Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Suddenly the possible economic catastrophe becomes centre stag

12357

Comments

  • alteregoalterego Posts: 1,100
    kle4 said:

    felix said:

    According to Sky - the EU is suggesting today that members should be co-ordinating lockdown relaxation procedures - 2 days after Italy/Austria/Denmark relaxed their own in different ways. They are also holding a conference next month on vaccines.

    This leadership from behind thing they have going on is very disappointing.

    Nations have been hit at different times and have different demography and the like, not sure they can or should coordinate too much.
    Aren't they then likely to cross infect?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000

    TGOHF666 said:

    Chris said:

    isam said:


    Good point by Hitchens at the end. Those arguing for less extreme measures than the lockdown aren’t asking for nothing at all to be done. That fiction seems prevalent when anyone queries the govt policy

    https://www.channel4.com/news/we-will-go-back-to-considerably-worse-than-normal-peter-hitchens-and-joan-bakewell-debate-the-government-lockdown-response

    Yes, I’ve noticed this phenomenon with my own group of friends. Very few people are advocating a complete release of the rules, yet anyone who suggests any loosening at all is seen as a reckless pariah.
    It would be very unfair to accuse people of being reckless, if their view was based on scientific evidence about the reproduction number of the virus in the current situation, and the likely effect of the measures they are advocating.

    If they're just advocating loosening of restrictions without any evidence as to the likely effect, that's a different matter.
    Chris said:

    isam said:


    Good point by Hitchens at the end. Those arguing for less extreme measures than the lockdown aren’t asking for nothing at all to be done. That fiction seems prevalent when anyone queries the govt policy

    https://www.channel4.com/news/we-will-go-back-to-considerably-worse-than-normal-peter-hitchens-and-joan-bakewell-debate-the-government-lockdown-response

    Yes, I’ve noticed this phenomenon with my own group of friends. Very few people are advocating a complete release of the rules, yet anyone who suggests any loosening at all is seen as a reckless pariah.
    It would be very unfair to accuse people of being reckless, if their view was based on scientific evidence about the reproduction number of the virus in the current situation, and the likely effect of the measures they are advocating.

    If they're just advocating loosening of restrictions without any evidence as to the likely effect, that's a different matter.
    I’d like to see numbers on the following:

    - elderly, infirm and co-morbid under complete lockdown
    - compulsory smartphone app with track and trace or stay at home
    - WFH 100% for those that are able
    - pubs only allowed to open if they have a garden, all drinks served to tables outside
    - shops can open but for click and collect only
    All those sound sensible - perhaps some carrot to go with the stick though - incentives to use the smartphone app rather than compulsion ?
    Smartphone ownership is fairly low amongst the elderly and many of those who have them struggle to use them properly and would not know what to do with an app
    Excuse me.

    My dear 80 year old lady wife is on her smart phone and tablet every day, busily using facebook and whats app and following the family and the news but not yet on PB

    If that happened I think it would be very amusing, bless her
    My 91 year old neighbour is clueless on smart phones.

    His 89 year old wife, on the other hand....
    I read that as 19 year old wife initially...
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,713
    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    Fenman said:

    Note that many families are very concerned about their elderly relatives in care homes. Not concerned enough to care for them at home though.

    And that's about as stupid a remark as ever I heard, too.
    Some tips for you Chris.

    https://thedailymash.co.uk/news/alcohol/your-guide-to-holding-out-till-midday-before-starting-to-drink-20200326194913
    Really the best you can do?
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 1,104

    Tomorrow's front page of the Nat Onal?

    https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1250337873938677760?s=20

    Probably not.......

    It's entertaining that Unionists all the way from Brillo to nonentities are obsessing about a small, low circulation Scottish tabloid.
    Almost as entertaining as having Sturgeon talk about at her presser yesterday then dominating the questions and have "Forty a day" Freeman write not once, but twice to Hancock, as well as telephone him.

    Why do you think such a tiny newspaper with just over 9,000 subscribers has such an influence on the SNP government?
    'Almost as entertaining as having Sturgeon talk about at her presser yesterday'

    Translation please.
    'Make the lie big, keep it simple, keep saying it and eventually they will believe it' - The National.

    Sorry, meant Joseph Goebbels.
    ...easy mistake.
    You've hystericised yourself into Godwinism as is the wont of your ilk.

    At least you lot seemed to have worked out that a story based on statements by an English company, broken by the Times and taken up by the BBC is not under the remit of the SNP or Sturgeon, and you're now turning your ire onto a *checks notes* small, low circulation Scottish tabloid.

    I'm all nostalgic for the heady days when Yoons used to crow about the National being a soon-to-expire irrelevance, now it seems you can barely talk of anything else.
    The National is a blight which deliberately exploits so-called news stories to mislead those happy to be misled. Identity politics are potentially poisonous and outlets that drip-feed the poison into the bloodstream should be called out.

    I don't have a problem debating reasonable civic nationalism but not peddlers of half-truths and propagandists.
    Perhaps you should have a word with some of your pals whose FIRST instinct was to pin all this on Sturgeon (who I'd say eptitomises so called civic nationalism) and describe her as divisive, grievance mongering and anti English.
    I don't have any such pals. There is a big difference between individuals (like us) posting our comments and outfits like The National (mis)representing themselves as responsible news outlets.

    As for Nicola Sturgeon, she is 100 times better than the truly awful Salmond. Her problem is that at least some of the readership of The National are out to get her because of her supposed betrayal of The Great Man. Hence having to throw them the occasional bone.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,790
    Chris said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    Fenman said:

    Note that many families are very concerned about their elderly relatives in care homes. Not concerned enough to care for them at home though.

    And that's about as stupid a remark as ever I heard, too.
    Some tips for you Chris.

    https://thedailymash.co.uk/news/alcohol/your-guide-to-holding-out-till-midday-before-starting-to-drink-20200326194913
    Really the best you can do?
    OK, OK. Sozza. Let me try again.

    Why don't you:

    a) ask the brilliantly incisive question that should be asked about the trade off; and then
    b) brilliantly, incisively answer it.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,713
    And Topping is very fortunate if he has never known anyone whose relative has had to go into a care home despite the best efforts of the family to keep them at home.

    But if people are so ignorant, they should be aware of it.
  • felixfelix Posts: 13,817
    kle4 said:

    Fenman said:

    Note that many families are very concerned about their elderly relatives in care homes. Not concerned enough to care for them at home though.

    Perhaps they are unable to?
    Yes - it's a difficult one. I'm sure that some who can may have done so. Many may just lack the space or resources to keep them safe. At any rate there is a tendency to highlight these stories as if they could easily be sorted if only the government would do something. The fact that in every country in the world there have been major problems with care home mortalities suggests it's a bit more complicated.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,790
    edited April 2020
    Chris said:
    btw I bloody love it when someone takes exception to or wants to ridicule a post I've made, and in so doing makes sure the post is repeated as part of their response.

    (sorry about messing up the blockquote)
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,713
    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    Fenman said:

    Note that many families are very concerned about their elderly relatives in care homes. Not concerned enough to care for them at home though.

    And that's about as stupid a remark as ever I heard, too.
    Some tips for you Chris.

    https://thedailymash.co.uk/news/alcohol/your-guide-to-holding-out-till-midday-before-starting-to-drink-20200326194913
    Really the best you can do?
    OK, OK. Sozza. Let me try again.

    Why don't you:

    a) ask the brilliantly incisive question that should be asked about the trade off; and then
    b) brilliantly, incisively answer it.
    Your contemptible comment had no relation to that debate. It related to care homes.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 8,858

    TGOHF666 said:

    Chris said:

    isam said:


    Good point by Hitchens at the end. Those arguing for less extreme measures than the lockdown aren’t asking for nothing at all to be done. That fiction seems prevalent when anyone queries the govt policy

    https://www.channel4.com/news/we-will-go-back-to-considerably-worse-than-normal-peter-hitchens-and-joan-bakewell-debate-the-government-lockdown-response

    Yes, I’ve noticed this phenomenon with my own group of friends. Very few people are advocating a complete release of the rules, yet anyone who suggests any loosening at all is seen as a reckless pariah.
    It would be very unfair to accuse people of being reckless, if their view was based on scientific evidence about the reproduction number of the virus in the current situation, and the likely effect of the measures they are advocating.

    If they're just advocating loosening of restrictions without any evidence as to the likely effect, that's a different matter.
    Chris said:

    isam said:


    Good point by Hitchens at the end. Those arguing for less extreme measures than the lockdown aren’t asking for nothing at all to be done. That fiction seems prevalent when anyone queries the govt policy

    https://www.channel4.com/news/we-will-go-back-to-considerably-worse-than-normal-peter-hitchens-and-joan-bakewell-debate-the-government-lockdown-response

    Yes, I’ve noticed this phenomenon with my own group of friends. Very few people are advocating a complete release of the rules, yet anyone who suggests any loosening at all is seen as a reckless pariah.
    It would be very unfair to accuse people of being reckless, if their view was based on scientific evidence about the reproduction number of the virus in the current situation, and the likely effect of the measures they are advocating.

    If they're just advocating loosening of restrictions without any evidence as to the likely effect, that's a different matter.
    I’d like to see numbers on the following:

    - elderly, infirm and co-morbid under complete lockdown
    - compulsory smartphone app with track and trace or stay at home
    - WFH 100% for those that are able
    - pubs only allowed to open if they have a garden, all drinks served to tables outside
    - shops can open but for click and collect only
    All those sound sensible - perhaps some carrot to go with the stick though - incentives to use the smartphone app rather than compulsion ?
    Smartphone ownership is fairly low amongst the elderly and many of those who have them struggle to use them properly and would not know what to do with an app
    Excuse me.

    My dear 80 year old lady wife is on her smart phone and tablet every day, busily using facebook and whats app and following the family and the news but not yet on PB

    If that happened I think it would be very amusing, bless her
    My 91 year old neighbour is clueless on smart phones.

    His 89 year old wife, on the other hand....
    The problem for a lot of 'older' people is that for example, my parents only in their late 60s only have one phone, and one very recently. My mum could easily cope with the app, but my dad 'doesn't do' mobiles.

