Cable Forum
Page 34 of 64 « First 2430313233 34 3536373844 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   Coronavirus (OLD) (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33708712)

Hugh 13-05-2020 14:17
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36034845)
Don't you think that's a bit of an unnecessary risk for both you and her Hugh? Particularly the if she's doing other houses as well. Keep paying her out of your zillions and do the dusting yourself as you're kindly sole, plus retired/ nothing better to do ? ;)
We won’t be in the same rooms, she will supply cleaning cloths for each house and we will machine wash on high heat wash - if she didn’t come back to clean, she would have no income.

Sephiroth 13-05-2020 14:57
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36034928)
The Care Home scandal is just starting to blow up. It seems that one of the number of early mistakes was to transfer COVID-possible patients from hospitals to care homes with minimal mitigation of risk:

https://twitter.com/afneil/status/1260462206883450885



Seems even the Torygraph has had enough:

Care homes' soaring death rate blamed on 'reckless' order to take back Covid-19 patients
But does the above, which I accept, alter the fact that 60% of CV deaths are in hospitals that have all the facilities?

The angle I'm taking here is to question the sensationalising of care home deaths as a proportion of the total when the fully equipped hospital proportion is much higher.

Given that CV sufferers dwell in both places, wouldn't you expect thehospitals to do "better"?


downquark1 13-05-2020 14:59
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36034936)

Given that CV sufferers dwell in both places, wouldn't you expect thehospitals to do "better"?
No, everyone who has the worse symptoms gets moved to the hospital don't they?

Sephiroth 13-05-2020 15:01
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by downquark1 (Post 36034937)
No, everyone who has the worse symptoms gets moved to the hospital don't they?
So what's the scandal about the care homes? If they have the worst symptoms, they'd be moved to hospital where they would die based on the statistics. My real point is why the scandal if the 40% of deaths are in care homes?

downquark1 13-05-2020 15:10
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36034939)
So what's the scandal about the care homes? If they have the worst symptoms, they'd be moved to hospital where they would die based on the statistics. My real point is why the scandal if the 40% of deaths are in care homes?
The scandal seems to be they infected care homes and the staff didn't have the training or resources to cope. But then I would say is you shouldn't have been returning people to healthy carehomes, they should have been completely isolated.

I don't think you can compare carehome death stats to hospital stats as they are not logically equivalent samples. A care home has a high population of old people with nothing special about them. A hospital has a high population of people who are struggling badly with CoVid and need care.

ianch99 13-05-2020 15:53
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36034936)
But does the above, which I accept, alter the fact that 60% of CV deaths are in hospitals that have all the facilities?

The angle I'm taking here is to question the sensationalising of care home deaths as a proportion of the total when the fully equipped hospital proportion is much higher.

Given that CV sufferers dwell in both places, wouldn't you expect thehospitals to do "better"?

You use the term "sensationalising" unwisely. I understand your reluctance to criticise a Conservative Government but we are in a time where we need to trust that the Government is making the correct decisions and when they do not, and moreover are seen to be not, they are able to admit it, discuss the failings and quickly address the shortcomings.

The biggest issue we face is that this administration's policy team has its origins in the Vote Leave campaign where the concept of truth was wholly optional and misinformation & misdirection were deliberate strategy decisions.

Now is not the time to deceive the country. We need clear and honest communication from our Government.

Russ 13-05-2020 16:01
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36034945)
Y
Now is not the time to deceive the country. We need clear and honest communication from our Government.
We'll be waiting a LONG time for that. Boris is way out of his depth.

Sephiroth 13-05-2020 16:06
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by downquark1 (Post 36034942)
The scandal seems to be they infected care homes and the staff didn't have the training or resources to cope. But then I would say is you shouldn't have been returning people to healthy carehomes, they should have been completely isolated.

I don't think you can compare carehome death stats to hospital stats as they are not logically equivalent samples. A care home has a high population of old people with nothing special about them. A hospital has a high population of people who are struggling badly with CoVid and need care.
Well, I did ask at the outset of this sub-discussion whether or not I had misunderstood something! Basically the scandal is that there should have been any significant CV deaths at all in care homes.

---------- Post added at 16:06 ---------- Previous post was at 16:02 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36034945)
You use the term "sensationalising" unwisely. I understand your reluctance to criticise a Conservative Government but we are in a time where we need to trust that the Government is making the correct decisions and when they do not, and moreover are seen to be not, they are able to admit it, discuss the failings and quickly address the shortcomings.

The biggest issue we face is that this administration's policy team has its origins in the Vote Leave campaign where the concept of truth was wholly optional and misinformation & misdirection were deliberate strategy decisions.

Now is not the time to deceive the country. We need clear and honest communication from our Government.
You are wrong to bring politics into this - at least as far as I'm concerned. My assessment of sensationalism is the Torygraph's report on the matter. The article (behind paywall) does not go into the same rationale as Downquark, leaving it to the readers' imaginations.

Also you characterisation of this administration is true of any British government. They're all lying spinmasters.

The GE decided which bunch of spinmasters should govern us.

Right - that's straight now.

