up a misleading fact that sort of says what you want it to say if you either take it out of context, or gloss over why it’s not relevant, or just squint really hard.
Because if we really want to believe it, it will be true and maybe, as it’s true, we can convince enough other people that it’s true and then the lockdown will go away and we’ll all go back to the comforting way it was before.
And, God, I can see the attraction in that.
Problem is: the “evidence” and arguments presented don’t actually relate that much to whether or not it’s true. Just that we want it to be true. And maybe there might be something to it – although the actual deaths and stresses and even suicides amongst overloaded NHS staff – and the PM being taken into intensive care for a while – indicate against it. (“But he got better!” Yes, good hospital care can help many of those who need hospitalisation. If hospitals were overwhelmed, they wouldn’t get it and many who would otherwise live would die).
And what would be the consequences of managing to convince people that “actually all this is unnecessary/undesirable/whatever”?
Literally hundreds of thousands of avoidable deaths, that’s what. Long, lingering, horrible, lonely deaths.
(“Ah, but we don’t believe that”. We know. But, given the “evidence” presented by those saying that, it looks a lot like “Ah, but in the face of all the evidence, we don’t want to believe that and want to persuade others not to believe that”, which is rather the issue, isn’t it?)
It’s like why antivaxxers and 5G conspiracy theorists get pushback when they peddle their “evidence” and “nudge nudge, makes you think, right” stuff. Because they want to believe something so hard that they try to convince people of it regardless of truth or whether or not it would harm countless others.
For god's sake, this is not about deaths alone. People like this are chomping at the bit to put people in their fifties and sixties (and, yes, forties and so on) into hospital. They're either stupid or vindictive. I actually think they are more the latter, it's ideologically driven harm that they are itching to create.
So let's turn this around. I hope he gets it and suffers in a serious way. It's the only way that the reality that this is about the lives that people lead is what matters and not having people slavering all over you on social media.
And because we have shut the world, we haven't (and hopefully won't) see far more people in their thirties and forties die. Because we'd run out of centenarians quite quickly, and we'd still be seeing huge numbers of people dying, so the younger echelons would arithmetically have had to catch up (because there's so many more of them).
Jeez - how many people are going to continue to say "because we succeeded, we've somehow proved that we didn't have to do anything in the first place"?
The difference with Corbyn is the government is trying to address the issue, not deny it.
How many times years was Corbyn asked about anti-semitism?
Not a good look when you cant apologise for lack of PPE
If she had you'd have been cheering Patel for landing Hancock in the sh*t.
Whatever they do, in your books, they cannot win.
From this starting point probably not. We are pretty much going to be 2nd worst or worst in terms of outcomes of any European country so spin that as a triumph if you wish.
As for Hancock he should go after his accusation yesterday that those on the front line are wasting precious PPE
No matter how bad our numbers are you will never point out Government failings I presume?
I've frequently criticised the government, for example for its handling of arrivals from abroad.
Earlier in this thread I wished someone asked Patel that question.
The difference is my criticism is specific, yours is general.
What difference would "an apology" have made - apart from open the government to wrongful death suits?
What constructive criticism of the government have you offered that didn't involve a time machine?
The Home Secretary could easily have said:
“These are awful times and our front line workers need all the PPE they can get. We are painfully aware that we need to get still more to them. We are doing everything we can to fulfil our responsibilities and I have unyielding admiration for the amazing work they are doing in unimaginably difficult circumstances.”
No apology but some actual empathy and a recognition of facts without an admission of responsibility for the gap.
She would never have said that. She would have said the govt were doin everythin and that she has unyieldin admiration for the amazin work they are doin.
This is a little unfair. I hate alveolar nasalization as much as the next snob, but a lot of people in this country actually talk like that, and since it has been drummed into the public that they cannot feel truly represented unless their leaders look and sound exactly like them, what's a people's government to do?
For god's sake, this is not about deaths alone. People like this are chomping at the bit to put people in their fifties and sixties (and, yes, forties and so on) into hospital. They're either stupid or vindictive. I actually think they are more the latter, it's ideologically driven harm that they are itching to create.
So let's turn this around. I hope he gets it and suffers in a serious way. It's the only way that the reality that this is about the lives that people lead is what matters and not having people slavering all over you on social media.