    So it's not just a matter of them being able to it, it's all manner of practical issues, as they might not even have one, or only one between two.

    In which case, would they need an account, and therefore an email address, what if they don't have that? etc etc
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,713
    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:
    btw I bloody love it when someone takes exception to or wants to ridicule a post I've made, and in so doing makes sure the post is repeated as part of their response.

    (sorry about messing up the blockquote)
    That's the default, you moron.
  • fox327fox327 Posts: 339
    I notice there are several suggestions on how society can be opened again using social distancing. Social distancing should (in my opinion) be used as a short-term measure to manage the epidemic, but I do not see it as a long-term solution. The lockdown is happening on all the populated continents of the world. There is nothing unique about the UK. There were reasons we did things the way we did before the lockdown. Social distancing will be uneconomic, and crucially it will leave people isolated. Things will eventually revert to exactly the way they used to be, except for the loss of life and substantial economic disruption.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 41,659

    TGOHF666 said:

    Chris said:

    isam said:


    Good point by Hitchens at the end. Those arguing for less extreme measures than the lockdown aren’t asking for nothing at all to be done. That fiction seems prevalent when anyone queries the govt policy

    https://www.channel4.com/news/we-will-go-back-to-considerably-worse-than-normal-peter-hitchens-and-joan-bakewell-debate-the-government-lockdown-response

    Yes, I’ve noticed this phenomenon with my own group of friends. Very few people are advocating a complete release of the rules, yet anyone who suggests any loosening at all is seen as a reckless pariah.
    It would be very unfair to accuse people of being reckless, if their view was based on scientific evidence about the reproduction number of the virus in the current situation, and the likely effect of the measures they are advocating.

    If they're just advocating loosening of restrictions without any evidence as to the likely effect, that's a different matter.
    Chris said:

    isam said:


    Good point by Hitchens at the end. Those arguing for less extreme measures than the lockdown aren’t asking for nothing at all to be done. That fiction seems prevalent when anyone queries the govt policy

    https://www.channel4.com/news/we-will-go-back-to-considerably-worse-than-normal-peter-hitchens-and-joan-bakewell-debate-the-government-lockdown-response

    Yes, I’ve noticed this phenomenon with my own group of friends. Very few people are advocating a complete release of the rules, yet anyone who suggests any loosening at all is seen as a reckless pariah.
    It would be very unfair to accuse people of being reckless, if their view was based on scientific evidence about the reproduction number of the virus in the current situation, and the likely effect of the measures they are advocating.

    If they're just advocating loosening of restrictions without any evidence as to the likely effect, that's a different matter.
    I’d like to see numbers on the following:

    - elderly, infirm and co-morbid under complete lockdown
    - compulsory smartphone app with track and trace or stay at home
    - WFH 100% for those that are able
    - pubs only allowed to open if they have a garden, all drinks served to tables outside
    - shops can open but for click and collect only
    All those sound sensible - perhaps some carrot to go with the stick though - incentives to use the smartphone app rather than compulsion ?
    Smartphone ownership is fairly low amongst the elderly and many of those who have them struggle to use them properly and would not know what to do with an app
    Excuse me.

    My dear 80 year old lady wife is on her smart phone and tablet every day, busily using facebook and whats app and following the family and the news but not yet on PB

    If that happened I think it would be very amusing, bless her
    My 91 year old neighbour is clueless on smart phones.

    His 89 year old wife, on the other hand....
    The problem for a lot of 'older' people is that for example, my parents only in their late 60s only have one phone, and one very recently. My mum could easily cope with the app, but my dad 'doesn't do' mobiles.

    So it's not just a matter of them being able to it, it's all manner of practical issues, as they might not even have one, or only one between two.

    In which case, would they need an account, and therefore an email address, what if they don't have that? etc etc
    My 91 year old and 89 year old neighbours only ever go out as a couple.

    She doesn't trust him....
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 17,443

    Carnyx said:

    Tomorrow's front page of the Nat Onal?

    https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1250337873938677760?s=20

    Probably not.......

    It's entertaining that Unionists all the way from Brillo to nonentities are obsessing about a small, low circulation Scottish tabloid.
    Almost as entertaining as having Sturgeon talk about at her presser yesterday then dominating the questions and have "Forty a day" Freeman write not once, but twice to Hancock, as well as telephone him.

    Why do you think such a tiny newspaper with just over 9,000 subscribers has such an influence on the SNP government?
    'Almost as entertaining as having Sturgeon talk about at her presser yesterday'

    Translation please.
    'Make the lie big, keep it simple, keep saying it and eventually they will believe it' - The National.

    Sorry, meant Joseph Goebbels.
    ...easy mistake.
    You've hystericised yourself into Godwinism as is the wont of your ilk.

    At least you lot seemed to have worked out that a story based on statements by an English company, broken by the Times and taken up by the BBC is not under the remit of the SNP or Sturgeon, and you're now turning your ire onto a *checks notes* small, low circulation Scottish tabloid.

    I'm all nostalgic for the heady days when Yoons used to crow about the National being a soon-to-expire irrelevance, now it seems you can barely talk of anything else.
    As a matter of interest, would you say that the National has any more influence on the SNP administration than the DT, say, does on Mr Johnson's administration? My perception is, markedly less.
    From the pov of someone not in the know, I'd say virtually none aside from its uniqueness as an organ approximately supportive of independence.

    Didn't someone recently put up a collection of headlines from the Tele fawning over Boris and HMG? The National would get laughed out of town by indy supporters let alone anyone else if they tried that sort of rubbish.
    Thanks.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 13,107
    edited April 2020
    kle4 said:

    felix said:

    According to Sky - the EU is suggesting today that members should be co-ordinating lockdown relaxation procedures - 2 days after Italy/Austria/Denmark relaxed their own in different ways. They are also holding a conference next month on vaccines.

    This leadership from behind thing they have going on is very disappointing.

    Nations have been hit at different times and have different demography and the like, not sure they can or should coordinate too much.
    The EU advice is generic but seems sensible to me. The EU has open borders eg between France and Germany where people live on one side of the border and work on the other, so there is at least some demand for coordination. In fact Germany is taking the overflow into its hospitals from the East France hotspot.

    https://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1248560876451508224
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,790
    edited April 2020
    Chris said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    Fenman said:

    Note that many families are very concerned about their elderly relatives in care homes. Not concerned enough to care for them at home though.

    And that's about as stupid a remark as ever I heard, too.
    Some tips for you Chris.

    https://thedailymash.co.uk/news/alcohol/your-guide-to-holding-out-till-midday-before-starting-to-drink-20200326194913
    Really the best you can do?
    OK, OK. Sozza. Let me try again.

    Why don't you:

    a) ask the brilliantly incisive question that should be asked about the trade off; and then
    b) brilliantly, incisively answer it.
    Your contemptible comment had no relation to that debate. It related to care homes.
    Eh? No it didn't. Wrong poster. Keep up.

    Edit: I appreciate everything is shrouded in a red mist for you atm.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 8,858

    TGOHF666 said:

    Chris said:

    isam said:


    Good point by Hitchens at the end. Those arguing for less extreme measures than the lockdown aren’t asking for nothing at all to be done. That fiction seems prevalent when anyone queries the govt policy

    https://www.channel4.com/news/we-will-go-back-to-considerably-worse-than-normal-peter-hitchens-and-joan-bakewell-debate-the-government-lockdown-response

    Yes, I’ve noticed this phenomenon with my own group of friends. Very few people are advocating a complete release of the rules, yet anyone who suggests any loosening at all is seen as a reckless pariah.
    It would be very unfair to accuse people of being reckless, if their view was based on scientific evidence about the reproduction number of the virus in the current situation, and the likely effect of the measures they are advocating.

    If they're just advocating loosening of restrictions without any evidence as to the likely effect, that's a different matter.
    Chris said:

    isam said:


    Good point by Hitchens at the end. Those arguing for less extreme measures than the lockdown aren’t asking for nothing at all to be done. That fiction seems prevalent when anyone queries the govt policy

    https://www.channel4.com/news/we-will-go-back-to-considerably-worse-than-normal-peter-hitchens-and-joan-bakewell-debate-the-government-lockdown-response

    Yes, I’ve noticed this phenomenon with my own group of friends. Very few people are advocating a complete release of the rules, yet anyone who suggests any loosening at all is seen as a reckless pariah.
    It would be very unfair to accuse people of being reckless, if their view was based on scientific evidence about the reproduction number of the virus in the current situation, and the likely effect of the measures they are advocating.

    If they're just advocating loosening of restrictions without any evidence as to the likely effect, that's a different matter.
    I’d like to see numbers on the following:

    - elderly, infirm and co-morbid under complete lockdown
    - compulsory smartphone app with track and trace or stay at home
    - WFH 100% for those that are able
    - pubs only allowed to open if they have a garden, all drinks served to tables outside
    - shops can open but for click and collect only
    All those sound sensible - perhaps some carrot to go with the stick though - incentives to use the smartphone app rather than compulsion ?
    Smartphone ownership is fairly low amongst the elderly and many of those who have them struggle to use them properly and would not know what to do with an app
    Excuse me.

    My dear 80 year old lady wife is on her smart phone and tablet every day, busily using facebook and whats app and following the family and the news but not yet on PB

    If that happened I think it would be very amusing, bless her
    My 91 year old neighbour is clueless on smart phones.

    His 89 year old wife, on the other hand....
    The problem for a lot of 'older' people is that for example, my parents only in their late 60s only have one phone, and one very recently. My mum could easily cope with the app, but my dad 'doesn't do' mobiles.

    So it's not just a matter of them being able to it, it's all manner of practical issues, as they might not even have one, or only one between two.

    In which case, would they need an account, and therefore an email address, what if they don't have that? etc etc
    My 91 year old and 89 year old neighbours only ever go out as a couple.

    She doesn't trust him....
    Probably quite rightly.