1andrew1 13-05-2020 16:28
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36034939)
So what's the scandal about the care homes?
Quote:
Boris Johnson under fire for guidance on care homes risk
Labour leader Keir Starmer says UK prime minister misled MPs as providers query £600m funds pledge
Boris Johnson was accused on Wednesday of misleading MPs over official advice about the spread of coronavirus in care homes, as he sought to fend off growing criticism by announcing an additional £600m in funding for infection control in the care sector.
Labour leader Keir Starmer accused Mr Johnson during prime minister’s questions of failing repeatedly to ensure care organisations had received adequate supplies of protective equipment such as face masks and gloves as well as testing for Covid-19.
Sir Keir went on to highlight earlier UK government advice that said it was “very unlikely” that people receiving care in a care home or the community would become infected with the virus. Asked by Sir Keir why this was the case the prime minister denied the accusation and said it “wasn’t true the advice said that”.
However, official guidance published by the government on February 25 stated: “It remains very unlikely that anyone receiving care in a care home or the community will become infected.” The advice was withdrawn on March 13.
https://www.ft.com/content/6d954e7d-...d-2783aa62c68c

And from yesterday
Quote:
Coronavirus: Care homes faced funding cut if they didn't take in COVID-19 patients
Sky News has seen letters which show local authorities threatened to withhold so-called uplift payments during the outbreak.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...ients-11986578

Pierre 13-05-2020 17:46
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36034949)
Key words being “Local Authority”

This is a fantastic piece of investigative journalism from Sky

Quote:
Keith Gray represents 250 care homes in the north east of England.

He said of the original policy: "I believe it was one of the major factors that caused the outbreaks in the care homes.

"We could never prove this but we believe it was one of the major factors.

"Other factors were maybe the staff, maybe people from outside that came into care homes."
That’s settled then?

Hom3r 13-05-2020 17:57
Re: Coronavirus
 
https://play.google.com/store/apps/d....nhsx.colocate


is the app for the COVID19 tracing, but its only IOW ATM.

I have installed it but it's not available to run yet.

1andrew1 13-05-2020 18:30
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36034956)
Key words being “Local Authority”
Is that relevant?

Hugh 13-05-2020 18:52
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36034949)
https://fullfact.org/health/coronavi...omes-guidance/
Quote:
Government guidance withdrawn in March did say it was ‘very unlikely’ people in care homes would be infected with Covid-19

13th May 2020

Carth 13-05-2020 19:07
Re: Coronavirus
 
Well . . racism rears its ugly head again

Who'd have thought it in these enlightened times we live in :rolleyes:


https://www.itv.com/news/2020-05-13/...hs-nhs-racism/

Pierre 13-05-2020 19:12
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36034960)
Is that relevant?
Depends if you’re blaming central government or not?

Taf 13-05-2020 19:26
Re: Coronavirus
 
1 Attachment(s)
I wonder why these clusters are forming in these areas?

Paul 13-05-2020 19:55
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36034967)
Well . . racism rears its ugly head again

Who'd have thought it in these enlightened times we live in :rolleyes:
Some people are always looking for someone else to B[L]AME.
No one knows why [it seems] some races may be more affected (not just in the UK).
Of course, lack of real facts has never stopped the media cooking up a sensational story. :rolleyes:

ianch99 13-05-2020 20:02
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36034947)
Well, I did ask at the outset of this sub-discussion whether or not I had misunderstood something! Basically the scandal is that there should have been any significant CV deaths at all in care homes.

---------- Post added at 16:06 ---------- Previous post was at 16:02 ----------



You are wrong to bring politics into this - at least as far as I'm concerned. My assessment of sensationalism is the Torygraph's report on the matter. The article (behind paywall) does not go into the same rationale as Downquark, leaving it to the readers' imaginations.

Also you characterisation of this administration is true of any British government. They're all lying spinmasters.

The GE decided which bunch of spinmasters should govern us.

Right - that's straight now.
I am not bringing politics into this, you are. By misrepresenting the truth to play down the mistakes made by a Government you support, you are being disingenuous. No, nothing is straight if you are unable to recognise the fundamental requirement for honesty in this situation.

Taf 13-05-2020 20:03
Re: Coronavirus
 
1 Attachment(s)
I think I may have solved it....

Pierre 13-05-2020 20:21
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36034967)
Well . . racism rears its ugly head again

Who'd have thought it in these enlightened times we live in :rolleyes:


https://www.itv.com/news/2020-05-13/...hs-nhs-racism/
Well I think it’s bollocks, BAME people appear to be more impacted, but there are genetic, social and occupational reasons not particularly racism.

Why are more people from BAME backgrounds dying from coronavirus? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52219070

Julian 13-05-2020 20:26
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36034975)
I am not bringing politics into this,
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch
The biggest issue we face is that this administration's policy team has its origins in the Vote Leave campaign where the concept of truth was wholly optional and misinformation & misdirection were deliberate strategy decisions.
:scratch:

Sephiroth 13-05-2020 20:34
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36034975)
I am not bringing politics into this, you are. By misrepresenting the truth to play down the mistakes made by a Government you support, you are being disingenuous. No, nothing is straight if you are unable to recognise the fundamental requirement for honesty in this situation.
Quote:
You are wrong to bring politics into this - at least as far as I'm concerned. My assessment of sensationalism is the Torygraph's report on the matter. The article (behind paywall) does not go into the same rationale as Downquark, leaving it to the readers' imaginations.

Also you characterisation of this administration is true of any British government. They're all lying spinmasters.

The GE decided which bunch of spinmasters should govern us.

Right - that's straight now.
I am astonished and disappointed with your somewhat insulting remarks. If you read what I wrote (re-quoted above). Of course I recognise the need for honesty and all governments are liars when they've got an indefensible position to protect.

jfman 13-05-2020 20:39
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taf (Post 36034969)
I wonder why these clusters are forming in these areas?
Non adherence to lockdown ;)

denphone 13-05-2020 20:47
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36034982)
Non adherence to lockdown ;)
And a lack of common sense of course.;)

Russ 13-05-2020 21:18
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36034967)
Well . . racism rears its ugly head again

Who'd have thought it in these enlightened times we live in :rolleyes:


https://www.itv.com/news/2020-05-13/...hs-nhs-racism/
It affects more men than women but that doesn’t seem to be making many headlines right now. Still, it’s a man’s world...