Good article, though with a fast-moving pandemic the risk is that a series of deputies go down in turn. For that matter, we need some contingency planning in case the next pandemic is worse and a whole bunch of Cabinet Ministers fall ill at the same time as the PM.
On a lighter note, thanks for the entertaining responses to my wine-and-omelette exploration. Tomorrow, I'm considering cooking pasta, also for the first time. I've got some "artisan Tortaglione" from Sainsbury (spirally things) which I bought when bargaining for 2-week isolation (all the cheap pasta had been panic-bought, but anyway I thought that pasta virginity should be broken with some good stuff), and some tomato sauce. Just boil them, right? There are rather a lot of them, I wonder if they'll keep if I eat half? (Where is Cyclefree?)
The wine, by the way, is Politically Correct. Given to me by a leftie friend, it's 19 Crimes red wine from Australia, based on a riot in 1904 against a rum tax. The rebels were punished with a variety of trumped-up charges, and with each bottle you can find one of the crimes inscribed on the cork. I have "Assault with attempt to rob". It's very good. (The wine, not the assault.)
cook the pasta, add 50g crumbled blue cheese and 1 heaped teaspoonful of pesto per person (allergies permitting), stir through and enjoy - 10 minute meal, with 8 minutes doing nothing except drinking wine and watching.
The difference with Corbyn is the government is trying to address the issue, not deny it.
How many times years was Corbyn asked about anti-semitism?
Not a good look when you cant apologise for lack of PPE
If she had you'd have been cheering Patel for landing Hancock in the sh*t.
Whatever they do, in your books, they cannot win.
From this starting point probably not. We are pretty much going to be 2nd worst or worst in terms of outcomes of any European country so spin that as a triumph if you wish.
As for Hancock he should go after his accusation yesterday that those on the front line are wasting precious PPE
No matter how bad our numbers are you will never point out Government failings I presume?
I've frequently criticised the government, for example for its handling of arrivals from abroad.
Earlier in this thread I wished someone asked Patel that question.
The difference is my criticism is specific, yours is general.
What difference would "an apology" have made - apart from open the government to wrongful death suits?
What constructive criticism of the government have you offered that didn't involve a time machine?
The Home Secretary could easily have said:
“These are awful times and our front line workers need all the PPE they can get. We are painfully aware that we need to get still more to them. We are doing everything we can to fulfil our responsibilities and I have unyielding admiration for the amazing work they are doing in unimaginably difficult circumstances.”
No apology but some actual empathy and a recognition of facts without an admission of responsibility for the gap.
Yup, it goes back to what I said earlier. The government is escaping scrutiny and getting away with it. It needs The Times, BBC and ITV to step up. C4 are asking fair questions, but the government can bat these away as unpatriotic in a way they couldn't with The Times.
The press needs to step up in a big way and hit the government hard over all of these poor decisions.
The difference with Corbyn is the government is trying to address the issue, not deny it.
How many times years was Corbyn asked about anti-semitism?
Not a good look when you cant apologise for lack of PPE
If she had you'd have been cheering Patel for landing Hancock in the sh*t.
Whatever they do, in your books, they cannot win.
From this starting point probably not. We are pretty much going to be 2nd worst or worst in terms of outcomes of any European country so spin that as a triumph if you wish.
As for Hancock he should go after his accusation yesterday that those on the front line are wasting precious PPE
No matter how bad our numbers are you will never point out Government failings I presume?
I've frequently criticised the government, for example for its handling of arrivals from abroad.
Earlier in this thread I wished someone asked Patel that question.
The difference is my criticism is specific, yours is general.
What difference would "an apology" have made - apart from open the government to wrongful death suits?
What constructive criticism of the government have you offered that didn't involve a time machine?
The Home Secretary could easily have said:
“These are awful times and our front line workers need all the PPE they can get. We are painfully aware that we need to get still more to them. We are doing everything we can to fulfil our responsibilities and I have unyielding admiration for the amazing work they are doing in unimaginably difficult circumstances.”
No apology but some actual empathy and a recognition of facts without an admission of responsibility for the gap.
Didn't she say something more or less like that?
No. “I’m sorry you feel that way” is the patronising line from call centre scripts for dealing with lunatic customers. A Home Secretary dealing with people with an obviously legitimate concern needs to do a damn sight better than that.