    But then, theres the issue. Would /could you get 'couples' certificates? We don't usually operate on that basis, and have single certificiates for single people. What if one was ill and the other not.

    We're in odd times, and plenty of issues and problems ahead for a long time.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,813

    Chris said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:
    It is perhaps too early to commit to an exit strategy. What should be happening is building up exit "tools".

    Use of tech and phones for tracking and tracing.
    Give airports the capability for testing and quarantining if needed.
    How can we redesign offices, bars, restaurants to give better social distancing?
    How do we ration public transport use in rush hour?
    etc

    Get a junior minister in charge of each type of question now and our exit strategy will be more effective when it is needed in a month or twos time.
    Indeed, but since an exit strategy will presumably be published at some point Keir can claim a victory when it is and criticise its timing, whenever it is. Smart politics.
    On the other hand he's given the govt permission to talk about lifting the lockdown.

    Perhaps it would be healthy to have a national debate about this.

    We are faced with a difficult choice:
    (1) Face a cut in our living standards
    (2) Save lives.

    There's no right or wrong answer. But please let's not pretend that's not the question.
    I don't think that's the question. If we all return to work and let the virus rip there's going to be an almighty economic calamity in response to large numbers of working age people falling ill and dying.
    Yet another ‘all or nothing’ post.

    For crying out loud, I’d expect greater levels of nuance and intelligence on here.
    I was responding to a comment in the terms in which it was stated. I'd expect a bit more ability to read in regard to context, etc...
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,715
    edited April 2020
    alterego said:

    If they aren't locked down per first point, maybe a hard copy "permit" which could be sent to and printed off by someone competent? What did the South Koreans do or are they 100% tech savvy?

    If I've got this right (hopefully someone will correct me if I haven't) the Korean system is something like:

    - If you're not infected, there are no particular requirements to install an app or anything
    - If you are infected, whatever data is available (including the traditional one, asking you) is used to make a detailed log of your movements. This would potentially include CCTV footage and credit card transaction records. IIUC they also passed a law allowing the government to get mobile phone data already held by mobile phone providers, which I guess also works for legacy mobile phones, not just smartphones.
    - Based on the above information, people close to where you've been get emergency text messages.
    - The above information is publicly available. It'll be anonymized, but it's hard to anonymize location data in a way that nobody can figure out, so in theory it may end up leaking data about infected people.
    - Optionally, you can also install an app which tracks *your own* movements, and compares that with the public database of infected people, so you'll get an alert if you crossed paths with someone infected.

    I also had a notion that infected people who didn't want to be quarantined were required to carry a phone with a smartphone app tracking where they went, but on a quick google I can't find support for that so maybe I'm getting confused. I imagine elderly infected people mostly want to be somewhere they can get medical care, and I suppose you could give them a phone to carry around for this purpose, as it's basically just a tracking device, all they'd need to do is charge it.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,738
    kle4 said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    Chris said:

    isam said:


    Good point by Hitchens at the end. Those arguing for less extreme measures than the lockdown aren’t asking for nothing at all to be done. That fiction seems prevalent when anyone queries the govt policy

    https://www.channel4.com/news/we-will-go-back-to-considerably-worse-than-normal-peter-hitchens-and-joan-bakewell-debate-the-government-lockdown-response

    Yes, I’ve noticed this phenomenon with my own group of friends. Very few people are advocating a complete release of the rules, yet anyone who suggests any loosening at all is seen as a reckless pariah.
    It would be very unfair to accuse people of being reckless, if their view was based on scientific evidence about the reproduction number of the virus in the current situation, and the likely effect of the measures they are advocating.

    If they're just advocating loosening of restrictions without any evidence as to the likely effect, that's a different matter.
    Chris said:

    isam said:


    Good point by Hitchens at the end. Those arguing for less extreme measures than the lockdown aren’t asking for nothing at all to be done. That fiction seems prevalent when anyone queries the govt policy

    https://www.channel4.com/news/we-will-go-back-to-considerably-worse-than-normal-peter-hitchens-and-joan-bakewell-debate-the-government-lockdown-response

    Yes, I’ve noticed this phenomenon with my own group of friends. Very few people are advocating a complete release of the rules, yet anyone who suggests any loosening at all is seen as a reckless pariah.
    It would be very unfair to accuse people of being reckless, if their view was based on scientific evidence about the reproduction number of the virus in the current situation, and the likely effect of the measures they are advocating.

    If they're just advocating loosening of restrictions without any evidence as to the likely effect, that's a different matter.
    I’d like to see numbers on the following:

    - elderly, infirm and co-morbid under complete lockdown
    - compulsory smartphone app with track and trace or stay at home
    - WFH 100% for those that are able
    - pubs only allowed to open if they have a garden, all drinks served to tables outside
    - shops can open but for click and collect only
    All those sound sensible - perhaps some carrot to go with the stick though - incentives to use the smartphone app rather than compulsion ?
    Smartphone ownership is fairly low amongst the elderly and many of those who have them struggle to use them properly and would not know what to do with an app
    Excuse me.

    My dear 80 year old lady wife is on her smart phone and tablet every day, busily using facebook and whats app and following the family and the news but not yet on PB

    If that happened I think it would be very amusing, bless her
    My 91 year old neighbour is clueless on smart phones.

    His 89 year old wife, on the other hand....
    I read that as 19 year old wife initially...
    SeanT's in Penarth, not Torquay.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,713
    Now - pardon me for leaving this fascinating and erudite discussion, but I have been trying for several days to help someone who should be self-isolating to get a food delivery. I'm going to have another try now.

    Several weeks ago, our prime minister advised everyone in the country to have their food delivered. Possibly partly as a result of that, it is virtually impossible for vulnerable people to get their food delivered. So much for "cocooning".

    Perhaps you could all devote your stellar wits to finding a solution to that relatively simple problem. You all seem to know so much about everything.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,738
    Chris said:

    Now - pardon me for leaving this fascinating and erudite discussion, but I have been trying for several days to help someone who should be self-isolating to get a food delivery. I'm going to have another try now.

    Several weeks ago, our prime minister advised everyone in the country to have their food delivered. Possibly partly as a result of that, it is virtually impossible for vulnerable people to get their food delivered. So much for "cocooning".

    Perhaps you could all devote your stellar wits to finding a solution to that relatively simple problem. You all seem to know so much about everything.

    Buy the food for them and drop it off?

    Does of course depend on where they live in relation to you.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,136
    edited April 2020
    Chris said:

    Now - pardon me for leaving this fascinating and erudite discussion, but I have been trying for several days to help someone who should be self-isolating to get a food delivery. I'm going to have another try now.

    Several weeks ago, our prime minister advised everyone in the country to have their food delivered. Possibly partly as a result of that, it is virtually impossible for vulnerable people to get their food delivered. So much for "cocooning".

    Perhaps you could all devote your stellar wits to finding a solution to that relatively simple problem. You all seem to know so much about everything.

    Have they (or you on their behalf) signed up for the vulnerable person register? As soon as you are on that, the likes of Sainsbury's make dedicated slots available.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 70,000
    Chris said:

    Now - pardon me for leaving this fascinating and erudite discussion, but I have been trying for several days to help someone who should be self-isolating to get a food delivery. I'm going to have another try now.

    Several weeks ago, our prime minister advised everyone in the country to have their food delivered. Possibly partly as a result of that, it is virtually impossible for vulnerable people to get their food delivered. So much for "cocooning".

    Perhaps you could all devote your stellar wits to finding a solution to that relatively simple problem. You all seem to know so much about everything.

    Supermarkets are prioritising vulnerable people, government parcel drops are being made, and local councils and voluntary community groups have been organising for emergency shopping/delivery of people who have been missed to cover them until they can be put on the national schemes or arrangements made with supermarkets on their behalf.

    It's not been perfect, people will slip through, there have been issues of collection and payment etc, but a lot of great coordinated work has been going on. Thank you doing your part in helping someone who has been missed.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,790
    edited April 2020
    Chris said:



    Some tips for you Chris.

    https://thedailymash.co.uk/news/alcohol/your-guide-to-holding-out-till-midday-before-starting-to-drink-20200326194913

    Really the best you can do?

    btw I bloody love it when someone takes exception to or wants to ridicule a post I've made, and in so doing makes sure the post is repeated as part of their response.

    (sorry about messing up the blockquote)

    That's the default, you moron.

    Oh sorry yes I see. Thanks.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,790

    Chris said:

    Now - pardon me for leaving this fascinating and erudite discussion, but I have been trying for several days to help someone who should be self-isolating to get a food delivery. I'm going to have another try now.

    Several weeks ago, our prime minister advised everyone in the country to have their food delivered. Possibly partly as a result of that, it is virtually impossible for vulnerable people to get their food delivered. So much for "cocooning".

    Perhaps you could all devote your stellar wits to finding a solution to that relatively simple problem. You all seem to know so much about everything.

    Have they (or you on their behalf) signed up for the vulnerable person register? As soon as you are on that, the likes of Sainsbury's make dedicated slots available.
    Of course they have. Chris is a friend of theirs and would have told them.

    My 90-yr old mother got an email from Sainsbury's late last week to ask if she wanted a delivery and it arrived two days later (slightly wine-heavy if truth be told).
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 12,500
    Chris said:

    Now - pardon me for leaving this fascinating and erudite discussion, but I have been trying for several days to help someone who should be self-isolating to get a food delivery. I'm going to have another try now.

    Several weeks ago, our prime minister advised everyone in the country to have their food delivered. Possibly partly as a result of that, it is virtually impossible for vulnerable people to get their food delivered. So much for "cocooning".

    Perhaps you could all devote your stellar wits to finding a solution to that relatively simple problem. You all seem to know so much about everything.

    Not failsafe, will depend on area and demand, but try being logged into morrison and tesco from 23:50 on the book a delivery page. They release new slots at midnight. Reload the pages from 23:59 and at 00:00 you should see some slots open up for 3 weeks time.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,136
    edited April 2020
    kle4 said:

    Chris said:

    Now - pardon me for leaving this fascinating and erudite discussion, but I have been trying for several days to help someone who should be self-isolating to get a food delivery. I'm going to have another try now.