Pierre 13-05-2020 21:40
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36034985)
And a lack of common sense of course.;)
Could be construed as “racist”....................

ianch99 13-05-2020 22:46
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian (Post 36034979)
:scratch:
Truth hurts doesn't it :)

---------- Post added at 22:46 ---------- Previous post was at 22:28 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36034980)
I am astonished and disappointed with your somewhat insulting remarks. If you read what I wrote (re-quoted above). Of course I recognise the need for honesty and all governments are liars when they've got an indefensible position to protect.
Don't be astonished. Treating a report of 1000's of additional deaths in the care home sector as "sensationalist" was a mistake. Any report that discusses Government policy documents which set out guidance for transferring possible Covid-infected patients from hositials into the care home system without negative testing should be treated with the utmost seriousness.

Sephiroth 13-05-2020 23:11
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ianch99 (Post 36034989)
Truth hurts doesn't it :)

---------- Post added at 22:46 ---------- Previous post was at 22:28 ----------



Don't be astonished. Treating a report of 1000's of additional deaths in the care home sector as "sensationalist" was a mistake. Any report that discusses Government policy documents which set out guidance for transferring possible Covid-infected patients from hositials into the care home system without negative testing should be treated with the utmost seriousness.
You are accusing me of bias in this matter towards the Conservative government.

To back that up, you've mixed in my complaint that the Torygraph (among others) was headlining the 40% without any discussion of the cause(s). The article (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...us-fatalities/ link to the paywall) does not discuss government policy documents.

I also posed a question as to whether I had misunderstood anything in questioning the scandal. Accordingly, it was made clear by other (more reasonable people) that I had misunderstood the situation - namely I'd not taken into account the scandal of positive tested patients being moved into care homes.

You really need to back down and not politicise this matter nor insult me.

You can have the last word if you want.

RichardCoulter 14-05-2020 01:40
Re: Coronavirus
 
Just watched an interesting programme about how South Korea is dealing with the situation and 'only' had 259 deaths:

https://www.channel4.com/programmes/...beat-the-virus

---------- Post added at 01:40 ---------- Previous post was at 01:28 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by downquark1 (Post 36034744)
To use an analogy, the virus is a runaway train and the lockdown was a brake. Basically it has slowed down enough now you can release the brake a little.

If we release the lockdown and there is no difference then the lockdown was a mistake (although we didn't know that at the time, you only get reliable data on the virus after it has infected a lot of people - also the Chinese data was bullshit)
Thanks, so the lockdown was to delay the numbers of people getting the virus so that the NHS wasn't overwhelmed. Now that the peak has passed, people can go back to work (with cautionary measures) as the NHS will be able to cope with the inevitable number of extra people who will catch and/or die from Covid-19 and that the Government believes that this is worth it to protect the economy as any further damage to it would cause even more problems to our society.

Is that a fair summary?

downquark1 14-05-2020 08:46
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36034996)
Thanks, so the lockdown was to delay the numbers of people getting the virus so that the NHS wasn't overwhelmed. Now that the peak has passed, people can go back to work (with cautionary measures) as the NHS will be able to cope with the inevitable number of extra people who will catch and/or die from Covid-19 and that the Government believes that this is worth it to protect the economy as any further damage to it would cause even more problems to our society.

Is that a fair summary?
That's pretty much it. I will add that also people will start rebelling the longer they are locked down for no noticeable reason and with the data we've collected in this time this could give the technocrats more confidence they can predict and manage the situation.

Pierre 14-05-2020 10:04
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36034996)
Thanks, so the lockdown was to delay the numbers of people getting the virus so that the NHS wasn't overwhelmed.
That has been the one true and consistent message that has come from the CMO, CSO and Government and (Old Boy to be fair, although his message of same numbers dying was a bit off.)

It's only ever been about the NHS and making sure there was an ICU and Ventilator there for you if you needed it, and other NHS services for everyone.

Quote:
Now that the peak has passed, people can go back to work (with cautionary measures) as the NHS will be able to cope with the inevitable number of extra people who will catch and/or die from Covid-19 and that the Government believes that this is worth it to protect the economy as any further damage to it would cause even more problems to our society.

Is that a fair summary?
give that man a lollipop.

It's only taken 2 months but at least he has it now. Others on here should take note.

RichardCoulter 14-05-2020 11:00
Re: Coronavirus
 
Added
Quote:
Originally Posted by downquark1 (Post 36035000)
That's pretty much it. I will add that also people will start rebelling the longer they are locked down for no noticeable reason and with the data we've collected in this time this could give the technocrats more confidence they can predict and manage the situation.
Many thanks for confirming that i've understood this correctly; I have cognitive issues.

Do you know if there is there any good reason why France & Ireland are exempt from the quarantine requirements?

The EU are now saying that this should include every country in the EU and are threatening a legal challenge! Seems ridiculous as we only have 7 months to go:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...ine-exemption/

1andrew1 14-05-2020 11:33
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36034968)
Depends if you’re blaming central government or not?
Just answering Seph's question about the issues in care homes.

downquark1 14-05-2020 11:47
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36035010)
Added

Many thanks for confirming that i've understood this correctly; I have cognitive issues.

Do you know if there is there any good reason why France & Ireland are exempt from the quarantine requirements?