And because we have shut the world, we haven't (and hopefully won't) see far more people in their thirties and forties die. Because we'd run out of centenarians quite quickly, and we'd still be seeing huge numbers of people dying, so the younger echelons would arithmetically have had to catch up (because there's so many more of them).
Jeez - how many people are going to continue to say "because we succeeded, we've somehow proved that we didn't have to do anything in the first place"?
Worse is the implication here that the measure we take should depend on who is dying.
If someone said we shouldn't shut down because mostly those it kills are poor/brown/jewish/muslim/transexual/disabled etc there would be wide spread condemnation of that sentiment.
However it seems the fact most it kills are over 50 and it seems in some posters minds they are acceptable damage.
It seems to me that deaths from Coronavirus is a pretty poor way of estimating whether we are at a peak or not, given that what constitutes a coronavirus 'death' seems to be a pretty grey area (tragic though these deaths are).
Wether or not we destroy our economy is in the hands of unelected and anaccountable fatalities compilers it seems.
Good article, though with a fast-moving pandemic the risk is that a series of deputies go down in turn. For that matter, we need some contingency planning in case the next pandemic is worse and a whole bunch of Cabinet Ministers fall ill at the same time as the PM.
On a lighter note, thanks for the entertaining responses to my wine-and-omelette exploration. Tomorrow, I'm considering cooking pasta, also for the first time. I've got some "artisan Tortaglione" from Sainsbury (spirally things) which I bought when bargaining for 2-week isolation (all the cheap pasta had been panic-bought, but anyway I thought that pasta virginity should be broken with some good stuff), and some tomato sauce. Just boil them, right? There are rather a lot of them, I wonder if they'll keep if I eat half? (Where is Cyclefree?)
The wine, by the way, is Politically Correct. Given to me by a leftie friend, it's 19 Crimes red wine from Australia, based on a riot in 1904 against a rum tax. The rebels were punished with a variety of trumped-up charges, and with each bottle you can find one of the crimes inscribed on the cork. I have "Assault with attempt to rob". It's very good. (The wine, not the assault.)
cook the pasta, add 50g crumbled blue cheese and 1 heaped teaspoonful of pesto per person (allergies permitting), stir through and enjoy - 10 minute meal, with 8 minutes doing nothing except drinking wine and watching.
Bit o' spinach chucked in for last minute also goes well.
Why is it that of all the figures the most difficult to find is hospital admissions and an idea of how NHS capacity is coping?
We are doing this to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed right? so why is it so difficult to discover how that is going?
you would also think that publishing a up to date number for people who have recovered would be very easy, every other nation manages it but not us.
Its almost as if they don;t want us to know the NHS has buckets of capacity and this absurd lockdown extension can be junked soon.
Its almost as if they'd cleared the NHS of every non-urgent case, called in the final year students, flight attendants, retried staff and vets to help. And built a bunch of improvised field hospitals to increase capacity.
And because we have shut the world, we haven't (and hopefully won't) see far more people in their thirties and forties die. Because we'd run out of centenarians quite quickly, and we'd still be seeing huge numbers of people dying, so the younger echelons would arithmetically have had to catch up (because there's so many more of them).
Jeez - how many people are going to continue to say "because we succeeded, we've somehow proved that we didn't have to do anything in the first place"?
Worse is the implication here that the measure we take should depend on who is dying.
If someone said we shouldn't shut down because mostly those it kills are poor/brown/jewish/muslim/transexual/disabled etc there would be wide spread condemnation of that sentiment.
However it seems the fact most it kills are over 50 and it seems in some posters minds they are acceptable damage.
The problem with that analogy, comparing old people with illnesses and poor/brown/jewish/muslim/transexual/disabled, is that we dont let people die because of the things you must, but we sometimes do if people are old and ill
Anyway, I don’t think people who say the lockdown is over the top are saying it’s ok for old people to die, they’re saying they should be isolated from younger people whose lives should not be as restricted
The difference with Corbyn is the government is trying to address the issue, not deny it.
How many times years was Corbyn asked about anti-semitism?
Not a good look when you cant apologise for lack of PPE
If she had you'd have been cheering Patel for landing Hancock in the sh*t.