    Several weeks ago, our prime minister advised everyone in the country to have their food delivered. Possibly partly as a result of that, it is virtually impossible for vulnerable people to get their food delivered. So much for "cocooning".

    Perhaps you could all devote your stellar wits to finding a solution to that relatively simple problem. You all seem to know so much about everything.

    Supermarkets are prioritising vulnerable people, government parcel drops are being made, and local councils and voluntary community groups have been organising for emergency shopping/delivery of people who have been missed to cover them until they can be put on the national schemes or arrangements made with supermarkets on their behalf.

    It's not been perfect, people will slip through, there have been issues of collection and payment etc, but a lot of great coordinated work has been going on. Thank you doing your part in helping someone who has been missed.
    I have to say my elderly parents are very pleased with the way this has been handled. They say their food parcel isn't bad at all and once on the the register of vulnerable people had been passed to the supermarket, they have had no issue getting delivery slots with a major supermarket.

    They had one at the weekend and said very few items were unavailable. I think they said flour was the only real thing that they couldn't get.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 21,801
    kle4 said:

    Chris said:

    Now - pardon me for leaving this fascinating and erudite discussion, but I have been trying for several days to help someone who should be self-isolating to get a food delivery. I'm going to have another try now.

    Several weeks ago, our prime minister advised everyone in the country to have their food delivered. Possibly partly as a result of that, it is virtually impossible for vulnerable people to get their food delivered. So much for "cocooning".

    Perhaps you could all devote your stellar wits to finding a solution to that relatively simple problem. You all seem to know so much about everything.

    Supermarkets are prioritising vulnerable people, government parcel drops are being made, and local councils and voluntary community groups have been organising for emergency shopping/delivery of people who have been missed to cover them until they can be put on the national schemes or arrangements made with supermarkets on their behalf.

    It's not been perfect, people will slip through, there have been issues of collection and payment etc, but a lot of great coordinated work has been going on. Thank you doing your part in helping someone who has been missed.
    But it hasn't been asked about by the lobby, or appeared on the front page of a newspaper.

    Therefore it can't be happening.

    Or are we to believe that there are people capable of doing things outside SW1A?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,738
    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    Now - pardon me for leaving this fascinating and erudite discussion, but I have been trying for several days to help someone who should be self-isolating to get a food delivery. I'm going to have another try now.

    Several weeks ago, our prime minister advised everyone in the country to have their food delivered. Possibly partly as a result of that, it is virtually impossible for vulnerable people to get their food delivered. So much for "cocooning".

    Perhaps you could all devote your stellar wits to finding a solution to that relatively simple problem. You all seem to know so much about everything.

    Have they (or you on their behalf) signed up for the vulnerable person register? As soon as you are on that, the likes of Sainsbury's make dedicated slots available.
    Of course they have. Chris is a friend of theirs and would have told them.

    My 90-yr old mother got an email from Sainsbury's late last week to ask if she wanted a delivery and it arrived two days later (slightly wine-heavy if truth be told).
    Oh come on. Silly comment.

    As if a supermarket delivery could have too much wine in it.
  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 15,715
    edited April 2020
    fox327 said:

    I notice there are several suggestions on how society can be opened again using social distancing. Social distancing should (in my opinion) be used as a short-term measure to manage the epidemic, but I do not see it as a long-term solution. The lockdown is happening on all the populated continents of the world. There is nothing unique about the UK. There were reasons we did things the way we did before the lockdown. Social distancing will be uneconomic, and crucially it will leave people isolated. Things will eventually revert to exactly the way they used to be, except for the loss of life and substantial economic disruption.

    That depends which things we're talking about. A lot of the things that you'd change are just habits, and could easily be replaced by something else - for example, some cultures shake hands, others don't. There are reasons for shaking hands but they're mostly to do with showing you're not carrying a weapon - if you find you often need to do that at meetings you should probably substitute a metal detector.

    A lot of these changes will actually be productivity-positive, like having meetings and conferences online, which can save huge amounts of time and money, and the new habits may open up geographically distant markets that you could have worked with fine, but for the fact that customers were in the pre-internet habit of meeting in meatspace.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 12,500
    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    Now - pardon me for leaving this fascinating and erudite discussion, but I have been trying for several days to help someone who should be self-isolating to get a food delivery. I'm going to have another try now.

    Several weeks ago, our prime minister advised everyone in the country to have their food delivered. Possibly partly as a result of that, it is virtually impossible for vulnerable people to get their food delivered. So much for "cocooning".

    Perhaps you could all devote your stellar wits to finding a solution to that relatively simple problem. You all seem to know so much about everything.

    Have they (or you on their behalf) signed up for the vulnerable person register? As soon as you are on that, the likes of Sainsbury's make dedicated slots available.
    Of course they have. Chris is a friend of theirs and would have told them.

    My 90-yr old mother got an email from Sainsbury's late last week to ask if she wanted a delivery and it arrived two days later (slightly wine-heavy if truth be told).
    Yes Sainsburys seem to prioritise by age as well as the main govt list.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,713
    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    Now - pardon me for leaving this fascinating and erudite discussion, but I have been trying for several days to help someone who should be self-isolating to get a food delivery. I'm going to have another try now.

    Several weeks ago, our prime minister advised everyone in the country to have their food delivered. Possibly partly as a result of that, it is virtually impossible for vulnerable people to get their food delivered. So much for "cocooning".

    Perhaps you could all devote your stellar wits to finding a solution to that relatively simple problem. You all seem to know so much about everything.

    Buy the food for them and drop it off?

    Does of course depend on where they live in relation to you.
    Yes, I can do that if necessary, though I don't drive.

    But you might like to consider how many elderly people are in the same situation, and perhaps don't have anyone who can do that for them. Many of them don't even have Internet access, let alone a smartphone. And if they don't have Internet access, they will find it quite difficult to find any way around the problem.

    Perhaps someone will be contacting them with offers of help or advice? No one has contacted the person I am trying to help. She is over 70 and housebound.

    Prattling on about vulnerable people shielding themselves is all very well, but that's not the reality.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 12,500
    Depending on finances and location there may be independent retailers offering food delivery as well. Often much more expensive but shorter wait times for delivery.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,790
    ydoethur said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    Now - pardon me for leaving this fascinating and erudite discussion, but I have been trying for several days to help someone who should be self-isolating to get a food delivery. I'm going to have another try now.

    Several weeks ago, our prime minister advised everyone in the country to have their food delivered. Possibly partly as a result of that, it is virtually impossible for vulnerable people to get their food delivered. So much for "cocooning".

    Perhaps you could all devote your stellar wits to finding a solution to that relatively simple problem. You all seem to know so much about everything.

    Have they (or you on their behalf) signed up for the vulnerable person register? As soon as you are on that, the likes of Sainsbury's make dedicated slots available.
    Of course they have. Chris is a friend of theirs and would have told them.

    My 90-yr old mother got an email from Sainsbury's late last week to ask if she wanted a delivery and it arrived two days later (slightly wine-heavy if truth be told).
    Oh come on. Silly comment.

    As if a supermarket delivery could have too much wine in it.
    I just about forced her to include bread, milk, and eggs. Actually ( @Chris take note) - just about every neighbourhood has a support group to help vulnerable people. My mother's village shop, for example, has been keeping her well supplied throughout.

    That we are three weeks in and Chris is not managing to help his vulnerable person, actually speaks volumes. About him.
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 2,052
    Perhaps the way to raise use of the contact tracing app is to embed it in commonly used apps - or have it pushed onto phones by operators ?
  • Need to go into my retailers stores and eyeball stock levels / people demand. Queueing outside Morrisons. Fresh air and sunshine. A welcome change if scene from my fekking desk.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 21,801
    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    Now - pardon me for leaving this fascinating and erudite discussion, but I have been trying for several days to help someone who should be self-isolating to get a food delivery. I'm going to have another try now.

    Several weeks ago, our prime minister advised everyone in the country to have their food delivered. Possibly partly as a result of that, it is virtually impossible for vulnerable people to get their food delivered. So much for "cocooning".

    Perhaps you could all devote your stellar wits to finding a solution to that relatively simple problem. You all seem to know so much about everything.

    Buy the food for them and drop it off?

    Does of course depend on where they live in relation to you.
    Yes, I can do that if necessary, though I don't drive.

    But you might like to consider how many elderly people are in the same situation, and perhaps don't have anyone who can do that for them. Many of them don't even have Internet access, let alone a smartphone. And if they don't have Internet access, they will find it quite difficult to find any way around the problem.

    Perhaps someone will be contacting them with offers of help or advice? No one has contacted the person I am trying to help. She is over 70 and housebound.

    Prattling on about vulnerable people shielding themselves is all very well, but that's not the reality.
    This is the kind of stuff the volunteer effort is trying to deal with.

    You need to help her reach out - start with her GP. Mine has re-tasked their staff to deliver prescriptions.

    Local councils are doing a bunch of this as well - again. mine is plugging into the volunteer network to get food deliveries done.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,790
    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    Now - pardon me for leaving this fascinating and erudite discussion, but I have been trying for several days to help someone who should be self-isolating to get a food delivery. I'm going to have another try now.

    Several weeks ago, our prime minister advised everyone in the country to have their food delivered. Possibly partly as a result of that, it is virtually impossible for vulnerable people to get their food delivered. So much for "cocooning".

    Perhaps you could all devote your stellar wits to finding a solution to that relatively simple problem. You all seem to know so much about everything.

    Buy the food for them and drop it off?

    Does of course depend on where they live in relation to you.
    Yes, I can do that if necessary, though I don't drive.

    But you might like to consider how many elderly people are in the same situation, and perhaps don't have anyone who can do that for them. Many of them don't even have Internet access, let alone a smartphone. And if they don't have Internet access, they will find it quite difficult to find any way around the problem.

    Perhaps someone will be contacting them with offers of help or advice? No one has contacted the person I am trying to help. She is over 70 and housebound.