The EU are now saying that this should include every country in the EU and are threatening a legal challenge! Seems ridiculous as we only have 7 months to go:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...ine-exemption/
I suspect this is a political issue. I mean you can make arguments that there is no reason to exclude places that have the same level of infection and the same preventative measures. I don't understand enough to say one way or another.

Also I don't want to give the impression everything the government says is right and everything the scientists say is sacrosanct. There's already been blatant lies and manipulation from some sectors. It's not clear to me there is an overwhelmingly optimal strategy so there will be political disagreement.

Sephiroth 14-05-2020 11:47
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36035010)
Added

Many thanks for confirming that i've understood this correctly; I have cognitive issues.

Do you know if there is there any good reason why France & Ireland are exempt from the quarantine requirements?

The EU are now saying that this should include every country in the EU and are threatening a legal challenge! Seems ridiculous as we only have 7 months to go:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...ine-exemption/
As you'd expect me to say, all the more reason to sever completely from their jurisdiction.

However, from a CV perspective, while we're bound by the WA the EU is right. The Guvmin's announcement excluding the French from quarantine in the UK is arbitrary and I would expect better from them especially since it seems that Boris responded to a threat from Germany's running dog, France.

joglynne 14-05-2020 11:55
Re: Coronavirus
 
Public Health England have approved a new Roche test for coronavirus antibodies. It seems that the original test, which we ordered in early May, which was shown to have ......
Quote:
failed to come up to standard. The best were said to have been 70% accurate and most no more than 50%. Health secretary Matt Hancock, who had bought 3m of them, was said to be seeking the government’s money back.
...has now been improved and given a 100% accuracy rating at PHE's Porton Down Labs.


Quote:
The Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 serology test is processed in laboratories using Roche analysers that hospitals already have. Roche says its fully automated systems can provide results in approximately 18 minutes for one single test, with a capability to do 300 tests an hour, depending on the analyser.

Prof John Newton, national coordinator of the UK coronavirus testing programme, told the Telegraph that experts at PHE’s Porton Down labs had evaluated the test and confirmed the 100% accuracy.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/h...-a9513361.html

I just hope these tests really do work and that we will be able to see whether the antibodies have a long life span, whether mild cases can even develop the antibodies and hopefully see whether we are any where near to herd immunity. If they can be used to get results on people who had a recorded positive test for CV19 early on it may give us a small measure of hope.

pip08456 14-05-2020 11:59
Re: Coronavirus
 
This is an interesting development.

Coronavirus: New 100% accurate COVID-19 antibody test approved for use in UK

1andrew1 14-05-2020 12:00
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by joglynne (Post 36035022)
Public Health England have approved a new Roche test for coronavirus antibodies. It seems that the original test, which we ordered in early May, which was shown to have ...... ...has now been improved and given a 100% accuracy rating at PHE's Porton Down Labs.


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/h...-a9513361.html

I just hope these tests really do work and that we will be able to see whether the antibodies have a long life span, whether mild cases can even develop the antibodies and hopefully see whether we are any where near to herd immunity. If they can be used to get results on people who had a recorded positive test for CV19 early on it may give us a small measure of hope.
Sounds promising. :)

Carth 14-05-2020 12:02
Re: Coronavirus
 
Always strikes me as suspicious that a test, done by a professional body, can suddenly change from 50% accuracy to 100% accuracy.

Makes me wonder where the original failing was, and what else they've got wrong over the last few months



aaah, seems I misunderstood the post by joglynne, and this is a new test, not the old one revisited

denphone 14-05-2020 12:06
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36035024)
Sounds promising. :)
As jo says it gives us hope..

pip08456 14-05-2020 12:08
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36035025)
Always strikes me as suspicious that a test, done by a professional body, can suddenly change from 50% accuracy to 100% accuracy.

Makes me wonder where the original failing was, and what else they've got wrong over the last few months
Different test kits from different producers? Test kits revised?

Carth 14-05-2020 12:14
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36035028)
Different test kits from different producers? Test kits revised?
Already edited my post to admit a slight reading error ;)

jfman 14-05-2020 12:23
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36035008)
give that man a lollipop.

It's only taken 2 months but at least he has it now. Others on here should take note.
Take note of what exactly? The Government haven't extended the furlough scheme til October because this is over, not by a long shot.

The Government and still significantly restricting the numbers and types of social interactions that it wants to take place, and will continue to do so for the rest of 2020.

joglynne 14-05-2020 12:53
Re: Coronavirus
 
I think the original test was based on a self applied pin prick test which from past experience is not as accurate as a blood tests taken as an Arterial sample or the most commonly used, and less painful, Venipuncture Sampling. I suspect that using the Venipuncture sampling method is what has give the test a better end result.

To be honest I am only basing my theory on my experiences of using a prick test versus a V sample when obtaining accurate blood glucose levels. So don't try to engage me any scientific arguments 'cause I not joining in on this treads play times.. :D

Add/ I certainly hope they don't use Arterial testing as that is what I have when I have my quarterly checkup on the state of my immune system problem and that way of obtaining a sample is bloody painful.

Sephiroth 14-05-2020 13:04
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36035031)
Take note of what exactly? The Government haven't extended the furlough scheme til October because this is over, not by a long shot.

The Government and still significantly restricting the numbers and types of social interactions that it wants to take place, and will continue to do so for the rest of 2020.
This is where Guvmin's fingers crossed (end of October) meets your vision of reality.

jfman 14-05-2020 13:29
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36035033)
This is where Guvmin's fingers crossed (end of October) meets your vision of reality.
Even if the furlough scheme manages to close in October (which is not guaranteed) there will still be restrictions. Working from home, mass gatherings, etc.