Whatever they do, in your books, they cannot win.
From this starting point probably not. We are pretty much going to be 2nd worst or worst in terms of outcomes of any European country so spin that as a triumph if you wish.
As for Hancock he should go after his accusation yesterday that those on the front line are wasting precious PPE
No matter how bad our numbers are you will never point out Government failings I presume?
I've frequently criticised the government, for example for its handling of arrivals from abroad.
Earlier in this thread I wished someone asked Patel that question.
The difference is my criticism is specific, yours is general.
What difference would "an apology" have made - apart from open the government to wrongful death suits?
What constructive criticism of the government have you offered that didn't involve a time machine?
The Home Secretary could easily have said:
“These are awful times and our front line workers need all the PPE they can get. We are painfully aware that we need to get still more to them. We are doing everything we can to fulfil our responsibilities and I have unyielding admiration for the amazing work they are doing in unimaginably difficult circumstances.”
No apology but some actual empathy and a recognition of facts without an admission of responsibility for the gap.
Didn't she say something more or less like that?
No. “I’m sorry you feel that way” is the patronising line from call centre scripts for dealing with lunatic customers. A Home Secretary dealing with people with an obviously legitimate concern needs to do a damn sight better than that.
Why is it that of all the figures the most difficult to find is hospital admissions and an idea of how NHS capacity is coping?
We are doing this to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed right? so why is it so difficult to discover how that is going?
you would also think that publishing a up to date number for people who have recovered would be very easy, every other nation manages it but not us.
Its almost as if they don;t want us to know the NHS has buckets of capacity and this absurd lockdown extension can be junked soon.
How many thousands of deaths a day would it take to make you happy?
How many million livelihoods are you prepared to sacrifice? How many trillions in debt do you want to give our grandchildren? How many deaths do you think the depression that is coming will cause while you obsess about this?
Every nation, No, e.g. the Netherlands seems to be like us, but on that page that you lined to every other nation in the top 10 has have reported recoveries in the 1,000s
Why is it that of all the figures the most difficult to find is hospital admissions and an idea of how NHS capacity is coping?
We are doing this to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed right? so why is it so difficult to discover how that is going?
you would also think that publishing a up to date number for people who have recovered would be very easy, every other nation manages it but not us.
Its almost as if they don;t want us to know the NHS has buckets of capacity and this absurd lockdown extension can be junked soon.
Its almost as if they'd cleared the NHS of every non-urgent case, called in the final year students, flight attendants, retried staff and vets to help. And built a bunch of improvised field hospitals to increase capacity.
For god's sake, this is not about deaths alone. People like this are chomping at the bit to put people in their fifties and sixties (and, yes, forties and so on) into hospital. They're either stupid or vindictive. I actually think they are more the latter, it's ideologically driven harm that they are itching to create.
So let's turn this around. I hope he gets it and suffers in a serious way. It's the only way that the reality that this is about the lives that people lead is what matters and not having people slavering all over you on social media.
Heaven forbid there be sceptics
If we were still living in caves, this sort of guy would serve a useful purpose. He'd be the one who says 'look. it's all clear now', just before getting eaten. Nowadays, and with a social media following? Not so useful.
Why is it that of all the figures the most difficult to find is hospital admissions and an idea of how NHS capacity is coping?
We are doing this to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed right? so why is it so difficult to discover how that is going?
you would also think that publishing a up to date number for people who have recovered would be very easy, every other nation manages it but not us.
Its almost as if they don;t want us to know the NHS has buckets of capacity and this absurd lockdown extension can be junked soon.
How many thousands of deaths a day would it take to make you happy?
How many million livelihoods are you prepared to sacrifice? How many trillions in debt do you want to give our grandchildren? How many deaths do you think the depression that is coming will cause while you obsess about this?
And because we have shut the world, we haven't (and hopefully won't) see far more people in their thirties and forties die. Because we'd run out of centenarians quite quickly, and we'd still be seeing huge numbers of people dying, so the younger echelons would arithmetically have had to catch up (because there's so many more of them).
Jeez - how many people are going to continue to say "because we succeeded, we've somehow proved that we didn't have to do anything in the first place"?
Worse is the implication here that the measure we take should depend on who is dying.