    Prattling on about vulnerable people shielding themselves is all very well, but that's not the reality.
    Just about every local support group has leafleted their area. They will have been given phone numbers and ways of contacting people if in need. If no one has contacted your friend that is a shame but is the exception I'm sure rather than the rule.

    Where does she live?
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,274
    Fenman said:

    Note that many families are very concerned about their elderly relatives in care homes. Not concerned enough to care for them at home though.

    You really have absolutely no idea.
  • MyBurningEarsMyBurningEars Posts: 3,651

    TGOHF666 said:

    Chris said:

    isam said:


    Good point by Hitchens at the end. Those arguing for less extreme measures than the lockdown aren’t asking for nothing at all to be done. That fiction seems prevalent when anyone queries the govt policy

    https://www.channel4.com/news/we-will-go-back-to-considerably-worse-than-normal-peter-hitchens-and-joan-bakewell-debate-the-government-lockdown-response

    Yes, I’ve noticed this phenomenon with my own group of friends. Very few people are advocating a complete release of the rules, yet anyone who suggests any loosening at all is seen as a reckless pariah.
    It would be very unfair to accuse people of being reckless, if their view was based on scientific evidence about the reproduction number of the virus in the current situation, and the likely effect of the measures they are advocating.

    If they're just advocating loosening of restrictions without any evidence as to the likely effect, that's a different matter.
    Chris said:

    isam said:


    Good point by Hitchens at the end. Those arguing for less extreme measures than the lockdown aren’t asking for nothing at all to be done. That fiction seems prevalent when anyone queries the govt policy

    https://www.channel4.com/news/we-will-go-back-to-considerably-worse-than-normal-peter-hitchens-and-joan-bakewell-debate-the-government-lockdown-response

    Yes, I’ve noticed this phenomenon with my own group of friends. Very few people are advocating a complete release of the rules, yet anyone who suggests any loosening at all is seen as a reckless pariah.
    It would be very unfair to accuse people of being reckless, if their view was based on scientific evidence about the reproduction number of the virus in the current situation, and the likely effect of the measures they are advocating.

    If they're just advocating loosening of restrictions without any evidence as to the likely effect, that's a different matter.
    I’d like to see numbers on the following:

    - elderly, infirm and co-morbid under complete lockdown
    - compulsory smartphone app with track and trace or stay at home
    - WFH 100% for those that are able
    - pubs only allowed to open if they have a garden, all drinks served to tables outside
    - shops can open but for click and collect only
    All those sound sensible - perhaps some carrot to go with the stick though - incentives to use the smartphone app rather than compulsion ?
    Smartphone ownership is fairly low amongst the elderly and many of those who have them struggle to use them properly and would not know what to do with an app
    Excuse me.

    My dear 80 year old lady wife is on her smart phone and tablet every day, busily using facebook and whats app and following the family and the news but not yet on PB

    If that happened I think it would be very amusing, bless her
    My 91 year old neighbour is clueless on smart phones.

    His 89 year old wife, on the other hand....
    The government did a lot of research on this as they were moving services online (the whole "e-government" thing). Not sure if it's a few years out of date now or if they've done more work since, but the upshot was that quite a few people didn't have a smartphone or Internet access, and that it was (as you might expect) more concentrated among the old. If I recall correctly there was a big gap between "over 70s" vs "over 80s".
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,136
    edited April 2020
    My elderly parents have also been contacted by the government, the local council, their GP, the pharmacy and the manager of the local corner shop to ensure they are ok for food and medicines. The local pub is also doing food delivery and takeaways. And on top of that there are the volunteers willing to do pretty much any running about for items that are required.

    Initially I was very concerned about how this would play out, but they appear to more than well served.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,713
    edited April 2020
    [Deleted]
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,713

    Chris said:

    Now - pardon me for leaving this fascinating and erudite discussion, but I have been trying for several days to help someone who should be self-isolating to get a food delivery. I'm going to have another try now.

    Several weeks ago, our prime minister advised everyone in the country to have their food delivered. Possibly partly as a result of that, it is virtually impossible for vulnerable people to get their food delivered. So much for "cocooning".

    Perhaps you could all devote your stellar wits to finding a solution to that relatively simple problem. You all seem to know so much about everything.

    Have they (or you on their behalf) signed up for the vulnerable person register? As soon as you are on that, the likes of Sainsbury's make dedicated slots available.
    No - they are not eligible, because they are just elderly:
    https://www.gov.uk/coronavirus-extremely-vulnerable

  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,713
    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    Now - pardon me for leaving this fascinating and erudite discussion, but I have been trying for several days to help someone who should be self-isolating to get a food delivery. I'm going to have another try now.

    Several weeks ago, our prime minister advised everyone in the country to have their food delivered. Possibly partly as a result of that, it is virtually impossible for vulnerable people to get their food delivered. So much for "cocooning".

    Perhaps you could all devote your stellar wits to finding a solution to that relatively simple problem. You all seem to know so much about everything.

    Have they (or you on their behalf) signed up for the vulnerable person register? As soon as you are on that, the likes of Sainsbury's make dedicated slots available.
    Of course they have. Chris is a friend of theirs and would have told them.
    That's just your ignorance. Over 70s aren't eligible for that register per se. And the last thing I saw, Sainsburys weren't accepting new registrations.
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654
    ydoethur said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    Now - pardon me for leaving this fascinating and erudite discussion, but I have been trying for several days to help someone who should be self-isolating to get a food delivery. I'm going to have another try now.

    Several weeks ago, our prime minister advised everyone in the country to have their food delivered. Possibly partly as a result of that, it is virtually impossible for vulnerable people to get their food delivered. So much for "cocooning".

    Perhaps you could all devote your stellar wits to finding a solution to that relatively simple problem. You all seem to know so much about everything.

    Have they (or you on their behalf) signed up for the vulnerable person register? As soon as you are on that, the likes of Sainsbury's make dedicated slots available.
    Of course they have. Chris is a friend of theirs and would have told them.

    My 90-yr old mother got an email from Sainsbury's late last week to ask if she wanted a delivery and it arrived two days later (slightly wine-heavy if truth be told).
    Oh come on. Silly comment.

    As if a supermarket delivery could have too much wine in it.
    I just has a whatsapp saying now peoplle who.overliaded with toilet paper wish they had been buying alcohol.. a lot of truth in that.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,136
    edited April 2020
    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Now - pardon me for leaving this fascinating and erudite discussion, but I have been trying for several days to help someone who should be self-isolating to get a food delivery. I'm going to have another try now.

    Several weeks ago, our prime minister advised everyone in the country to have their food delivered. Possibly partly as a result of that, it is virtually impossible for vulnerable people to get their food delivered. So much for "cocooning".

    Perhaps you could all devote your stellar wits to finding a solution to that relatively simple problem. You all seem to know so much about everything.

    Have they (or you on their behalf) signed up for the vulnerable person register? As soon as you are on that, the likes of Sainsbury's make dedicated slots available.
    No - they are not eligible, because they are just elderly:
    https://www.gov.uk/coronavirus-extremely-vulnerable


    You say they are housebound though. I believe GPs (and I think local council) can request individuals are added to that list, so a call to the doctor and say it isn't possible to get to the shops etc should be enough for them to added.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,713
    edited April 2020

    My elderly parents have also been contacted by the government, the local council, their GP, the pharmacy and the manager of the local corner shop to ensure they are ok for food and medicines.

    Perhaps the person I am trying to help has been contacted with offers of help, but if so she hasn't mentioned it to me.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 2,475

    fox327 said:

    I notice there are several suggestions on how society can be opened again using social distancing. Social distancing should (in my opinion) be used as a short-term measure to manage the epidemic, but I do not see it as a long-term solution. The lockdown is happening on all the populated continents of the world. There is nothing unique about the UK. There were reasons we did things the way we did before the lockdown. Social distancing will be uneconomic, and crucially it will leave people isolated. Things will eventually revert to exactly the way they used to be, except for the loss of life and substantial economic disruption.

    That depends which things we're talking about. A lot of the things that you'd change are just habits, and could easily be replaced by something else - for example, some cultures shake hands, others don't. There are reasons for shaking hands but they're mostly to do with showing you're not carrying a weapon - if you find you often need to do that at meetings you should probably substitute a metal detector.

    A lot of these changes will actually be productivity-positive, like having meetings and conferences online, which can save huge amounts of time and money, and the new habits may open up geographically distant markets that you could have worked with fine, but for the fact that customers were in the pre-internet habit of meeting in meatspace.
    I'm wondering how it will work when we are back in our offices.

    If one good thing comes out of all of this, I hope it is the end of the open plan office.

    Apart from social distancing and football pitch sized open plan desk farms not being compatible, I think what this crisis has taught us is that you can be highly collaborative without needing to be rammed shoulder to shoulder with 200 other people in noisy, distracting environments without privacy.

    Hilariously none of the meeting rooms (except for the boardroom) at my office have doors, in order to promote an open culture. Which is a bit of a pain in the arse when you are trying to have a conference call.

    It turns out that the people you need to be collaborating with are on your screen, and that requires a degree of privacy to do so effectively.
  • FloaterFloater Posts: 14,195
    Scotland records total of 962 deaths with Covid-19 on death certificate
    A total of 962 people have died in Scotland with confirmed or suspected coronavirus as of 12 April, according to the National Records of Scotland (NRS).
    The figures are announced weekly and account for all deaths registered in Scotland where Covid-19 was mentioned in the death certificate.

    They differ from the lab-confirmed coronavirus deaths announced daily by the Scottish government because they include suspected or probable cases of Covid-19.

    There were 608 deaths relating to Covid-19 registered between 6-12 April, a rise of 326 on the 282 registered between 30 March and 5 April, according to the NRS. There were 62 deaths between 23 and 29 March and 10 in the week of 16-22 March.

    The total number of all deaths registered in Scotland from 6-12 April was 1,969, with Covid-19 accounting for 31% of all deaths in that week. The average number of deaths registered in the same week over the last five years was 1,100.

    A quarter of all registered deaths involving Covid-19 in Scotland occurred in care homes, according to the National Records of Scotland (NRS).