Obviously, we know capitalists really like corporate socialism so Comrade Rishi doesn't want to stand there and promise it longer term and have some companies continue to rely on it unnecessarily. In October they will want to keep it to a minimum where those businesses can't open for safety reasons rather than commercial ones.

denphone 14-05-2020 13:37
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36035034)
Even if the furlough scheme manages to close in October (which is not guaranteed) there will still be restrictions. Working from home, mass gatherings, etc.
l suspect there will be a ban on mass gatherings until a vaccine for the virus is found so we could be talking about a fairly long period before mass gatherings are allowed again.

pip08456 14-05-2020 13:47
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36035036)
l suspect there will be a ban on mass gatherings until a virus is found so we could be talking about a fairly long period before mass gatherings are allowed again.
I think you made a slight mistake there Den. The virus has been found.;)

denphone 14-05-2020 13:54
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36035038)
I think you made a slight mistake there Den. The virus has been found.;)
Sorry a vaccine for the virus l meant pip.:dunce:;)

RichardCoulter 14-05-2020 13:58
Re: Coronavirus
 
The virus has been found in sperm:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexand.../#52f3d9063731

Let's hope that it can't be sexually transmitted. Having said that, if people are making love, they will be in very close contact anyway, so it might not make much difference.

jfman 14-05-2020 14:03
Re: Coronavirus
 
It's big, but not so big as to allow me to be outside two metres.

Sephiroth 14-05-2020 14:06
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardCoulter (Post 36035041)
The virus has been found in sperm:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexand.../#52f3d9063731

Let's hope that it can't be sexually transmitted. Having said that, if people are making love, they will be in very close contact anyway, so it might not make much difference.
Someone had to spot that one!

Carth 14-05-2020 14:20
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36035043)
It's big, but not so big as to allow me to be outside two metres.
oh cheers mate . . . . . well cleaning the coffee from my monitor will at least give me something to do :D

Mick 14-05-2020 15:00
Re: Coronavirus
 
BREAKING: Cable Forum Co-owner, Mick, has tested “Negative” for Covid-19.

I was tested earlier this week and will be tested on a regular basis with working in the healthcare sector.

Phew. For now. :D

denphone 14-05-2020 15:01
Re: Coronavirus
 
That is a relief Mick.:tu:

Hugh 14-05-2020 15:33
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36035047)
BREAKING: Cable Forum Co-owner, Mick, has tested “Negative” for Covid-19.

I was tested earlier this week and will be tested on a regular basis with working in the healthcare sector.

Phew. For now. :D
:cleader::clap:

joglynne 14-05-2020 17:25
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36035047)
BREAKING: Cable Forum Co-owner, Mick, has tested “Negative” for Covid-19.

I was tested earlier this week and will be tested on a regular basis with working in the healthcare sector.

Phew. For now. :D
Carry on being safe Mick and remember to be a lert.

OK, getting my coat and exiting stage left. XXX

BenMcr 14-05-2020 17:48
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36035047)
BREAKING: Cable Forum Co-owner, Mick, has tested “Negative” for Covid-19.

I was tested earlier this week and will be tested on a regular basis with working in the healthcare sector.

Phew. For now. :D
Glad to hear that. Long may it continue :)

Kursk 14-05-2020 18:31
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36035047)
BREAKING: Cable Forum Co-owner, Mick, has tested “Negative” for Covid-19.

I was tested earlier this week and will be tested on a regular basis with working in the healthcare sector.

Phew. For now. :D
Great news Mick; stay safe mate :)

pip08456 14-05-2020 18:34
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36035047)
BREAKING: Cable Forum Co-owner, Mick, has tested “Negative” for Covid-19.

I was tested earlier this week and will be tested on a regular basis with working in the healthcare sector.

Phew. For now. :D
Hope your future tests reamin the same.

Carth 14-05-2020 19:07
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36035047)
BREAKING: Cable Forum Co-owner, Mick, has tested “Negative” for Covid-19.

I was tested earlier this week and will be tested on a regular basis with working in the healthcare sector.

Phew. For now. :D
Nice one Mick, couldn't happen to a nicer bloke ...



. . . *casually checks if a new bronze rep star has appeared* :naughty:


Seriously though, great news and hope many more of us get similar news in the next few weeks :)

Maggy 14-05-2020 19:49
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36035047)
BREAKING: Cable Forum Co-owner, Mick, has tested “Negative” for Covid-19.

I was tested earlier this week and will be tested on a regular basis with working in the healthcare sector.

Phew. For now. :D
:cleader::cleader::cleader:

ianch99 14-05-2020 20:37
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36034991)
You are accusing me of bias in this matter towards the Conservative government.

To back that up, you've mixed in my complaint that the Torygraph (among others) was headlining the 40% without any discussion of the cause(s). The article (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...us-fatalities/ link to the paywall) does not discuss government policy documents.

I also posed a question as to whether I had misunderstood anything in questioning the scandal. Accordingly, it was made clear by other (more reasonable people) that I had misunderstood the situation - namely I'd not taken into account the scandal of positive tested patients being moved into care homes.

You really need to back down and not politicise this matter nor insult me.

You can have the last word if you want.
I think you are conflating being insulted with being told by someone you are wrong.

Mr K 14-05-2020 20:55
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36035034)
Even if the furlough scheme manages to close in October (which is not guaranteed) there will still be restrictions. Working from home, mass gatherings, etc.