If someone said we shouldn't shut down because mostly those it kills are poor/brown/jewish/muslim/transexual/disabled etc there would be wide spread condemnation of that sentiment.
However it seems the fact most it kills are over 50 and it seems in some posters minds they are acceptable damage.
The problem with that analogy, comparing old people with illnesses and poor/brown/jewish/muslim/transexual/disabled, is that we dont let people die because of the things you must, but we sometimes do if people are old and ill
Anyway, I don’t think people who say the lockdown is over the top are saying it’s ok for old people to die, they’re saying they should be isolated from younger people whose lives should not be as restricted
A lot of those you so blithely throw on the scrapheap with your comment have still got two or three decades of quality life in them as their underlying conditions are manageable.
If next pandemic mainly targets 20 to 40 year olds for death i am sure you wont mind the oldies say its ok let them die they would have died eventually anyway
For god's sake, this is not about deaths alone. People like this are chomping at the bit to put people in their fifties and sixties (and, yes, forties and so on) into hospital. They're either stupid or vindictive. I actually think they are more the latter, it's ideologically driven harm that they are itching to create.
So let's turn this around. I hope he gets it and suffers in a serious way. It's the only way that the reality that this is about the lives that people lead is what matters and not having people slavering all over you on social media.
Fraser Nelson in the Telegraph reported yesterday that the latest government modelling expects around 150,000 deaths caused by the lockdown itself.
It is possibl but: there is so far no evidence for this claim, the peak can only be identified with at least 3 days data following th epeak (probably more) and people on this forum have been claimg the we have reached the peak for at least 2 and a half weeks now.
Thanks. Hopefully we have reached it but we'll have to wait for the data as you say.
This sounds alarming, but should be reassuring. Covid-19 takes 20-25 days to kill victims. The paper reckons that 7m Americans were infected from March 8th to 14th, and official data show 7,000 deaths three weeks later. The resulting fatality rate is 0.1%, similar to that of flu. That is amazingly low, just a tenth of some other estimates. Perhaps it is just wrong, possibly because the death toll has been under-reported. Perhaps, though, New York’s hospitals are overflowing because the virus is so contagious that it has crammed the equivalent of a year’s worth of flu cases into one week
Good article, though with a fast-moving pandemic the risk is that a series of deputies go down in turn. For that matter, we need some contingency planning in case the next pandemic is worse and a whole bunch of Cabinet Ministers fall ill at the same time as the PM.
On a lighter note, thanks for the entertaining responses to my wine-and-omelette exploration. Tomorrow, I'm considering cooking pasta, also for the first time. I've got some "artisan Tortaglione" from Sainsbury (spirally things) which I bought when bargaining for 2-week isolation (all the cheap pasta had been panic-bought, but anyway I thought that pasta virginity should be broken with some good stuff), and some tomato sauce. Just boil them, right? There are rather a lot of them, I wonder if they'll keep if I eat half? (Where is Cyclefree?)
The wine, by the way, is Politically Correct. Given to me by a leftie friend, it's 19 Crimes red wine from Australia, based on a riot in 1904 against a rum tax. The rebels were punished with a variety of trumped-up charges, and with each bottle you can find one of the crimes inscribed on the cork. I have "Assault with attempt to rob". It's very good. (The wine, not the assault.)
cook the pasta, add 50g crumbled blue cheese and 1 heaped teaspoonful of pesto per person (allergies permitting), stir through and enjoy - 10 minute meal, with 8 minutes doing nothing except drinking wine and watching.
I am also having an Australian red tonight - a Shiraz called The Feather Plucker's Daughter!
Why is it that of all the figures the most difficult to find is hospital admissions and an idea of how NHS capacity is coping?
We are doing this to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed right? so why is it so difficult to discover how that is going?
you would also think that publishing a up to date number for people who have recovered would be very easy, every other nation manages it but not us.
Its almost as if they don;t want us to know the NHS has buckets of capacity and this absurd lockdown extension can be junked soon.
How many thousands of deaths a day would it take to make you happy?
How many million livelihoods are you prepared to sacrifice? How many trillions in debt do you want to give our grandchildren? How many deaths do you think the depression that is coming will cause while you obsess about this?
We all have moral questions to answer, you see
Grow up.