    Figures up until 12 April show that 62% of registered deaths were in hospitals and 13% were at home or non-institutional settings. Almost 70% of all registered deaths involving coronavirus were people aged 75 or over.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,713
    edited April 2020


    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Now - pardon me for leaving this fascinating and erudite discussion, but I have been trying for several days to help someone who should be self-isolating to get a food delivery. I'm going to have another try now.

    Several weeks ago, our prime minister advised everyone in the country to have their food delivered. Possibly partly as a result of that, it is virtually impossible for vulnerable people to get their food delivered. So much for "cocooning".

    Perhaps you could all devote your stellar wits to finding a solution to that relatively simple problem. You all seem to know so much about everything.

    Have they (or you on their behalf) signed up for the vulnerable person register? As soon as you are on that, the likes of Sainsbury's make dedicated slots available.
    No - they are not eligible, because they are just elderly:
    https://www.gov.uk/coronavirus-extremely-vulnerable

    You say they are housebound though. I believe GPs (and I think local council) can request individuals are added to that list, so a call to the doctor and say it isn't possible to get to the shops etc should be enough for them to added.
    If that is so, it's not mentioned on the link I've just provided you with.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,790
    Chris said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    Now - pardon me for leaving this fascinating and erudite discussion, but I have been trying for several days to help someone who should be self-isolating to get a food delivery. I'm going to have another try now.

    Several weeks ago, our prime minister advised everyone in the country to have their food delivered. Possibly partly as a result of that, it is virtually impossible for vulnerable people to get their food delivered. So much for "cocooning".

    Perhaps you could all devote your stellar wits to finding a solution to that relatively simple problem. You all seem to know so much about everything.

    Have they (or you on their behalf) signed up for the vulnerable person register? As soon as you are on that, the likes of Sainsbury's make dedicated slots available.
    Of course they have. Chris is a friend of theirs and would have told them.
    That's just your ignorance. Over 70s aren't eligible for that register per se. And the last thing I saw, Sainsburys weren't accepting new registrations.
    Have you made any attempt to find out about her local support group? Any effort at all?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 29,467
    TOPPING said:

    My 90-yr old mother got an email from Sainsbury's late last week to ask if she wanted a delivery and it arrived two days later (slightly wine-heavy if truth be told).

    I am shocked by the implication that you have neglected to ensure that your elderly mum is properly supplied with decent stuff from Farr Vintners.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 11,691
    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Now - pardon me for leaving this fascinating and erudite discussion, but I have been trying for several days to help someone who should be self-isolating to get a food delivery. I'm going to have another try now.

    Several weeks ago, our prime minister advised everyone in the country to have their food delivered. Possibly partly as a result of that, it is virtually impossible for vulnerable people to get their food delivered. So much for "cocooning".

    Perhaps you could all devote your stellar wits to finding a solution to that relatively simple problem. You all seem to know so much about everything.

    Have they (or you on their behalf) signed up for the vulnerable person register? As soon as you are on that, the likes of Sainsbury's make dedicated slots available.
    No - they are not eligible, because they are just elderly:
    https://www.gov.uk/coronavirus-extremely-vulnerable


    I think they are in partly the same boat I am - technically vulnerable but on no lists, though I am not self-isolating due to symptoms just due to caution.

    Around here no delivery or collect slots are obtainable - though family had some success (after a couple of days trying) with ASDA releasing slots at midnight.
  • BannedinnParisBannedinnParis Posts: 1,683
    Chris said:

    [Deleted]

    Post of the Day
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,654

    TOPPING said:

    My 90-yr old mother got an email from Sainsbury's late last week to ask if she wanted a delivery and it arrived two days later (slightly wine-heavy if truth be told).

    I am shocked by the implication that you have neglected to ensure that your elderly mum is properly supplied with decent stuff from Farr Vintners.
    Are they better than the Wine Society?
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,713
    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    Now - pardon me for leaving this fascinating and erudite discussion, but I have been trying for several days to help someone who should be self-isolating to get a food delivery. I'm going to have another try now.

    Several weeks ago, our prime minister advised everyone in the country to have their food delivered. Possibly partly as a result of that, it is virtually impossible for vulnerable people to get their food delivered. So much for "cocooning".

    Perhaps you could all devote your stellar wits to finding a solution to that relatively simple problem. You all seem to know so much about everything.

    Buy the food for them and drop it off?

    Does of course depend on where they live in relation to you.
    Yes, I can do that if necessary, though I don't drive.

    But you might like to consider how many elderly people are in the same situation, and perhaps don't have anyone who can do that for them. Many of them don't even have Internet access, let alone a smartphone. And if they don't have Internet access, they will find it quite difficult to find any way around the problem.

    Perhaps someone will be contacting them with offers of help or advice? No one has contacted the person I am trying to help. She is over 70 and housebound.

    Prattling on about vulnerable people shielding themselves is all very well, but that's not the reality.
    Just about every local support group has leafleted their area. They will have been given phone numbers and ways of contacting people if in need. If no one has contacted your friend that is a shame but is the exception I'm sure rather than the rule.

    Where does she live?
    That's just absolutely nonsense. I told you she was a neighbour. No one has leafleted this area. If they had, I'd have received a leaflet myself!
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,136
    edited April 2020
    Chris said:


    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Now - pardon me for leaving this fascinating and erudite discussion, but I have been trying for several days to help someone who should be self-isolating to get a food delivery. I'm going to have another try now.

    Several weeks ago, our prime minister advised everyone in the country to have their food delivered. Possibly partly as a result of that, it is virtually impossible for vulnerable people to get their food delivered. So much for "cocooning".

    Perhaps you could all devote your stellar wits to finding a solution to that relatively simple problem. You all seem to know so much about everything.

    Have they (or you on their behalf) signed up for the vulnerable person register? As soon as you are on that, the likes of Sainsbury's make dedicated slots available.
    No - they are not eligible, because they are just elderly:
    https://www.gov.uk/coronavirus-extremely-vulnerable

    You say they are housebound though. I believe GPs (and I think local council) can request individuals are added to that list, so a call to the doctor and say it isn't possible to get to the shops etc should be enough for them to added.
    If that is so, it's not mentioned on the link I've just provided you with.
    "Speak to your GP or care team if you have not been contacted and think you should have been."

    https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/advice-for-people-at-high-risk/
  • NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 2,435

    My elderly parents have also been contacted by the government, the local council, their GP, the pharmacy and the manager of the local corner shop to ensure they are ok for food and medicines. The local pub is also doing food delivery and takeaways. And on top of that there are the volunteers willing to do pretty much any running about for items that are required.

    Initially I was very concerned about how this would play out, but they appear to more than well served.

    My dad was contacted by Southampton FC yesterday to ask if he was ok. He is a long term season ticket holder
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,713
    edited April 2020
    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:

    Now - pardon me for leaving this fascinating and erudite discussion, but I have been trying for several days to help someone who should be self-isolating to get a food delivery. I'm going to have another try now.

    Several weeks ago, our prime minister advised everyone in the country to have their food delivered. Possibly partly as a result of that, it is virtually impossible for vulnerable people to get their food delivered. So much for "cocooning".

    Perhaps you could all devote your stellar wits to finding a solution to that relatively simple problem. You all seem to know so much about everything.

    Have they (or you on their behalf) signed up for the vulnerable person register? As soon as you are on that, the likes of Sainsbury's make dedicated slots available.
    Of course they have. Chris is a friend of theirs and would have told them.
    That's just your ignorance. Over 70s aren't eligible for that register per se. And the last thing I saw, Sainsburys weren't accepting new registrations.
    Have you made any attempt to find out about her local support group? Any effort at all?
    Go to hell. I can see precisely what you are.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 29,467

    TOPPING said:

    My 90-yr old mother got an email from Sainsbury's late last week to ask if she wanted a delivery and it arrived two days later (slightly wine-heavy if truth be told).

    I am shocked by the implication that you have neglected to ensure that your elderly mum is properly supplied with decent stuff from Farr Vintners.
    Are they better than the Wine Society?
    No, but I know @TOPPING has an account with them...
  • MattWMattW Posts: 11,691
    edited April 2020
    @Cyclefree Gardening Corner (12)

    What do you guys do for composting? I have a single 'dalek' composter, and I need to get a further one, or change the arrangement. I have about 300sqm of growing space, on a 750 sqm plot. (I hope this does not get thread-stomped)

    Photos of others' composting arrangements would be good.

    https://twitter.com/mattwardman/status/1250385731660455938

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 21,801

    TOPPING said:

    My 90-yr old mother got an email from Sainsbury's late last week to ask if she wanted a delivery and it arrived two days later (slightly wine-heavy if truth be told).

    I am shocked by the implication that you have neglected to ensure that your elderly mum is properly supplied with decent stuff from Farr Vintners.
    Are they better than the Wine Society?
    No, but I know @TOPPING has an account with them...
    Surely ones butler has an account at Justerini & Brooks? - failing them, I suppose one of the younger staff might know someone at Berry & Rudd
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,713

    Chris said:


    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Now - pardon me for leaving this fascinating and erudite discussion, but I have been trying for several days to help someone who should be self-isolating to get a food delivery. I'm going to have another try now.

    Several weeks ago, our prime minister advised everyone in the country to have their food delivered. Possibly partly as a result of that, it is virtually impossible for vulnerable people to get their food delivered. So much for "cocooning".

    Perhaps you could all devote your stellar wits to finding a solution to that relatively simple problem. You all seem to know so much about everything.

    Have they (or you on their behalf) signed up for the vulnerable person register? As soon as you are on that, the likes of Sainsbury's make dedicated slots available.
    No - they are not eligible, because they are just elderly:
    https://www.gov.uk/coronavirus-extremely-vulnerable

    You say they are housebound though. I believe GPs (and I think local council) can request individuals are added to that list, so a call to the doctor and say it isn't possible to get to the shops etc should be enough for them to added.
    If that is so, it's not mentioned on the link I've just provided you with.
    "Speak to your GP or care team if you have not been contacted and think you should have been."

    https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/advice-for-people-at-high-risk/
    Why don't you learn to read?

