Re: Coronavirus
 

If you actually bothered to read, You'll see I've agreed that we need to remove restrictions. my issue is that we're taking a big bang approach.


Where's your source to show that millions of people are 'sick of this crap' because the polling from various news sources shows that most people are not in favour of releasing the lockdown the way that Boris has.

---------- Post added at 08:11 ---------- Previous post was at 08:08 ----------

Whether i have lost a family member or not is of no relevance to how you acted in the situation. You COULD of explained the situation and asked them to do certain things.. instead you demanded that they wear masks on your property (laughable as you have no legal right to do this)

I don't think they will care one way or another if you use another supplier, especially when you come across as an entitled brat.

---------- Post added at 08:16 ---------- Previous post was at 08:11 ----------

This last line makes me wonder why Boris is introducing the passports. We know that the vaccines are highly effective protecting against hospitalizations and death. but they're not so good at protecting against transmission/infection.

It's the 'other large scale events' that concerns me, there's no clear definition of what that means.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Did he ? because the post i read stated 'he demanded that people wear masks on his property'

You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

He's entitled to the same leeway and understanding the hw showed to the person he made demands of? and then subsequently stated that he would take business elsewhere (because that makes a difference)

Anyhow, onto more interesting & important things.

How's Boris going to respond to Dominic's latest salvo ?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

We'll agree to disagree on the prior. On the latter, however, complete agreement.

We have two proven liars, one a former advisor, one the prime minister. the question begs is who is telling the truth.....

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Just IMHO but from Boris's demeanor on the press conference yesterday i got the feeling that he didn't want to proceed with 'Freedom Day' and had only done so due to either 1) losing face in front of the population 2) significant internal party rebellion. He looked nervous and again IMHO out of his depth.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

Boris (or whoever would be in charge if not him) is going to have a bad time whatever.



If he had rolled back or reduced Freedom Day then the press would call him cowardly not to proceed and highlight all the losses to businesses and holiday makers. They would highlight that while infections are rising other figures aren't. They would find real heart rending situations about wedding cancelled, visits to grandparents stopped and so on.


If a partial freedom the press would have pages about all the complexities for the new rules, how already struggling businesses now have extra burdens. Again they would find heart rending tales of how one part of a family can meet but others can't or unfairness because on one street, some families can enjoy life again but just next door they can't.


----
On the report about 80 year olds - again statistics, if you are told that you need to shut the whole country down to protect one (smallish) group of people what would you do? (Forget if you have 80+year old relatives or are 80+ yourself for a moment.) Especially if you can make provision for that group fairly easily? (I'm not saying that these actions are true or possible.)

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think he DID initially, but with the cases/hospitalizations increasing as we got closer he wanted to back out, but couldn't due to reasons 1 & 2 specified above. His performance yesterday was atrocious and should concern people.

---------- Post added at 10:20 ---------- Previous post was at 10:12 ----------


Regardless of situation I would rather do the right thing than continue and be called a coward. principles/ethics whatever you want to call it at least for me come into play.


On your second point. You're IMHO focusing on the wrong reasons. We didn't shut the country down to protect 80 year olds we kept locking down to protect the NHS from collapsing and to buy us time in the race to develop vaccines.

Have a think about case numbers/hospitalizations/deaths now and with the amount of people we have vaccinated. Now, take yourself back to a year ago and what would have happened had we not locked down, more than likely the magnitude of cases, subsequent hospitalisation & deaths would have collapsed the NHS and potentially more economic damage than we've sustained.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Re: Coronavirus
 

https://img.rasset.ie/00099dff-622.jpg

So... Boris & ? DC ? Savid Javid ?

---------- Post added at 11:15 ---------- Previous post was at 10:41 ----------

mixed messages from the government this morning.

Paul Scully announced on Tuesday morning that self-isolating after being told to by the app was a decision for individuals and employers.

Downing Street has dismissed suggestions from business minister Paul Scully that self-isolating when pinged by the Covid-19 app should be a matter for individuals and employers to decide.

It was “crucial” to self-isolate when told and business should be supporting employees to do so, Downing Street said.


Source: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-57898328

Here's the interesting thing, Paul Sculy is correct, there's no legal requirement to self isolate when pinged by the app, it's only a legal requirement when contacted via Track & Trace

Re: Coronavirus
 

I've already explained that he was (literally) in my face before I could do anything.

I have the right to insist that any precautions I deem necessary are respected on my property.

Seeing as your arrogant/rude attitude stinks so much, you have no right to insult anybody else. Just take a look back at how you've spoken to me and others, neuro diverse or otherwise.