I can;t help it if you don;'t understand the basics of what our country runs on.
Why is it that of all the figures the most difficult to find is hospital admissions and an idea of how NHS capacity is coping?
We are doing this to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed right? so why is it so difficult to discover how that is going?
you would also think that publishing a up to date number for people who have recovered would be very easy, every other nation manages it but not us.
Its almost as if they don;t want us to know the NHS has buckets of capacity and this absurd lockdown extension can be junked soon.
How many thousands of deaths a day would it take to make you happy?
How many million livelihoods are you prepared to sacrifice? How many trillions in debt do you want to give our grandchildren? How many deaths do you think the depression that is coming will cause while you obsess about this?
We all have moral questions to answer, you see
Every serious economist in the world thinks that not locking down costs more economically than locking down does.
For god's sake, this is not about deaths alone. People like this are chomping at the bit to put people in their fifties and sixties (and, yes, forties and so on) into hospital. They're either stupid or vindictive. I actually think they are more the latter, it's ideologically driven harm that they are itching to create.
So let's turn this around. I hope he gets it and suffers in a serious way. It's the only way that the reality that this is about the lives that people lead is what matters and not having people slavering all over you on social media.
Fraser Nelson in the Telegraph reported yesterday that the latest government modelling expects around 150,000 deaths caused by the lockdown itself.
Because 1 in every 400 people is going to commit suicide because of the lockdown, or be battered to death by a family member because of the lockdown.
And absurd though that it, STILL it would be only a fraction of the number that would die if the lunatics had their way and allowed the virus to rip through the whole population, collapsing the NHS in the first few weeks of the process.
Why is it that of all the figures the most difficult to find is hospital admissions and an idea of how NHS capacity is coping?
We are doing this to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed right? so why is it so difficult to discover how that is going?
you would also think that publishing a up to date number for people who have recovered would be very easy, every other nation manages it but not us.
Its almost as if they don;t want us to know the NHS has buckets of capacity and this absurd lockdown extension can be junked soon.
How many thousands of deaths a day would it take to make you happy?
How many million livelihoods are you prepared to sacrifice? How many trillions in debt do you want to give our grandchildren? How many deaths do you think the depression that is coming will cause while you obsess about this?
We all have moral questions to answer, you see
Grow up.
All of those are fair questions and they all need answers.
Comments
This was the guy that said the NHS was going to be ripped off by the private sector, which offered additional bed capacity at £100 per bed below the NHS cost.
Not to mention the nonsense he spouted about respirators.
"Why are you buying that bottle of Coca Cola, Sir?"
"My drains are blocked, Officer."
"Very well, Sir"
All of them.
Starting with ‘wrong.’
This is what the discussion is about.
Earlier in this thread I wished someone asked Patel that question.
The difference is my criticism is specific, yours is general.
What difference would "an apology" have made - apart from open the government to wrongful death suits?
What constructive criticism of the government have you offered that didn't involve a time machine?
She is very stange and not a great positive for HMG, but her focus on domestic violence is correct and to be honest, because she has history of poor judgment, she is judged on that and she will have to live with it
So that's it!!
“These are awful times and our front line workers need all the PPE they can get. We are painfully aware that we need to get still more to them. We are doing everything we can to fulfil our responsibilities and I have unyielding admiration for the amazing work they are doing in unimaginably difficult circumstances.”
No apology but some actual empathy and a recognition of facts without an admission of responsibility for the gap.
And before Boris caved and agreed to a border down the Irish Sea, people thought that border checks btwn NI and RoI would be just fine.
https://twitter.com/cricketwyvern/status/1248979679064793089?s=21
Patel IDS and HYUFD and others are not goung to prevail in the conservative party post covid 19.
Compassion has to be the way forward from now on and I expect Boris to lead the change going forward and it will make labour's job much more difficult
Government policy is belatedly what I was saying weeks in advance.
Mind, if I was working in ICU I'd rather have the PPE than the most grovelling apology and supplication of the entire cabinet.
We are going for the wooden spoon
Because we'd run out of centenarians quite quickly, and we'd still be seeing huge numbers of people dying, so the younger echelons would arithmetically have had to catch up (because there's so many more of them).