    That is under the heading "People most at risk". If you can read, you will understand that the person I am talking about doesn't fall in that category.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,136
    edited April 2020
    Also, if the volunteering scheme is missing somebody...There are 750,000 signed up.

    "This site will provide you with further information if you are self-isolating and are in need of support. Below you will find out how you can access support and some things to consider if you are going to receive support."

    https://volunteering.royalvoluntaryservice.org.uk/nhs-volunteer-responders-portal/isolating
  • ukpaulukpaul Posts: 649
    I’m confused by this idea that the Tour de France can take place without the public. Isn’t the whole point that they use public roads? I can see how they can block off the mountain stages but surely people will sneak out and watch in cities, towns and villages, which will negate that effort.

    I’d be happy to see it in the Autumn if it was safe to do so but it does it doesn’t sound very workable to me.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,136
    edited April 2020
    Chris said:

    Chris said:


    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Now - pardon me for leaving this fascinating and erudite discussion, but I have been trying for several days to help someone who should be self-isolating to get a food delivery. I'm going to have another try now.

    Several weeks ago, our prime minister advised everyone in the country to have their food delivered. Possibly partly as a result of that, it is virtually impossible for vulnerable people to get their food delivered. So much for "cocooning".

    Perhaps you could all devote your stellar wits to finding a solution to that relatively simple problem. You all seem to know so much about everything.

    Have they (or you on their behalf) signed up for the vulnerable person register? As soon as you are on that, the likes of Sainsbury's make dedicated slots available.
    No - they are not eligible, because they are just elderly:
    https://www.gov.uk/coronavirus-extremely-vulnerable

    You say they are housebound though. I believe GPs (and I think local council) can request individuals are added to that list, so a call to the doctor and say it isn't possible to get to the shops etc should be enough for them to added.
    If that is so, it's not mentioned on the link I've just provided you with.
    "Speak to your GP or care team if you have not been contacted and think you should have been."

    https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/advice-for-people-at-high-risk/
    Why don't you learn to read?

    That is under the heading "People most at risk". If you can read, you will understand that the person I am talking about doesn't fall in that category.
    If you really think this person needs help, GPs are able to request to add them to the list. The government stated at the press conference a number of times those criteria were just the ones they used to initially identify people, but if somebody falls outside of those but is still in desperate need because of having to isolate they can request to go on the list.

    Also, I have just linked to the volunteering network information.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,713

    Also, if the volunteering scheme is missing somebody...There are 750,000 signed up.

    "This site will provide you with further information if you are self-isolating and are in need of support. Below you will find out how you can access support and some things to consider if you are going to receive support."

    https://volunteering.royalvoluntaryservice.org.uk/nhs-volunteer-responders-portal/isolating

    The NHS volunteering scheme - unless there has been a change since I last checked - is supporting only the 1.5m with particular medical conditions. Not the over-70s.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,638
    Do the years 2020 is being compared with fall into the category of ‘normal flu epidemic’? Not being sarcastic, every year is an epidemic?

    The graph doesn’t start at zero, don’t like that
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,762
    edited April 2020
    In 'fool as many of the poor saps as you can for as long as you can' news.

    https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1250373312015974400?s=20
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,713
    edited April 2020

    Chris said:

    Chris said:


    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Now - pardon me for leaving this fascinating and erudite discussion, but I have been trying for several days to help someone who should be self-isolating to get a food delivery. I'm going to have another try now.

    Several weeks ago, our prime minister advised everyone in the country to have their food delivered. Possibly partly as a result of that, it is virtually impossible for vulnerable people to get their food delivered. So much for "cocooning".

    Perhaps you could all devote your stellar wits to finding a solution to that relatively simple problem. You all seem to know so much about everything.

    Have they (or you on their behalf) signed up for the vulnerable person register? As soon as you are on that, the likes of Sainsbury's make dedicated slots available.
    No - they are not eligible, because they are just elderly:
    https://www.gov.uk/coronavirus-extremely-vulnerable

    You say they are housebound though. I believe GPs (and I think local council) can request individuals are added to that list, so a call to the doctor and say it isn't possible to get to the shops etc should be enough for them to added.
    If that is so, it's not mentioned on the link I've just provided you with.
    "Speak to your GP or care team if you have not been contacted and think you should have been."

    https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/advice-for-people-at-high-risk/
    Why don't you learn to read?

    That is under the heading "People most at risk". If you can read, you will understand that the person I am talking about doesn't fall in that category.
    If you really think this person needs help, GPs are able to request to add them to the list. Also, I have just linked to the volunteering network information.
    Well, tell me why you think GPs can add them to the list of vulnerable people, because - I repeat - that's not what the web page I referred you to said.

    If you want to be helpful, please explain why you think that. If you can't, I'll assume it's as inaccurate as the other claims you've just posted here about this.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,136
    edited April 2020
    Chris said:

    Also, if the volunteering scheme is missing somebody...There are 750,000 signed up.

    "This site will provide you with further information if you are self-isolating and are in need of support. Below you will find out how you can access support and some things to consider if you are going to receive support."

    https://volunteering.royalvoluntaryservice.org.uk/nhs-volunteer-responders-portal/isolating

    The NHS volunteering scheme - unless there has been a change since I last checked - is supporting only the 1.5m with particular medical conditions. Not the over-70s.
    There is discretion.

    "People who are newly socially vulnerable as a result of COVID-19 as determined by a health care professional or local authority"

    If the person you are talking about is old, housebound and struggling, a call to the GP to say this should be what it required.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 12,500
    Quite weird that people very successfully avoid dying from flu at Xmas but seem to die early January instead. Surely its not coroners not reporting deaths over Xmas until early January?
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,713

    Chris said:

    Chris said:


    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Now - pardon me for leaving this fascinating and erudite discussion, but I have been trying for several days to help someone who should be self-isolating to get a food delivery. I'm going to have another try now.

    Several weeks ago, our prime minister advised everyone in the country to have their food delivered. Possibly partly as a result of that, it is virtually impossible for vulnerable people to get their food delivered. So much for "cocooning".

    Perhaps you could all devote your stellar wits to finding a solution to that relatively simple problem. You all seem to know so much about everything.

    Have they (or you on their behalf) signed up for the vulnerable person register? As soon as you are on that, the likes of Sainsbury's make dedicated slots available.
    No - they are not eligible, because they are just elderly:
    https://www.gov.uk/coronavirus-extremely-vulnerable

    You say they are housebound though. I believe GPs (and I think local council) can request individuals are added to that list, so a call to the doctor and say it isn't possible to get to the shops etc should be enough for them to added.
    If that is so, it's not mentioned on the link I've just provided you with.
    "Speak to your GP or care team if you have not been contacted and think you should have been."

    https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/advice-for-people-at-high-risk/
    Why don't you learn to read?

    That is under the heading "People most at risk". If you can read, you will understand that the person I am talking about doesn't fall in that category.
    If you really think this person needs help, GPs are able to request to add them to the list. The government stated at the press conference a number of times those criteria were just the ones they used to initially identify people, but if somebody falls outside of those but is still in desperate need because of having to isolate they can request to go on the list.

    Also, I have just linked to the volunteering network information.
    And I will add that the person I'm talking about is not the only person I know in this situation. Another person has been advised to isolate himself strictly because of a medical condition, but has been offered no help with getting deliveries of food and essentials. He had resigned himself to going shopping until I gave him some advice about online deliveries.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 21,801
    isam said:

    Do the years 2020 is being compared with fall into the category of ‘normal flu epidemic’? Not being sarcastic, every year is an epidemic?

    The graph doesn’t start at zero, don’t like that
    To be fair, pretty much every year we have the Flu Season. The old and the vulnerable are advised to get the current Flu shot etc. The hospitals fill with those who catch it in a bad way....

    An example of how the ongoing is the normal.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,713

    Chris said:

    Also, if the volunteering scheme is missing somebody...There are 750,000 signed up.

    "This site will provide you with further information if you are self-isolating and are in need of support. Below you will find out how you can access support and some things to consider if you are going to receive support."

    https://volunteering.royalvoluntaryservice.org.uk/nhs-volunteer-responders-portal/isolating

    The NHS volunteering scheme - unless there has been a change since I last checked - is supporting only the 1.5m with particular medical conditions. Not the over-70s.
    There is discretion.

    "People who are newly socially vulnerable as a result of COVID-19 as determined by a health care professional or local authority"

    If the person you are talking about is old, housebound and struggling, a call to the GP to say this should be what it required.
    Where are you quoting that from, please? Because the last thing you quoted from a web page was found not to apply when I checked.

    Please give a URL.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edited April 2020
    Chris said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:
    btw I bloody love it when someone takes exception to or wants to ridicule a post I've made, and in so doing makes sure the post is repeated as part of their response.

    (sorry about messing up the blockquote)
    That's the default, you moron.
    Virtually every post you make calls someone an "idiot" or a "moron"

    While you might think that (and occasionally be right!) the culture of this website is robust but rarely descends into just insulting fellow posters.

    It would be much more pleasant if you did the same. In this specific case you could have just said "That's the default" and it would convey the same information
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,612
    So having highlighted it in her Press Conference yesterday Sturgeon says nothing about “England stealing Scotland’s PPE” today. No clarification. Not a peep. Let’s see if Forty a Day has to say...
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,136
    edited April 2020
    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Also, if the volunteering scheme is missing somebody...There are 750,000 signed up.

    "This site will provide you with further information if you are self-isolating and are in need of support. Below you will find out how you can access support and some things to consider if you are going to receive support."

    https://volunteering.royalvoluntaryservice.org.uk/nhs-volunteer-responders-portal/isolating

    The NHS volunteering scheme - unless there has been a change since I last checked - is supporting only the 1.5m with particular medical conditions. Not the over-70s.
    There is discretion.

    "People who are newly socially vulnerable as a result of COVID-19 as determined by a health care professional or local authority"

    If the person you are talking about is old, housebound and struggling, a call to the GP to say this should be what it required.
    Where are you quoting that from, please? Because the last thing you quoted from a web page was found not to apply when I checked.