Obviously, we know capitalists really like corporate socialism so Comrade Rishi doesn't want to stand there and promise it longer term and have some companies continue to rely on it unnecessarily. In October they will want to keep it to a minimum where those businesses can't open for safety reasons rather than commercial ones.
There is a plan. Send the riff raff back to work, and see how many deaths occur. It's a nothing lost litmus test for the Tory boys, to see if it's safe for them to come out yet.

Carth 14-05-2020 21:23
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36035083)
There is a plan. Send the riff raff back to work, and see how many deaths occur. It's a nothing lost litmus test for the Tory boys, to see if it's safe for them to come out yet.
riff raff?

Quite a few of the riff raff (not NHS) have been busy working since day one, ensuring people like you have food & drink, a fresh water supply, the power required to heat and light your home (and run your computer), and even take all your rubbish away.

They may be low paid, have a very basic education, and quite possibly don't speak much English . . . but they're currently worth a lot more to the country than you Mr K

riff raff :rolleyes:

Pierre 14-05-2020 21:28
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36035083)
There is a plan. Send the riff raff back to work, and see how many deaths occur. It's a nothing lost litmus test for the Tory boys, to see if it's safe for them to come out yet.
You know, you’ll die a bitter old man with all that bottled up hatred.

Mrs Pierre is going back to work and she isn’t Riff Rafi. As per a previous post of yours, regarding cleaners ( or which we have one) you have a very outdated idea of What working class/ middles class is nowadays as it is not like it was in the 70’s, where it would appear you still reside.

I don’t think those terms are relevant any longer.

jfman 14-05-2020 21:41
Re: Coronavirus
 
Watching Channel 4s “The Country that beat the virus”. Plenty of lessons to be had, looks like a relative bargain compared to Comrade Rishi’s furlough scheme, never mind 35% of GDP.

---------- Post added at 21:41 ---------- Previous post was at 21:32 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36035091)
I don’t think those terms are relevant any longer.
Someone who supports (or sorry doesn’t - regularly leaps to the defence of?) the party that has increased inequality wants to remove the terminology that defines it from regular discourse.

As interesting as it is contemptible.

1andrew1 14-05-2020 21:51
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36035047)
BREAKING: Cable Forum Co-owner, Mick, has tested “Negative” for Covid-19.

I was tested earlier this week and will be tested on a regular basis with working in the healthcare sector.

Phew. For now. :D
Great news and even better news that you and your colleagues have the reassurance of regular testing. :clap:

---------- Post added at 21:51 ---------- Previous post was at 21:49 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36035038)
I think you made a slight mistake there Den. The virus has been found.;)
:D Lol. Not normally much to laugh at on this thread.

Damien 15-05-2020 10:31
Re: Coronavirus
 
Looks like a much more interventionist stance on obesity will be coming in the aftermath of the viru: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...care-flgswhmvx

Chris 15-05-2020 10:39
Re: Coronavirus
 
A comment copied over from the Keir Starmer thread:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36035126)
Can I recommend that you apply for a position with Dominic Cummings?

Your ability to spin from one subject to the next, ignoring any previous point you may have made, would fit right in with him... ;)

And as Den said, Sir Patrick Vallance, the government's chief scientific adviser, said 20,000 would be a good outcome, so your second point has been addressed as well.
The Vallance quote is however lacking context.

It was made on best evidence at the time, but it was made at a specific and quite early stage of the crisis and was not qualified in any way as far as I can see. Did he offer 20,000 as a pinpoint for 'good' beyond which all is 'bad', or is it at the lower, mid or upper range of a scale of 'good'? How far beyond it is 'meh'? At what point do we hit 'truly awful'?

And ultimately, are we more interested in whether it's 20,000 extremely sick people who would have died this year anyway but now have Covid-19 on their death certificate too, or are we interested in an 'excess death' figure that tries to get closer to the actual impact on the size and health of the population?

I'm not trying to obfuscate here; simply pointing out that regardless of who it was who stood up and said '20,000' its value in isolation is strictly limited. And also that cold, dispassionate statistics, collated many months from now, are the only things that can actually give us a good idea how good or bad the government's response was.

jfman 15-05-2020 10:40
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36035136)
Looks like a much more interventionist stance on obesity will be coming in the aftermath of the viru: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...care-flgswhmvx
Nice deflection by the Government. It's the fault of people that they are fat and died from Coronavirus, not that we didn't put in place internationally recognised and established methodologies for containing a virus.

Sephiroth 15-05-2020 10:45
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36035140)
Nice deflection by the Government. It's the fault of people that they are fat and died from Coronavirus, not that we didn't put in place internationally recognised and established methodologies for containing a virus.
If that's not your occasional sarcasm, jfman, that's a pretty cruel judgement made by you.

People aren't necessarily to blame in the way you imply for being fat, nor could they have foreseen CV.

Perhaps you could elaborate and further elucidate.


---------- Post added at 10:45 ---------- Previous post was at 10:44 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36035083)
There is a plan. Send the riff raff back to work, and see how many deaths occur. It's a nothing lost litmus test for the Tory boys, to see if it's safe for them to come out yet.
Might you remove the word "Liberal" from your caption?

Carth 15-05-2020 10:49
Re: Coronavirus
 
To be fair, we the public are made well aware of the health problems that can result from being overweight . . and smoking . . and excessive alcohol

Damien 15-05-2020 11:26
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36035144)
To be fair, we the public are made well aware of the health problems that can result from being overweight . . and smoking . . and excessive alcohol
True but this pandemic shows the degree to which an individual's health is of concern to wider society and the state. The unhealthier the population as a whole is the greater burden on the NHS and the more it costs us in terms of capacity of that service and the cost to provide it.