Jeez - how many people are going to continue to say "because we succeeded, we've somehow proved that we didn't have to do anything in the first place"?
We are doing this to prevent the NHS being overwhelmed right? so why is it so difficult to discover how that is going?
Of course our scientist could have got it wrong in a big way but to try to claim victory after just 3 months of a pandemic lasting maybe years is far too premature
Nobody seems to want to tell us.
It’s a small-c conservative desire (Not, for the avoidance of doubt, a necessarily big-C Conservative desire). “Let’s get back to how things were.”
Which mutates into We have to get back to how things were.
And people habitually start from their conclusions/make their minds up and then search for evidence and reasons to support that, so if you start from the premise we must be able to get back to how things were now, now, now, then you sort of have to assume that either it’s all overblown, or that the measures taken are ineffective or unnecessary, or are making things worse overall (even when economists almost universally say releasing the lockdown early would make things even worse economically).
And then you can search online and by the magic of cherrypicking, prove that
green jelly beans cause acneyour conclusion is correct, or pick up a misleading fact that sort of says what you want it to say if you either take it out of context, or gloss over why it’s not relevant, or just squint really hard.Because if we really want to believe it, it will be true and maybe, as it’s true, we can convince enough other people that it’s true and then the lockdown will go away and we’ll all go back to the comforting way it was before.
And, God, I can see the attraction in that.
Problem is: the “evidence” and arguments presented don’t actually relate that much to whether or not it’s true. Just that we want it to be true. And maybe there might be something to it – although the actual deaths and stresses and even suicides amongst overloaded NHS staff – and the PM being taken into intensive care for a while – indicate against it. (“But he got better!” Yes, good hospital care can help many of those who need hospitalisation. If hospitals were overwhelmed, they wouldn’t get it and many who would otherwise live would die).
And what would be the consequences of managing to convince people that “actually all this is unnecessary/undesirable/whatever”?
Literally hundreds of thousands of avoidable deaths, that’s what. Long, lingering, horrible, lonely deaths.
(“Ah, but we don’t believe that”. We know. But, given the “evidence” presented by those saying that, it looks a lot like “Ah, but in the face of all the evidence, we don’t want to believe that and want to persuade others not to believe that”, which is rather the issue, isn’t it?)
It’s like why antivaxxers and 5G conspiracy theorists get pushback when they peddle their “evidence” and “nudge nudge, makes you think, right” stuff. Because they want to believe something so hard that they try to convince people of it regardless of truth or whether or not it would harm countless others.
Oh, look. Yep. the guy is what you'd expect.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/04/ex-new-york-times-alex-berenson-coronavirus-skeptic
So let's turn this around. I hope he gets it and suffers in a serious way. It's the only way that the reality that this is about the lives that people lead is what matters and not having people slavering all over you on social media.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/11/german-scientist-predicted-european-epidemic-calls-end-lockdown/
https://twitter.com/ProfKarolSikora/status/1248974176767094787?s=20
The press needs to step up in a big way and hit the government hard over all of these poor decisions.
If someone said we shouldn't shut down because mostly those it kills are poor/brown/jewish/muslim/transexual/disabled etc there would be wide spread condemnation of that sentiment.
However it seems the fact most it kills are over 50 and it seems in some posters minds they are acceptable damage.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Seems not
Wether or not we destroy our economy is in the hands of unelected and anaccountable fatalities compilers it seems.
What an absurd situation.
I wish that more focus was on these numbers, delayed as they are.
Anyway, I don’t think people who say the lockdown is over the top are saying it’s ok for old people to die, they’re saying they should be isolated from younger people whose lives should not be as restricted
How many trillions in debt do you want to give our grandchildren?
How many deaths do you think the depression that is coming will cause while you obsess about this?
We all have moral questions to answer, you see
????
how are they doing? we have a right to know.
If next pandemic mainly targets 20 to 40 year olds for death i am sure you wont mind the oldies say its ok let them die they would have died eventually anyway
Fingers crossed.
Why do that? I don't get it.
https://www.timeout.com/new-york-kids/things-to-do/guide-to-the-nyc-school-calendar-20192020
And absurd though that it, STILL it would be only a fraction of the number that would die if the lunatics had their way and allowed the virus to rip through the whole population, collapsing the NHS in the first few weeks of the process.