    Please give a URL.
    https://volunteering.royalvoluntaryservice.org.uk/nhs-volunteer-responders-portal/isolating

    "Under am I entitled to support"

    Again, the government have repeatedly made it clear at the likes of the press conference, if you know somebody who hasn't been included on the list, get in contact with the GP or local authority. That list isn't final and binding.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,713
    Floater said:

    Chris - just wondering why you think that by insulting people it would motivate them to offer you advice?

    I haven't asked anyone to give me advice about this. They are just holding forth of their own accord, and most of what they've said has been inaccurate and misleading.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    edited April 2020
    isam said:

    Do the years 2020 is being compared with fall into the category of ‘normal flu epidemic’? Not being sarcastic, every year is an epidemic?

    The graph doesn’t start at zero, don’t like that
    This graph is misleading because there is no comparison with other big virus outbreak years. 1919 etc.

    Years where we didn't destroy the British economy in response
  • SockySocky Posts: 404
    MattW said:

    @Cyclefree Gardening Corner (12)

    What do you guys do for composting? I have a single 'dalek' composter, and I need to get a further one, or change the arrangement.

    Daleks are good. They should come with a lid though, and I have found they work better when the contents are kept damp.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 5,818
    Sunak thinks the British public will forgive him for the years of grinding austerity and joblessness they are being consigned to by his policies.

    A look at today's papers shows that notion is far, far from the case.

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 34,983
    TGOHF666 said:

    malcolmg said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Complete with dig:

    “Our support for business now exceeds the £2.2 billion passed on from the UK Government and actively works to fill the gaps in the UK schemes.

    If grievance was a cure for Covid-19 we'd know where to find it.

    With Brent Crude at $28......
    Typical jingoistic unionist, Scottish Government enhance their scheme but still unionists whine and whinge. How are loans going in Engerland , has anybody got any money yet.

    Was some U-turn though malc -surprised Ms Forbes hasn't got whiplash.
    Harry , I have to thank you for the tip the other day, they delivered beer toute suite and nice stuff it is as well.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,713
    edited April 2020


    "Under am I entitled to support"

    Again, the government have repeatedly made it clear at the likes of the press conference, if you know somebody who hasn't been included on the list, get in contact with the GP or local authority. That list isn't final and binding.

    As I thought - the criteria on that page don't apply. The people I am talking about aren't "socially vulnerable".
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 12,500
    Chris said:

    Floater said:

    Chris - just wondering why you think that by insulting people it would motivate them to offer you advice?

    I haven't asked anyone to give me advice about this. They are just holding forth of their own accord, and most of what they've said has been inaccurate and misleading.
    You did ask!
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,713

    Chris said:

    Floater said:

    Chris - just wondering why you think that by insulting people it would motivate them to offer you advice?

    I haven't asked anyone to give me advice about this. They are just holding forth of their own accord, and most of what they've said has been inaccurate and misleading.
    You did ask!
    No, I didn't. You didn't read.

    I said people here might want to apply their wits to the problem of people getting food.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 68,136
    edited April 2020
    Chris said:


    "Under am I entitled to support"

    Again, the government have repeatedly made it clear at the likes of the press conference, if you know somebody who hasn't been included on the list, get in contact with the GP or local authority. That list isn't final and binding.

    As I thought - the criteria on that page don't apply. The people I am talking about aren't "socially vulnerable".
    You say they are old and housebound..how does that not fit the made "socially vulnerable" by COVID 19 category? As it stated, this can be determine by a GP or local authority.

    You say this person can't get food or medicine that they need. As I said, there is discretion for them to get people added. I would be shocked if a GP wouldn't use their power to get them onto the list given that.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 44,738
    Chris said:

    Perhaps you could all devote your stellar wits to finding a solution to that relatively simple problem. You all seem to know so much about everything.

    Chris said:

    Floater said:

    Chris - just wondering why you think that by insulting people it would motivate them to offer you advice?

    I haven't asked anyone to give me advice about this. They are just holding forth of their own accord, and most of what they've said has been inaccurate and misleading.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 11,691

    Quite weird that people very successfully avoid dying from flu at Xmas but seem to die early January instead. Surely its not coroners not reporting deaths over Xmas until early January?
    It may be that the death registration department in the hospital is not so staffed on all those Bank Holidays.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,713

    Chris said:


    "Under am I entitled to support"

    Again, the government have repeatedly made it clear at the likes of the press conference, if you know somebody who hasn't been included on the list, get in contact with the GP or local authority. That list isn't final and binding.

    As I thought - the criteria on that page don't apply. The people I am talking about aren't "socially vulnerable".
    You say they are old and housebound..how does that not fit the "socially vulnerable" category?

    You clearly don't want to entertain the idea that you can contact the GP / local authority and say this person I know can't get food or medicine that they need. I would be shocked if a GP wouldn't use their power to get them onto the list.
    No. That's not what "socially vulnerable" means.

    Google it.

    As far as I can see, your notion about GPs having discretion to get people on to the list when they don't fit the criteria is a figment of your imagination.

    Just think how many over 70s there are. I reckon something like 7 million. The NHS volunteers list has (nominally) only 1.5 million on it.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 69,284

    alex_ said:



    Somehow the language has to shift from measures being imposed being by govt edict, towards measures imposed by collective personal responsibility. So that the lockdown can come off but public behaviour doesn’t change significantly. And I can’t see how we get there.

    Trouble is that more nuanced messaging a la Japanese poster undermines the lockdown. So we just get “stay home save lives”.



    I don't really agree that a shift to "decide for yourself" (aka as personal responsibility) would be welcome in this situation - people are already confused (e.g. on how much walking is actually desirable, rather than grudgingly accepted) and if we all start making uo our own interpretations we'll end up with the least common denominator - which is likely to be more mixing than is healthy. I'd like clearer guidelines, not vaguer ones. That would conversely mean that people who were following them wouldn't get idiotically harassed, like being told it's OK to shop in a supermarket with non-essential goods, but not OK to buy them.

    I agree with you that collective gradual easing is tricky, though. Perhaps the model of cars on alternate days by licence plate could be used - if your name starts with A-F you can go out on Monday, etc. That would lend itself to gradual easing while still being clear.
    The car reg idea wouldn't work in our case as we do actually need to leave daily (Well one of us does) to tend to our animals, though we do have a letter for that.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,713
    Charles said:

    Chris said:

    TOPPING said:

    Chris said:
    btw I bloody love it when someone takes exception to or wants to ridicule a post I've made, and in so doing makes sure the post is repeated as part of their response.

    (sorry about messing up the blockquote)
    That's the default, you moron.
    Virtually every post you make calls someone an "idiot" or a "moron"

    While you might think that (and occasionally be right!) the culture of this website is robust but rarely descends into just insulting fellow posters.

    It would be much more pleasant if you did the same. In this specific case you could have just said "That's the default" and it would convey the same information
    Yes, no doubt it would be more pleasant. But I'm not in any mood to be pleasant at the moment.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 13,478

    In 'fool as many of the poor saps as you can for as long as you can' news.

    https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1250373312015974400?s=20

    Last night Trump was vaunted on PB for his 'decisive' action over WHO funding. There's no accounting for taste.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 4,334
    TGOHF666 said:

    Perhaps the way to raise use of the contact tracing app is to embed it in commonly used apps - or have it pushed onto phones by operators ?

    My phone was not supplied to me by my operator therefore any attempt to push it to my phone would be an offence under the computer misuse act I would think.

    Please do not encourage governments to use surveillance apps and make them compulsory it is one measure I am damn sure would become permanent
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 2,475
    Pulpstar said:

    alex_ said:



    Somehow the language has to shift from measures being imposed being by govt edict, towards measures imposed by collective personal responsibility. So that the lockdown can come off but public behaviour doesn’t change significantly. And I can’t see how we get there.

    Trouble is that more nuanced messaging a la Japanese poster undermines the lockdown. So we just get “stay home save lives”.



    I don't really agree that a shift to "decide for yourself" (aka as personal responsibility) would be welcome in this situation - people are already confused (e.g. on how much walking is actually desirable, rather than grudgingly accepted) and if we all start making uo our own interpretations we'll end up with the least common denominator - which is likely to be more mixing than is healthy. I'd like clearer guidelines, not vaguer ones. That would conversely mean that people who were following them wouldn't get idiotically harassed, like being told it's OK to shop in a supermarket with non-essential goods, but not OK to buy them.

    I agree with you that collective gradual easing is tricky, though. Perhaps the model of cars on alternate days by licence plate could be used - if your name starts with A-F you can go out on Monday, etc. That would lend itself to gradual easing while still being clear.
    The car reg idea wouldn't work in our case as we do actually need to leave daily (Well one of us does) to tend to our animals, though we do have a letter for that.
    Surely the car reg idea will just promote car sharing, which is the opposite of social distancing? "I can't drive until Tuesday, Fred. Can you give me a lift today?"

    On the plus side, it could be a shot in the arm for the ailing motor trade as people buy a second car.

    Can we just agree that anyone with a vanity plate should not be allowed to drive at all?

  • ChrisChris Posts: 7,713
    ydoethur said:

    Chris said:

    Perhaps you could all devote your stellar wits to finding a solution to that relatively simple problem. You all seem to know so much about everything.

    Chris said:

    Floater said:

    Chris - just wondering why you think that by insulting people it would motivate them to offer you advice?

    I haven't asked anyone to give me advice about this. They are just holding forth of their own accord, and most of what they've said has been inaccurate and misleading.
    Precisely. That's what I just said. I suggested that people could devote their wits to finding a solution to the problem. I didn't ask for advice. And how right I was, given the nonsense that's just been posted here!
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 11,278

    Sunak thinks the British public will forgive him for the years of grinding austerity and joblessness they are being consigned to by his policies.

    A look at today's papers shows that notion is far, far from the case.

    Sunak's aim is presumably to avoid years of grinding austerity and joblessness.
This discussion has been closed.