We're still going to have to depend on personal responsibility but the Government doing what it can to encourage that and help people can't hurt.

I was thinking the other day in how smoking is a known risk factor, how we've had a decade of aggressive government intervention to slower the rates of smoking and how many lives may have been saved as a result.

If we see a similar success to that in obesity then in a decade's time we'll have fewer rates of people being admitted in in-patient and out-patient care.

jfman 15-05-2020 12:39
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36035141)
[COLOR="Blue"]If that's not your occasional sarcasm, jfman, that's a pretty cruel judgement made by you.

People aren't necessarily to blame in the way you imply for being fat, nor could they have foreseen CV.

Perhaps you could elaborate and further elucidate.
Sorry I forgot quotation marks. I was paraphrasing the sentiment of the article, and other articles, that I view as deflecting from the pertinent questions around this. Testing and contact tracing.

We get this right and the lockdown is worth it. We get this wrong and we will be back in lockdown by August.

Sephiroth 15-05-2020 12:47
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36035156)
Sorry I forgot quotation marks. I was paraphrasing the sentiment of the article, and other articles, that I view as deflecting from the pertinent questions around this. Testing and contact tracing.

We get this right and the lockdown is worth it. We get this wrong and we will be back in lockdown by August.
"Padawan"!

Hugh 15-05-2020 13:09
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36035139)
A comment copied over from the Keir Starmer thread:




The Vallance quote is however lacking context.

It was made on best evidence at the time, but it was made at a specific and quite early stage of the crisis and was not qualified in any way as far as I can see. Did he offer 20,000 as a pinpoint for 'good' beyond which all is 'bad', or is it at the lower, mid or upper range of a scale of 'good'? How far beyond it is 'meh'? At what point do we hit 'truly awful'?

And ultimately, are we more interested in whether it's 20,000 extremely sick people who would have died this year anyway but now have Covid-19 on their death certificate too, or are we interested in an 'excess death' figure that tries to get closer to the actual impact on the size and health of the population?

I'm not trying to obfuscate here; simply pointing out that regardless of who it was who stood up and said '20,000' its value in isolation is strictly limited. And also that cold, dispassionate statistics, collated many months from now, are the only things that can actually give us a good idea how good or bad the government's response was.
I agree with your points - however, my response was to a post which stated
Quote:
No one could possibly know what a “good “ outcome for the U.K. would or could have been
I was pointing out this was not congruent with actuality, as senior Government officials actually had.

1andrew1 15-05-2020 13:27
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36035136)
Looks like a much more interventionist stance on obesity will be coming in the aftermath of the viru: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...care-flgswhmvx
It's an interesting change from last July when there was talk of revering the sugar tax and rolling back the "nanny state".
Quote:
Boris Johnson will end the “continuing creep of the nanny state” if he becomes prime minister, starting with a review of so-called “sin taxes” on sugary, salty and fatty foods.
The former foreign secretary wants to reverse the interventionist policies pursued by Theresa May and David Cameron in favour of a more liberal agenda.
He believes that taxes on less healthy foods “clobber those who can least afford it” and should be halted unless there is clear evidence that they work.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...in-taxes-food/

pip08456 15-05-2020 13:38
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36035156)
Sorry I forgot quotation marks. I was paraphrasing the sentiment of the article, and other articles, that I view as deflecting from the pertinent questions around this. Testing and contact tracing.

We get this right and the lockdown is worth it. We get this wrong and we will be back in lockdown by August.
Trump doesn't agree with you.

"When you test, you have a case. When you test, you find something is wrong with people. If we didn't do any testing we would have very few cases."

jfman 15-05-2020 13:50
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36035161)
Trump doesn't agree with you.

"When you test, you have a case. When you test, you find something is wrong with people. If we didn't do any testing we would have very few cases."
I'm delighted to be on the wrong side of the fence in this case. :D

Pierre 15-05-2020 15:02
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36035158)
I was pointing out this was not congruent with actuality, as senior Government officials actually had.
The CSA (not Government) in a commons hearing on March 18th (or around then) said when compared to annual flu deaths of 8,000 then 20,000 would be a good outcome.

But this was when the epidemic was in its infancy, WHO had only declared the pandemic 10 days before and only 81 people had died in the UK.

So he was foolish to make that statement, Professor Chris Whitty, has continually refused to put a figure on it.

Russ 15-05-2020 15:16
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36035136)
Looks like a much more interventionist stance on obesity will be coming in the aftermath of the viru: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...care-flgswhmvx
I wish them luck. See the queues outside McDonalds, KFC, Burger King, or whatever when their drive through reopened?

jfman 15-05-2020 15:31
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36035169)
The CSA (not Government) in a commons hearing on March 18th (or around then) said when compared to annual flu deaths of 8,000 then 20,000 would be a good outcome.

But this was when the epidemic was in its infancy, WHO had only declared the pandemic 10 days before and only 81 people had died in the UK.

So he was foolish to make that statement, Professor Chris Whitty, has continually refused to put a figure on it.
Of course the delay in the fact it was declared a pandemic ten days earlier is irrelevant. It was complete semantics, due to the absence of sustained community transmission in South America.

The epidemic was far underway in Europe, and the UK, by then. The absence of community to community transmission in South America a complete irrelevance to what we could/should have been doing.

'Only 81' people had died should have been alarm bells ringing everywhere. If we follow your logic, and in fact I'm sure the Conservatives will, every policy failure can be fobbed off at the result of a nameless, faceless bureaucrat in Whitehall.

Paul 15-05-2020 15:46
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36035136)
Looks like a much more interventionist stance on obesity will be coming in the aftermath of the viru: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...care-flgswhmvx
Ah yes, more state inteference, because that always works. :dozey:

1andrew1 15-05-2020 16:04
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36035173)
Ah yes, more state inteference, because that always works. :dozey:
Probably tiny compared to the state interference that has brought the R rate to less than 1.

Taf 15-05-2020 16:14
Re: Coronavirus
 
I think we should remember that all this stuff we are buying from the shops is coming from warehouses. And they are possibly not receiving new stock in from manufacturers as many production centres are not running both here and abroad.

That's why the world needs to get back to work.

Rationing anyone?

Damien 15-05-2020 16:20
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36035173)
Ah yes, more state inteference, because that always works. :dozey:
But the intervention on smoking shows it can work. Public health campaigns, the taxation and the ban on smoking in pubs reduced the rates of smoking.

The Governments has quite a few tools at it's disposal to help influence public behaviour.

jfman 15-05-2020 16:39
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taf (Post 36035176)
I think we should remember that all this stuff we are buying from the shops is coming from warehouses. And they are possibly not receiving new stock in from manufacturers as many production centres are not running both here and abroad.

That's why the world needs to get back to work.

Rationing anyone?
It's not why the world needs to go back to work. It's why some need to go back to work, and others need to do what they can to facilitate that happening safely.

Sephiroth 15-05-2020 16:41
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36035180)
It's not why the world needs to go back to work. It's why some need to go back to work, and others need to do what they can to facilitate that happening safely.
... but Taf has a point.

denphone 15-05-2020 16:43
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36035182)
... but Taf has a point.
Yes but it must be done safely don't you agree?.

Sephiroth 15-05-2020 16:52
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36035183)
Yes but it must be done safely don't you agree?.
I was addressing Taf's point about warehouses and rationing.

Getting back to work to refill our warehouses prolly doesn't just depend on the UK. But you're obviously right.

jfman 15-05-2020 16:56
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36035182)
... but Taf has a point.
In an ideal world, yes, of course it'd be great if I could click my fingers and go back to normal. I'd much rather be in a city centre pub having a pint rather than drinking a post work beer in my spare room chatting with you on an internet forum :)

We get back to normal sooner by reducing the virus to near zero, with a competent (and massive) track, test, trace, isolate system in place. In the absence of these we are essentially relying on sheer luck that community transmission doesn't get out of control. If it did, a further lockdown would be inevitable.

The idea of thousands of deaths per day and everyone waking up on the weekend and going for a needless trip into towns and cities for non-essential shopping, bars, restaurants, cafes, cinemas is simply ridiculous. All of these being areas where staff will simply be let go. For a start tens of thousands will have funerals to go to.

The economy simply tanks either way.

Hugh 15-05-2020 16:58
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pip08456 (Post 36035161)
Trump doesn't agree with you.

"When you test, you have a case. When you test, you find something is wrong with people. If we didn't do any testing we would have very few cases."
By that "logic", if women didn’t have a pregnancy test, there would be very few pregnancies... :D

Also, in that case, why is he getting tested every day?

Carth 15-05-2020 17:00
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36035177)
But the intervention on smoking shows it can work. Public health campaigns, the taxation and the ban on smoking in pubs reduced the rates of smoking.

The Governments has quite a few tools at it's disposal to help influence public behaviour.
A large percentage of the population were anti smoking to start with, raising the cost of smoking and banning it in enclosed areas did the trick.

I'm sure if the Government massively hiked the tax on fast food, and then closed down 80% of the outlets, there would be a little bit of an uproar from the masses.

1andrew1 15-05-2020 17:09
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36035190)
A large percentage of the population were anti smoking to start with, raising the cost of smoking and banning it in enclosed areas did the trick.

I'm sure if the Government massively hiked the tax on fast food, and then closed down 80% of the outlets, there would be a little bit of an uproar from the masses.
Taxation can work in both directions. You could, for example, reduce it on things like gym membership and bicycles.

Carth 15-05-2020 17:12
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36035191)
Taxation can work in both directions. You could, for example, reduce it on things like gym membership and bicycles.
Correct me if I appear to have this wrong, but I'm going to presume that the majority of those who eat regular MaccyD, Burger King, etc will have no thoughts about going to a gym . . no matter what the price.

Lower tax on their staple diet will probably allow them to eat more of it though :D

1andrew1 15-05-2020 17:48
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36035193)
Correct me if I appear to have this wrong, but I'm going to presume that the majority of those who eat regular MaccyD, Burger King, etc will have no thoughts about going to a gym . . no matter what the price.

Lower tax on their staple diet will probably allow them to eat more of it though :D
Compulsory bicycle racks at fast food restaurants? All those venues are fine in moderation.

jfman 15-05-2020 17:58
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36035194)
Compulsory bicycle racks at fast food restaurants? All those venues are fine in moderation.
Too conservative (small 'c'). But them 3 miles along the end of a cycle route. It's either a six mile trek or cycle. :)

jfman 15-05-2020 23:39
Re: Coronavirus
 
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...mid=tw-nytimes

Some interesting reading. Despite 'remaining open' the Swedish economy is contracting. It's almost as if consumer confidence is crashing the economy.

Paul 16-05-2020 03:14
Re: Coronavirus
 
Cases (In England) for the last 3 months.

https://www.cableforum.uk/images/local/2020/05/3.png


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 22:48.
Page 34 of 64 « First 2430313233 34 3536373844 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum