Cable Forum
Page 3 of 86 12 3 45671353 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 (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33709417)

jfman 14-10-2020 19:22
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36053707)
Who cares what other countries are doing? We want a solution, not a lot of pussy-footing around.

It was by following what other countries are doing which has got us into this mess.
It's actually British exceptionalism that got us into that mess. We looked at Italy and decided that wouldn't happen to us.

But continue in your deluded reality. I'm enjoying reading it.

Another question - minimum wage worker - 48 - COPD and diabetes. You claim you want to shield them - would you support the Government paying them to stay at home while this farce played out?

OLD BOY 14-10-2020 19:24
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053706)
Old Boy has been clear since the start in fairness. He values human lives at less than the fraction of a percentage point on GDP this would lessen out economic decline by.

Here's one for Old Boy how deadly does a virus have to be before you put health first (bearing in mind your twisted view that there actually is a choice - there isn't). 1%? 5%? 10%?

What about longer term health implications - 10% of the population. 25%?

Or am I right that you'd never put health first?
Maybe you should try listening to the arguments and responding meaningfully to them instead of arguing and putting words into the mouths of others in an attempt to skew the arguments.

Lockdowns are still resulting in deaths and prolonging the life of the virus.

Hugh 14-10-2020 19:26
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36053707)
Who cares what other countries are doing? We want a solution, not a lot of pussy-footing around.

It was by following what other countries are doing which has got us into this mess.

---------- Post added at 19:22 ---------- Previous post was at 19:19 ----------



Not exactly, Hugh, you haven’t quite got it. My solution was to protect the elderly and the vulnerable, remember? The healthy population has little to worry about, so why lock them down?

We have tried the scattergun approach, and look where we are now.
Unless you put the vulnerable (GOV.UK quoted 2.2 million) in almost totally sterile conditions (which include elderly, immune disorders, severe asthma, COPD, people on cancer meds, etc.,) how do you stop the carers/families infecting them?

Could you cite evidence, please, showing where "The healthy population has little to worry about" - what about long COVID?

We are 9 months into a pandemic, and we don't know how this will affect people in medium to long term, but your approach seems to be "it'll be fine" - I haven't seen you provide evidence to support this?

OLD BOY 14-10-2020 19:26
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053709)
It's actually British exceptionalism that got us into that mess. We looked at Italy and decided that wouldn't happen to us.

But continue in your deluded reality. I'm enjoying reading it.
Who so decided? From the time we saw what was happening in Wuhan, we all had a fear of what was coming down the line if it got out of China.

jfman 14-10-2020 19:29
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36053710)
Maybe you should try listening to the arguments and responding meaningfully to them instead of arguing and putting words into the mouths of others in an attempt to skew the arguments.

Lockdowns are still resulting in deaths and prolonging the life of the virus.
Not a single word of this post is true, such to the extent I do not know where to start. I

've told you, many times, how wrong you are and what the solutions are. However, you continue to leap from pipe dream to pipe dream, and ignore the tried and tested playbook on managing a pandemic.

---------- Post added at 19:29 ---------- Previous post was at 19:27 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36053712)
Who so decided? From the time we saw what was happening in Wuhan, we all had a fear of what was coming down the line if it got out of China.
That'd odd, because that's not my recollection. It wouldn't happen to us. Multi-generational households, different healthcare systems and myth to myth ignoring the imminent and obvious reality. A bit like now.

OLD BOY 14-10-2020 19:37
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36053711)
Unless you put the vulnerable in almost totally sterile conditions (which include elderly, immune disorders, COPD, people on cancer meds, etc.,) how do you stop the carers/families infecting them?

Could you cite evidence, please, showing where "The healthy population has little to worry about" - what about long COVID?

We are 9 months into a pandemic, and we don't know how this will affect people in medium to long term, but your approach seems to be "it'll be fine" - I haven't seen you provide evidence to support this?
There is absolutely no evidence that long COVID is going to cause problems in a significant number of cases. Yes, it is there, but this is all about taking the least worst option.

By the way, if you are trying to tell us we can’t protect the vulnerable, then I have to ask - what is the point of a lockdown?

---------- Post added at 19:37 ---------- Previous post was at 19:33 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053713)

That'd odd, because that's not my recollection. It wouldn't happen to us. Multi-generational households, different healthcare systems and myth to myth ignoring the imminent and obvious reality. A bit like now.
Is that what you thought, jfman? Well, in which case you were wrong, weren’t you?

jfman 14-10-2020 19:40
Re: Coronavirus
 
I fail to see how you've came to that conclusion. Maybe best to put the keyboard down for a bit since 'herd immunity' continues to be a scientifically discredited model for dealing with Covid-19 you probably don't have much insight to offer over the next few months.

---------- Post added at 19:40 ---------- Previous post was at 19:39 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36053715)
By the way, if you are trying to tell us we can’t protect the vulnerable, then I have to ask - what is the point of a lockdown?
:D

Tell me this is a joke question. Please you can't be serious. Just listen to your beloved Boris - he explains it quite clearly by his usual standards.

denphone 14-10-2020 19:41
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36053700)
Ah, people who want to protect the vulnerable and are concerned about the unknown dangers of long COVID are "pussies’?

Nice to see rational, reasoned arguments being put forward...

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...6&d=1602698716
That is experts for you.;)

OLD BOY 14-10-2020 19:44
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053713)
Not a single word of this post is true, such to the extent I do not know where to start. I

've told you, many times, how wrong you are and what the solutions are. However, you continue to leap from pipe dream to pipe dream, and ignore the tried and tested playbook on managing a pandemic.now.
You might have told me ‘how wrong I am’, but you don’t answer my responses because you cannot. You just want to sneer and make trouble.

I don’t know whether you believe what you are saying or whether you are just sniping.

I do understand the arguments for lockdowns. However, my point is that they don’t work and they cause additional disruption, pain and deaths in their wake. But you don’t address these concerns.

If we could rely on a vaccine by the end of the year, you might have an argument. But that is extremely unlikely, and jfman’s normal refrain is that we should just continue with a lockdown. Forever....

I can’t see many people agreeing with that.

jfman 14-10-2020 19:47
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36053720)
You might have told me ‘how wrong I am’, but you don’t answer my responses because you cannot. You just want to sneer and make trouble.

I don’t know whether you believe what you are saying or whether you are just sniping.

I do understand the arguments for lockdowns.
You evidently do not, hence asking the question a mere two posts ago.

Quote:
However, my point is that they don’t work and they cause additional disruption, pain and deaths in their wake. But you don’t address these concerns.

If we could rely on a vaccine by the end of the year, you might have an argument. But that is extremely unlikely, and jfman’s normal refrain is that we should just continue with a lockdown. Forever....

I can’t see many people agreeing with that.
Please find a single post where I advocated this. I'll wait...

I don't know how your arguments benefit by obviously misrepresenting mine. I've been consistent since February while you've leapt from pipe dream to pipe dream. While many disagree with me, they'll all at least agree I've been consistent and I've never said what you portray above.

Paul 14-10-2020 20:09
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053722)
they'll all at least agree I've been consistent .
I agree, you've definitely been consistently argumentative :D

OLD BOY 14-10-2020 20:12
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053321)

The answer to your question at the end is as many lockdowns as it takes to get a vaccine.

:
You hinted at having a lockdown for a very long time in the above answer, but you were more explicit in the previous coronavirus thread, but I’m not trawling through all that to prove the point. You know what you have said.

I’m getting off this annoying merry-go-round now. I don’t think anyone has anything new to add.

jfman 14-10-2020 20:15
Re: Coronavirus
 
You're going to have to do better than 'hinted at' OB.

---------- Post added at 20:15 ---------- Previous post was at 20:14 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36053728)
I agree, you've definitely been consistently argumentative :D
I'll take this as a polite nudge for the evening. :D

OLD BOY 14-10-2020 20:17
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053732)
You're going to have to do better than 'hinted at' OB.
No, I don’t.

:walk:

jfman 14-10-2020 22:20
Re: Coronavirus
 
Not sure if this got picked up:

https://twitter.com/paulbranditv/sta...712959489?s=21

Quote:
NEW: 68% of people support a circuit breaker lockdown during half term, according to new @YouGov poll. That includes 65% of Conservative voters.

That's the scientists, the opposition and now the public all putting pressure on the PM to do a u-turn.
I’m curious just exactly who makes up the minority opposed to this temporary measure. The young and invincible, parasitic property developers, finance sector, airlines, pubs. Anyone else I’ve missed?

Sephiroth 14-10-2020 22:26
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36053700)
Ah, people who want to protect the vulnerable and are concerned about the unknown dangers of long COVID are "pussies’?

Nice to see rational, reasoned arguments being put forward...
https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showpost.php?p=36053686&postcount=187

Totally agree.


---------- Post added at 22:26 ---------- Previous post was at 22:24 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053771)
Not sure if this got picked up:

https://twitter.com/paulbranditv/sta...712959489?s=21



I’m curious just exactly who makes up the minority opposed to this temporary measure. The young and invincible, parasitic property developers, finance sector, airlines, pubs. Anyone else I’ve missed?
OB, me and prolly a few others on the forum.

Paul 14-10-2020 22:31
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053771)
I’m curious just exactly who makes up the minority opposed to this temporary measure.
:wavey:

Hugh 14-10-2020 23:11
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36053715)
There is absolutely no evidence that long COVID is going to cause problems in a significant number of cases. Yes, it is there, but this is all about taking the least worst option.

By the way, if you are trying to tell us we can’t protect the vulnerable, then I have to ask - what is the point of a lockdown?

---------- Post added at 19:37 ---------- Previous post was at 19:33 ----------



Is that what you thought, jfman? Well, in which case you were wrong, weren’t you?
I refer you to my question

Quote:
can you cite where "The healthy population has little to worry about"
Re ‘long COVID”
Quote:
What is long-Covid?

The term long-Covid (also known as long-haul or long-tail) is not an official medical term. It is used by people suffering symptoms of the virus for longer than the official WHO-endorsed two week period, which is meant to be long enough for the virus to come and go.

Sufferers report a huge spectrum of problems beyond the three NHS-approved symptoms (persistent cough, fever and loss of taste or smell). These include fatigue, breathlessness, muscle aches, joint pain, 'brain fog,' memory loss, lack of concentration, and depression. It is not thought that people are infectious for the long period, but just suffer long-term effects.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...y-b693848.html

Mad Max 14-10-2020 23:22
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul (Post 36053774)
:wavey:


Snap

jfman 14-10-2020 23:54
Re: Coronavirus
 
So of Max, Seph and Paul - would you ever introduce restrictions? Or do you just not view a later, longer lockdown as the inevitable outcome of not acting now versus say in 2, 4, 6 weeks time?

Mad Max 14-10-2020 23:59
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053789)
So of Max, Seph and Paul - would you ever introduce restrictions? Or do you just not view a later, longer lockdown as the inevitable outcome of not acting now versus say in 2, 4, 6 weeks time?
Personally, I'd go with the Tier system that's in force now, and is likely to be introduced by Sturgeon, can't see why areas with little or no infections should be shut down, just my opinion of course.

Sephiroth 15-10-2020 08:36
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053789)
So of Max, Seph and Paul - would you ever introduce restrictions? Or do you just not view a later, longer lockdown as the inevitable outcome of not acting now versus say in 2, 4, 6 weeks time?
It's complicated because of public ignorance (not a criticism) and public confidence.

My helicopter view accords with that of OB but for the caveats I've mentioned previously. I'm certain, though, that the lockdowns just kick the CV can down the road, perpetually.

But if the hospitals are full, there has to be some sort of "circuit breaker" although it is by no means certain that hospitals will be full because of the Nightingale hospitals that were wisely built.

Then there's public psychology. Let it rip, some will say. I say let it rip when the outcomes can be predicted and proper measures are in place to assist vulnerable people.

And then what? Unless every country reaches the same state, our borders will need strict control.

jfman's ostensibly simple question must have been asked with a wry smile.

papa smurf 15-10-2020 09:40
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053771)
Not sure if this got picked up:

https://twitter.com/paulbranditv/sta...712959489?s=21



I’m curious just exactly who makes up the minority opposed to this temporary measure. The young and invincible, parasitic property developers, finance sector, airlines, pubs. Anyone else I’ve missed?
I'm curious as to who is taking the poll as i never seem to be involved:shrug:

Maggy 15-10-2020 09:51
Re: Coronavirus
 
I just wish they would sort out test and trace so it's more efficiently run and more cost effective.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...CMP=GTUK_email

Quote:
Management consultants are being paid as much as £6,250 a day to work on the British government’s struggling coronavirus testing system, sources have confirmed.

Senior executives from Boston Consulting Group (BCG) are being paid fees equivalent to £1.5m a year to help speed up and reorganise the £12bn network that Boris Johnson said in May would be “world-beating”.

The figures, first disclosed by Sky News, come amid growing concern about the cost of the UK’s Covid-19 testing system, which has been criticised for being slow, disorganised and unable to cope with rising demand.

BCG, one of the largest and most prestigious consultancies in the world, charged £10m for 40 people to work on the virus test-and-trace programme over the course of four months, a source with knowledge of the contract said.

denphone 15-10-2020 09:58
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maggy (Post 36053806)
I just wish they would sort out test and trace so it's more efficiently run and more cost effective.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...CMP=GTUK_email
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN6a...l=SithsInSpace

;)

jfman 15-10-2020 10:00
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36053801)

jfman's ostensibly simple question must have been asked with a wry smile.
A wry smile, yes. But I was genuinely interested in what the thinking was and rather than do the usual line by line rebuttals thought it’d be a better way to approach it. All reasonable points in the balancing act.

OLD BOY 15-10-2020 10:18
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36053805)
I'm curious as to who is taking the poll as i never seem to be involved:shrug:
I wouldn’t worry, papa. The pollsters work out the answers they want and then frame their questions accordingly. Yes/no answers only, no ifs or buts!

It’s a cynical world out there.

heero_yuy 15-10-2020 10:59
Re: Coronavirus
 
Breaking:

Quote:
Quote from The Sun: Nine million Londoners will be plunged into Tier 2 lockdown from midnight tomorrow with a ban on household mixing.

Health Secretary Matt Hancock is set to formally announce the decision this morning, with Essex expected to join the capital in being slapped with 'High' risk measures.

Both Manchester and Lancashire are also poised to be forced into Tier 3 lockdown rules later today.

As many as 12 of London's boroughs breached the threshold of 100 coronavirus cases per 100,000 people.

Health Minister Helen Whately told London MPs this morning that the capital will move into tougher restrictions.

It means people will be told they can't mix with anyone from another household indoors, but can meet up in beer gardens and private gardens, where the national rule of six applies.

Londoners will also be told to avoid public transport.

Damien 15-10-2020 11:48
Re: Coronavirus
 
Yeah not a surprise. We've been dicing with that for a while.

Julian 15-10-2020 14:01
Re: Coronavirus
 
Nothing will achieve much until they curb the movement of people out of and into the worst affected areas.
Half term in a week - cue hordes of potentially infected people descending on areas which are at present relatively unaffected.......

Paul 15-10-2020 15:10
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian (Post 36053837)
cue hordes of potentially infected people descending on areas which are at present relatively unaffected.......
Thats already happened here, when 50,000 students invaded Nottingham.
The rest of Nottinghamshire is now suffering more restrictions because of it.

We are trying to fight nature, and arent going to win.
Just destroy our economy, businesses, and all the lives that affects.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54551477
Marstons have now joined the list of job losses at the end of the month.
After we have succeeded in wreaking everything, the virus will still be here.

Mick 15-10-2020 16:20
Re: Coronavirus
 
BREAKING: Manchester Mayor, Andy Burnham rejects governments plans for tier 3, saying they are flawed and unfair and suggest what the government are asking, is to go in to a harsh lockdown process, that is going to cost jobs and ultimately lives from other illnesses, on the cheap.

nomadking 15-10-2020 17:15
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mick (Post 36053851)
BREAKING: Manchester Mayor, Andy Burnham rejects governments plans for tier 3, saying they are flawed and unfair and suggest what the government are asking, is to go in to a harsh lockdown process, that is going to cost jobs and ultimately lives from other illnesses, on the cheap.
I thought Labour policy was for everywhere to go into lockdown? Just goes to show one way or another, Labour are just vindictive. They apparently want everywhere else to suffer unnecessarily.
Either they believe in lockdowns or they don't. Which is it?

1andrew1 15-10-2020 17:35
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36053859)
I thought Labour policy was for everywhere to go into lockdown? Just goes to show one way or another, Labour are just vindictive. They apparently want everywhere else to suffer unnecessarily.
Either they believe in lockdowns or they don't. Which is it?
I think Labour wants us to follow scientific advice of a 2/3 week national circuit-break with the same compensation as the earlier national lock-down. Boris seems to have played the political game and ignored the scientists' recommendations to garner much-needed support in his party for himself.

Local lock-downs don't provide the same compensation so unless hospitals get overwhelmed as the did in the Liverpool City region then I guess local politicians of all colours will be incentivised to hold out for full compensation at the expense of increased restrictions. Personally, with borrowing so cheap and keeping the virus at bay a necessity, I can't see why they can't give the same level of compensation as they did before.

Sephiroth 15-10-2020 17:50
Re: Coronavirus
 
What is the scientific advice trying to achieve? Is their mission to keep the number of simultaneous cases down?

They did that before and it's rampant now. Won't this just repeat itself?

Are we plebs wiser than SAGE?

1andrew1 15-10-2020 17:58
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36053862)
What is the scientific advice trying to achieve? Is their mission to keep the number of simultaneous cases down?

They did that before and it's rampant now. Won't this just repeat itself?

Are we plebs wiser than SAGE?
No one's pretending it's a magic bullet. It's a way of getting the R-level down to something manageable. If it has to happen again in the future until we achieve herd immunity through vaccination, I don't see that as a reason for not doing it again.

nomadking 15-10-2020 18:10
Re: Coronavirus
 
Link

Quote:
Burnham says he and other Greater Manchester leaders were told by the deputy chief medical officer that the "only certain thing to work is a national lockdown".
But Burnham then points out the government was "unwilling to do that because of the harm it would do to the national economy".
"They are willing to sacrifice jobs and businesses here [in north-west England] to try and save them elsewhere," Burnham said, adding that they were being treated as "canaries in the coal mine" for an "experimental regional lockdown strategy".
How would a national lockdown save jobs in the north-west?
If people will continue to behave like depraved morons, no amount of lockdowns will achieve anything.
Quote:
  • France has unveiled further details of its plan to introduce a night-time lockdown in several cities, including Paris, from Saturday
  • Italy has registered 8,804 new cases of coronavirus during the last 24 hours, beating a previous official high of 7,332 set yesterday
  • From Saturday, Slovenia's government has ordered bars, restaurants and sports facilities to close in seven of the country's 12 regions, including the capital Ljubljana. It follows two consecutive days of record official case numbers
  • Poland’s government has announced that new restrictions will be in place in several major cities, including the capital Warsaw, from Saturday. It comes as 8,099 new infections were reported since yesterday - also beating a previous official high

Mad Max 15-10-2020 18:21
Re: Coronavirus
 
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-10-15...test-covid-19#

---------- Post added at 18:21 ---------- Previous post was at 18:18 ----------

Let's all do what we want now...:mad:


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...itics-54546058

Julian 15-10-2020 18:32
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36053873)
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-10-15...test-covid-19#

---------- Post added at 18:21 ---------- Previous post was at 18:18 ----------

Let's all do what we want now...:mad:


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...itics-54546058
Unfortunately too many people already are/have been. :rolleyes:

1andrew1 15-10-2020 18:47
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian (Post 36053877)
Unfortunately too many people already are/have been. :rolleyes:
Agreed.

Trouble is, the moral tone has been set on high by the likes of Margaret Ferrier and Dominic Cummings.

Mad Max 15-10-2020 18:59
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36053878)
Agreed.

Trouble is, the moral tone has been set on high by the likes of Margaret Ferrier and Dominic Cummings.

Very true.

denphone 15-10-2020 19:17
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36053878)
Agreed.

Trouble is, the moral tone has been set on high by the likes of Margaret Ferrier and Dominic Cummings.
That is just about the sum of it.

nomadking 15-10-2020 19:28
Re: Coronavirus
 
Link

Quote:
In a statement, the Met said it had considered possible offences under the Health Protection Regulations 2020, which makes it an offence for people in England to come into contact with others when they should be self-isolating.


The force added: "On detailed examination of this new legislation, and following legal advice, it was concluded that this regulation is applicable only after the 28 September.


"In this case the test occurred prior to the 29 September and therefore the regulation does not apply.

:confused: She travelled back to Scotland on the 29th, after receiving a positive test result.
Regulations

Quote:
2.—(1) This regulation applies where an adult is notified, other than by means of the NHS Covid 19 smartphone app developed and operated by the Secretary of State, by a person specified in paragraph (4) that—
(a)they have—
(i)tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) (“coronavirus”) pursuant to a test after 28th September 2020, or
(ii)had close contact after 28th September 2020 with someone who has tested positive for coronavirus;
Surely the 28th Sept reference is to when they where notified, not when the test was taken. If the date was meant to refer to the test date it would say something like "to a test administered after". It would seem absurd to be able to be tested a few minutes before midnight on the 28th and not have to self-isolate with a positive result. Wouldn't 1(a)(ii) also apply in a roundabout way, as she would've been in contact with herself, as an positively tested person?

From the Explanatory memorandum
Quote:
6.7 The Regulations provide for this as follows. Regulation 2 requires adults who have
been notified, otherwise than through the NHS Covid-19 app that they have tested
positive for coronavirus or have been identified as a close contact of someone who
has tested positive, to self-isolate for a specified period.
Even those notified before 29th Sept, would've had to self-isolate from 28th Sept onwards.


BBC Link
As of 28th Sept.
Quote:
The law applies to people who have tested positive for coronavirus, or who have been told by NHS Test and Trace to self-isolate because they have been in close contact with someone with the virus.
Govt press release on Sept rules.
Quote:
Legal duty to self-isolate comes into force today (Monday 28 September), to ensure compliance and reduce spread of COVID-19
...

If someone or another member of their household has symptoms of coronavirus, they should, as now, isolate immediately. If someone receives a positive test result, they are now required by law to self-isolate for the period ending 10 days after displaying symptoms or after the date of the test, if they did not have symptoms. Other members of their household must self-isolate for the period ending 14 days after symptom onset, or after the date of the initial person’s positive test.
All in all, what are the Met going on about? :mad: Nowhere does it say it's dependent on the date of the test.

Sephiroth 15-10-2020 19:28
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36053866)
No one's pretending it's a magic bullet. It's a way of getting the R-level down to something manageable. If it has to happen again in the future until we achieve herd immunity through vaccination, I don't see that as a reason for not doing it again.
But nobody's ever found a deployable coronavirus vaccine.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7177048/

This article is well worth a read. It says that no SARS nor MERS vaccine ever became commercially available.

The conclusion of the study is as follows:

Quote:
The vaccine development efforts for coronavirus strains such as SARS and MERS can help to direct the vaccine development efforts for COVID-19. The development of highly effective and safe vaccines for COVID-19 should consider aspects such as the possibility of ADE and other adverse effects previously observed with SARS and MERS. Even though these features have only been seen in some animal models and vaccination regimens, the possibility is still there to be considered for COVID-19. In addition, these vaccine development efforts should address the possibility of the short-term immunogenicity derived from neutralizing antibodies, as also previously observed for SARS and MERS-CoV after natural infection.

The possibility of exploiting T cell responses for coronavirus vaccination should also be considered (along with B cell responses). These responses have been shown to be persistent and protective in animal models. Furthermore, there is evidence of long-term persistence in humans. Strategies such as adjuvantation, tailoring of the S glycoprotein, different routes of vaccination and the use of unexplored vaccine platforms for enhancing immunogenicity and preventing potential undesired effects should also be considered. It is worth mentioning that employing the N protein of the coronavirus for vaccination could have several benefits. As previously mentioned, there is the potential of providing long-term cross-protection when employing this antigen. Of note, the evidence of short-term immunogenicity and protection in coronavirus-exposed individuals does not mean that an effective vaccine is not possible. Vaccines for other now eradicated diseases that lack naturally acquired immunity prove this point (e.g., smallpox). The emergence of COVID-19 should also serve for elevating our comprehension and expertise in the abatement of pathogenic microorganisms of global health importance.
The adverse effects of the SARS/MERS vaccine efforts need to be borne in mind for CV and this is why a vaccine would likely take years to be commercially available.

However the article moots that a vaccine that stimulates T-Cell production could be useful.

Repeated lockdown cycles are incompatible with human behaviour and thus we can never eliminate the virus in that way, never mind trashing the economy beyond the point of salvation.

Those who support lockdowns, please explain how this will kill the virus.

papa smurf 15-10-2020 19:31
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36053887)
That is just about the sum of it.
Not quite the sum of it you forgot the labour mp's who broke or bent the rules.

denphone 15-10-2020 19:34
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36053895)
Not quite the sum of it you forgot the labour mp's who broke or bent the rules.
No excuses there either...

OLD BOY 15-10-2020 19:35
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36053860)
I think Labour wants us to follow scientific advice of a 2/3 week national circuit-break with the same compensation as the earlier national lock-down. Boris seems to have played the political game and ignored the scientists' recommendations to garner much-needed support in his party for himself.

Local lock-downs don't provide the same compensation so unless hospitals get overwhelmed as the did in the Liverpool City region then I guess local politicians of all colours will be incentivised to hold out for full compensation at the expense of increased restrictions. Personally, with borrowing so cheap and keeping the virus at bay a necessity, I can't see why they can't give the same level of compensation as they did before.
You still have to pay back what you borrowed, Andrew.

jfman 15-10-2020 19:35
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36053892)
Link

All in all, what are the Met going on about? :mad: Nowhere does it say it's dependent on the date of the test.
Have removed some of the post for brevity. There are a couple of issues - first being that a change of law could be seen as applying retrospectively to the chain of events in motion making a prosecution more difficult.

The second being she went home following the result. I'm not sure if the law can mandate someone to undertake a hotel stay regardless of whether they can claim it as an expense.

That said I don't think it's a defence for an MP to act in a way any reasonable person would say goes against the guidance, regardless of whether it was in legislation or not. Her actions in travelling to London fell below that threshold and she should resign.

nomadking 15-10-2020 19:36
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36053887)
That is just about the sum of it.
How many more times:rolleyes:, Cummings DID self-isolate, it wasn't a law, and the actions were taken in response to consideration of care of a child. He didn't travel just for the sake of it. He DIDN'T have symptoms at the time of the journey.
Quote:
But he said he feared both him and his wife becoming incapacitated and unable to look after their four-year-old. He has cited a section in the advice that says: "We are aware that not all these measures will be possible if you are living with children, but keep following this guidance to the best of your ability."

OLD BOY 15-10-2020 19:36
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36053862)
What is the scientific advice trying to achieve? Is their mission to keep the number of simultaneous cases down?

They did that before and it's rampant now. Won't this just repeat itself?

Are we plebs wiser than SAGE?
I think we are, Steph. But we haven’t been called upon to serve. :D

jfman 15-10-2020 19:37
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36053898)
You still have to pay back what you borrowed, Andrew.
What's the current repayment plan on the £2 trillion of debt we've got so far?

OLD BOY 15-10-2020 19:43
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36053866)
No one's pretending it's a magic bullet. It's a way of getting the R-level down to something manageable. If it has to happen again in the future until we achieve herd immunity through vaccination, I don't see that as a reason for not doing it again.
Christ, Andrew, I’m glad you’re not in control. I would fear for your safety!

Only ‘at risk’ people should be isolated. Why penalise the rest of us when it’s not necessary and when that is ruining the economy? It makes no sense.

nomadking 15-10-2020 19:47
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053899)
Have removed some of the post for brevity. There are a couple of issues - first being that a change of law could be seen as applying retrospectively to the chain of events in motion making a prosecution more difficult.

The second being she went home following the result. I'm not sure if the law can mandate someone to undertake a hotel stay regardless of whether they can claim it as an expense.

That said I don't think it's a defence for an MP to act in a way any reasonable person would say goes against the guidance, regardless of whether it was in legislation or not. Her actions in travelling to London fell below that threshold and she should resign.
The law was effective as of Mon 28th Sept. That is the day she received the positive test result.
The press release of Mon 28th Sept states.
Quote:
From today, people in England will be required by law to self-isolate if they test positive or are contacted by NHS Test and Trace.
She still will have been in close contact after the 28th with somebody who had tested positive, even though that somebody was herself. Would be rather absurd if somebody in close contact with her on the 29th had to self-isolate, but she didn't have to self-isolate.

OLD BOY 15-10-2020 19:48
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053902)
What's the current repayment plan on the £2 trillion of debt we've got so far?
You tell me. You are the economist.

Mad Max 15-10-2020 19:50
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053902)
What's the current repayment plan on the £2 trillion of debt we've got so far?
Send the bill to China.

jfman 15-10-2020 19:53
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36053905)
You tell me. You are the economist.
Spoiler alert: there isn't one.

Countries get by making interest payments and borrowing more to pay off the capital amounts down the road.

papa smurf 15-10-2020 20:05
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053902)
What's the current repayment plan on the £2 trillion of debt we've got so far?
You're the economist,i'll leave it you to work out just keep your mitts of pensioners.


and beer.

nomadking 15-10-2020 20:05
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053907)
Spoiler alert: there isn't one.

Countries get by making interest payments and borrowing more to pay off the capital amounts down the road.
Until they get to the point like Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Cyprus did, and you can't borrow any more.:rolleyes:

jfman 15-10-2020 20:06
Re: Coronavirus
 
This is where a Central Bank comes in handy.

papa smurf 15-10-2020 20:08
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053913)
This is where a Central Bank comes in handy.
We're shut.

Mad Max 15-10-2020 20:10
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 36053910)
You're the economist,i'll leave it you to work out just keep your mitts of pensioners.


and beer.
A huge :tu: for that one.

OLD BOY 15-10-2020 20:20
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053907)
Spoiler alert: there isn't one.

Countries get by making interest payments and borrowing more to pay off the capital amounts down the road.
We can just forget what we need to pay back then. :rolleyes:

jfman 15-10-2020 20:26
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36053920)
We can just forget what we need to pay back then. :rolleyes:
You've clearly misunderstood the post if that is your reply. Try again.

nomadking 15-10-2020 20:29
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053913)
This is where a Central Bank comes in handy.
The governments of Ireland etc, COULDN'T borrow. They ran out of money.
Link

Quote:
Ireland had already exhausted all other avenues of funding: “We had already raided the pension fund and borrowings on the sovereign bond markets – which we were priced out of – in 2010,” Namawinelake explains so the option considered to be the best in the circumstances was to issue a promissory note.

Quote:
The repayment works like this: The government pays the money to IBRC, which gives it to the Central Bank of Ireland, which then destroys this money. This is done electronically in case you were thinking they were burning a huge wad of €100 notes on Dame Street.
:confused:

jfman 15-10-2020 20:31
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36053925)
The governments of Ireland etc, COULDN'T borrow. They ran out of money.
Link

:confused:
Countries in the Eurozone don't have the same luxury

Hugh 15-10-2020 20:38
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36053901)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth View Post
What is the scientific advice trying to achieve? Is their mission to keep the number of simultaneous cases down?

They did that before and it's rampant now. Won't this just repeat itself?

Are we plebs wiser than SAGE?
I think we are, Steph. But we haven’t been called upon to serve. :D
Dunning-Kruger Effect in action... ;)

jfman 15-10-2020 20:42
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36053920)
We can just forget what we need to pay back then. :rolleyes:
I'll explain it simply.

I borrow £100 from Mick for 10 years. Interest is £1 a year (which I pay each year), however inflation reduces the real terms value of my debt by £2 a year.

In 2030 I borrow £100 (which is only worth £80 in 2020 prices) to repay Mick from Paul and carry out the same wheeze.

Rinse and repeat until by 2070 I'm looking around for the 2020 equivalent of about £25 to repay Maggy., Who I borrowed from in 2060. The debt has cost me £10 each decade to maintain. Total cost less than total borrowed in real terms.

Obviously interest rates and inflation are percentages but the principle applies where inflation exceeds interest rates - which is pretty much going to be forever now because we can't afford the house price crash bringing the whole pozni scheme down.

Mad Max 15-10-2020 20:43
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36053928)
Dunning-Kruger Effect in action... ;)

:D:D

nomadking 15-10-2020 20:46
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053926)
Countries in the Eurozone don't have the same luxury
Those countries WERE in the Eurozone and they still had problems.

jfman 15-10-2020 20:47
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36053932)
Those countries WERE in the Eurozone and they still had problems.
No that's my point they don't have the same range of freedoms in controlling monetary policy for their needs.

RichardCoulter 15-10-2020 21:18
Re: Coronavirus
 
Seems that even a pandemic isn't enough to stop the gravy train:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...-paid-22847372

1andrew1 15-10-2020 22:45
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36053928)
Dunning-Kruger Effect in action... ;)
:D:D:D

Julian 15-10-2020 23:05
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36053878)
Agreed.

Trouble is, the moral tone has been set on high by the likes of Margaret Ferrier and Dominic Cummings.
Wow that was super quick to mention cummings.

Talk about whataboutery:rolleyes:

Pathetic

If brain dead idiots can claim to be influenced by cummings then we are all screwed

jfman 15-10-2020 23:18
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian (Post 36053950)
Wow that was super quick to mention cummings.

Talk about whataboutery:rolleyes:

Pathetic

If brain dead idiots can claim to be influenced by cummings then we are all screwed
If Government, politicians, advisers (scientific or political) are standing there asking people to act in good faith it’s correct to identify incidents that erode public trust. Far from “whataboutery” it indicates the scale of the problem. Whoever you support you can point the finger at someone on the other side. Then you get “they’re all as bad as each other”. It becomes distrust in the institution of the state itself..

nomadking 15-10-2020 23:28
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053952)
If Government, politicians, advisers (scientific or political) are standing there asking people to act in good faith it’s correct to identify incidents that erode public trust. Far from “whataboutery” it indicates the scale of the problem. Whoever you support you can point the finger at someone on the other side. Then you get “they’re all as bad as each other”. It becomes distrust in the institution of the state itself..
If those individuals hadn't done whatever, people would've still completely ignored any rules, laws etc.:rolleyes:

1andrew1 16-10-2020 00:29
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36053956)
If those individuals hadn't done whatever, people would've still completely ignored any rules, laws etc.:rolleyes:
Keep telling yourself that. ;)

I suspect this is more a postponement despite the report that Level 3 has been shelved for Manchester
Quote:
Boris Johnson shelves plan to force Manchester into harshest tier 3 lockdown.
Impasse is huge setback for the prime minister - adding to the impression that local leaders have been given a veto.
A dramatic meeting began with a health minister insisting Greater Manchester would move into tier 3, but negotiations broke down when she admitted no more money was on offer.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b1043898.html

But Lancashire expected to says yes to tier 3.
Quote:
Lancashire is likely to be announced as the latest area to move into Tier 3 of England's lockdown restrictions, Sky News understands.

Discussions between Westminster and local leaders around the financial package are still ongoing but the decision is expected to be announced within hours.
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...kdown-12105216

Mad Max 16-10-2020 00:38
Re: Coronavirus
 
The day is fast approaching when the majority of unaffected people are going to say, **** this, let me live my life and support my family, there are way too many people losing their jobs/livelihoods for the (unfortunate few) that will die from this virus, don't get me wrong, but if no vaccine is forthcoming what else do we do?

jfman 16-10-2020 06:05
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36053961)
The day is fast approaching when the majority of unaffected people are going to say, **** this, let me live my life and support my family, there are way too many people losing their jobs/livelihoods for the (unfortunate few) that will die from this virus, don't get me wrong, but if no vaccine is forthcoming what else do we do?
The majority of unaffected people working from home aren’t going to proactively and regularly put themselves at risk when that day comes. They’ll be quite content saving a few grand a year on their commute to central London.

People can’t magic themselves into jobs that don’t exist, or customers from nowhere. All your scenario brings is a lot of angry people, a lot of infected people and some deaths. Which will inform the decision making (consumption habits) of some groups to behave in a risk adverse way. Others portray this as binary - hiding under the stairs or behaving normally. It isn’t. But how much people spend (and where they spend it) will have altered in an irreversible way.

Three groups of consumers - those at risk who would shield, those fully or partially working at home, and unfortunately those whose employment circumstances have changed can’t/won’t start acting like it’s 2019 because they get bored.

Fundamentally there’s a lot of jobs that simply won’t come back even if people did start revolting. Which is why it needs leadership and a strategic economic response instead of bean counting from people under the false apprehension that we have any intention of repaying £2 trillion of debt.

OLD BOY 16-10-2020 07:27
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053929)
I'll explain it simply.

I borrow £100 from Mick for 10 years. Interest is £1 a year (which I pay each year), however inflation reduces the real terms value of my debt by £2 a year.

In 2030 I borrow £100 (which is only worth £80 in 2020 prices) to repay Mick from Paul and carry out the same wheeze.

Rinse and repeat until by 2070 I'm looking around for the 2020 equivalent of about £25 to repay Maggy., Who I borrowed from in 2060. The debt has cost me £10 each decade to maintain. Total cost less than total borrowed in real terms.

Obviously interest rates and inflation are percentages but the principle applies where inflation exceeds interest rates - which is pretty much going to be forever now because we can't afford the house price crash bringing the whole pozni scheme down.
Yes, I get that, jfman. But we still have to pay back the instalments for those debts in the meantime, which have increased massively with the increased borrowing.

jfman 16-10-2020 07:51
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36053964)
Yes, I get that, jfman. But we still have to pay back the instalments for those debts in the meantime, which have increased massively with the increased borrowing.
Have the amounts paid year on year increased massively as you claim?

Interest rates are at an all time low. The cost of debt has never been cheaper. Government debt generally isn’t paid in instalments the way a household loan is. As demonstrated the erosion in the real terms value of the debt by inflation incentivises the Government to never repay the debt - simply kick it down the road with further borrowing.

OLD BOY 16-10-2020 08:01
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053966)
Have the amounts paid year on year increased massively as you claim?

Interest rates are at an all time low. The cost of debt has never been cheaper. Government debt generally isn’t paid in instalments the way a household loan is. As demonstrated the erosion in the real terms value of the debt by inflation incentivises the Government to never repay the debt - simply kick it down the road with further borrowing.
I don’t know about the instalments. Certainly, if our obligation is just to pay the debt at a fixed interest rate at the end of the period, it would be, as you intimate, a good ruse.

Let’s just hope interest rates remain low, then.

Pierre 16-10-2020 09:12
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053952)
it’s correct to identify incidents that erode public trust. .
that's pretty much every decision the government has taken since the onset of the second ripple

jfman 16-10-2020 09:15
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36053975)
that's pretty much every decision the government has taken since the onset of the second ripple
Some would say it goes back much further than that.

Pierre 16-10-2020 09:16
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36053961)
The day is fast approaching when the majority of unaffected people are going to say, **** this, let me live my life and support my family, there are way too many people losing their jobs/livelihoods for the (unfortunate few) that will die from this virus, don't get me wrong, but if no vaccine is forthcoming what else do we do?
I've said it many times, we are governed and policed by consent of the people. Once you lose that you lose everything. I'm not suggesting a revolution or anything near that, but you can bet your bottom dollar there would be civil unrest and more anti-lockdown protests.

jfman 16-10-2020 09:30
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36053978)
I've said it many times, we are governed and policed by consent of the people. Once you lose that you lose everything. I'm not suggesting a revolution or anything near that, but you can bet your bottom dollar there would be civil unrest and more anti-lockdown protests.
The problem is how do you get just enough revolution to stop lockdown measures when many are in favour of restrictions.

Could be easily hijacked by the left, antifa, unions. Could be a great spectacle really, but not a desirable outcome for the right.

Those in low paid, precarious work want increased rights. They don't want their health put at risk.

Damien 16-10-2020 09:36
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36053978)
I've said it many times, we are governed and policed by consent of the people. Once you lose that you lose everything. I'm not suggesting a revolution or anything near that, but you can bet your bottom dollar there would be civil unrest and more anti-lockdown protests.
Pierre's revolutionary French side is starting to show though. :D

1andrew1 16-10-2020 10:26
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Max (Post 36053961)
The day is fast approaching when the majority of unaffected people are going to say, **** this, let me live my life and support my family, there are way too many people losing their jobs/livelihoods for the (unfortunate few) that will die from this virus, don't get me wrong, but if no vaccine is forthcoming what else do we do?
We don't start getting a flaky! Honestly, this sounds like the kids "Are we there yet?" :D when still in the drive!

I think only Trump and Putin have talked about a vaccine being available before Summer 2021. So we continue to manage the virus until then.

tweetiepooh 16-10-2020 10:26
Re: Coronavirus
 
Well as we blindly walk into a cashless society the government can control us even more. No point going out if you can't buy anything because your "account" is locked except maybe for the closest supermarket. So any "revolt" can be controlled smoothly and cleanly without all that messy riot police responses. And if you do attend a "revolt" that nice CV19 tracing app will plot that attendance.

heero_yuy 16-10-2020 10:42
Re: Coronavirus
 
1 Attachment(s)
Welcome to 1984.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...9&d=1602841269

Quote:
Quote from The Sun: MANCHESTER could be forced into a Tier 3 lockdown today despite city leaders rejecting the plans in a huge battle of the North.

The city is set to be slapped with the strictest restrictions even if No10 cannot come to an agreement with northern leaders.

Dominic Raab said this morning it would be a "last resort" to do it without their support, but warned action was needed to tackle the Covid infection rate.

In a blistering attack on Manchester mayor Andy Burnham, Mr Raab accused him of trying to hold the Government "over a barrel" and said they'll keep powers to push Northern hotspots into lockdown "in reserve".

It comes after a furious Mr Burnham rejected the Tier 3 plans yesterday, saying they were being used as "canaries in the coal mine" and jobs in the North were being "sacrificed to save them elsewhere".

Boris Johnson is also poised to announce a Tier 3 lockdown for Lancashire and the North East today, as the Foreign Secretary told Mr Burnham the Government wouldn't let him "pull up the drawbridge".

Mr Raab told the BBC this morning: "We'll hold in reserve the ability to (impose measures on Manchester).
Imposition by dictat is likely to go down like a lead balloon.

Attachment 28599

jfman 16-10-2020 10:51
Re: Coronavirus
 
Well if there's one thing we know it's that a Tory Government isn't likely to delay in blaming northerners for causing the deaths of other northerners regardless of how poorly performing the apparatus of the state is.

Northerners shouldn't play into their hands.

Carth 16-10-2020 11:00
Re: Coronavirus
 
Welcome to the matrix, will you take the blue pill or the red one?

denphone 16-10-2020 11:09
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36053994)
Welcome to the matrix, will you take the blue pill or the red one?
Is there a multi-coloured one.;)

Mad Max 16-10-2020 11:22
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36053995)
Is there a multi-coloured one.;)

Yeah in the smarties tube. :D

Pierre 16-10-2020 11:25
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 36053991)
Welcome to 1984.


Imposition by dictat is likely to go down like a lead balloon.

Attachment 28599
Labour Manchester Mayor opposes lockdown, Labour Westminster Leader call for national lockdown. Good to see we're all on the same page.

Now it becomes a matter of negotiation whether you are going into lockdown or not?

https://www.lancs.live/news/lancashi...covid-19087899

So maybe Burnham is just waiting for an improved offer?

Sephiroth 16-10-2020 11:27
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36053992)
Well if there's one thing we know it's that a Tory Government isn't likely to delay in blaming northerners for causing the deaths of other northerners regardless of how poorly performing the apparatus of the state is.

Northerners shouldn't play into their hands.
Tut, tut - jfman.

1andrew1 16-10-2020 11:33
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36053997)
Labour Manchester Mayor opposes lockdown, Labour Westminster Leader call for national lockdown. Good to see we're all on the same page.

Now it becomes a matter of negotiation whether you are going into lockdown or not?

https://www.lancs.live/news/lancashi...covid-19087899

So maybe Burnham is just waiting for an improved offer?
Interestingly, the Conservative opposition in Manchester is behind Andy Burnham's position too.
But would the government dare give Manchester a better offer than Liverpool or Lancashire? Hopefully it will be an across-the-board improvement if agreed.

Hugh 16-10-2020 13:39
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36053997)
Labour Manchester Mayor opposes lockdown, Labour Westminster Leader call for national lockdown. Good to see we're all on the same page.

Now it becomes a matter of negotiation whether you are going into lockdown or not?

https://www.lancs.live/news/lancashi...covid-19087899

So maybe Burnham is just waiting for an improved offer?
Burnham supports National Lockdown, just like Starmer.

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavir...rnham-12104944

Quote:
Urging the government to pursue a different course and consider a return to stringent England-wide restrictions, the Greater Manchester mayor said: "I've said it may be that we need to look at a national circuit break as preferable to this unfunded, risky regional lockdown strategy.

"We have to protect the health of the nation but let's do it as one nation, and not make the north of England the sacrificial lamb for an ill-thought-through Downing Street policy which doesn't make sense in the real world."

Mr Burnham claimed Prof Van-Tam had told Greater Manchester leaders that "the only certain thing to work is a national lockdown".

"But the government told us this morning it is unwilling to do that because of the damage it will do to the national economy," he said.

"And yet that is what they want to impose on the North West."

denphone 16-10-2020 13:54
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36053999)
Interestingly, the Conservative opposition in Manchester is behind Andy Burnham's position too.
But would the government dare give Manchester a better offer than Liverpool or Lancashire? Hopefully it will be an across-the-board improvement if agreed.
l am looking at some of the tier 3 lockdown criteria of Lancashire compared to Manchester and Liverpool and can you answer the question on why gyms are still allowed to open in Lancashire but not in the Liverpool region :confused: as that is just one inconsistency as l am sure there are others as well..

1andrew1 16-10-2020 14:02
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 36054011)
l am looking at some of the tier 3 lockdown criteria of Lancashire compared to Manchester and Liverpool and can you answer the question on why gyms are still allowed to open in Lancashire but not in the Liverpool region :confused: as that is just one inconsistency as l am sure there are others as well..
I think Liverpool requested some additional closures including gyms, casinos and betting shops.

denphone 16-10-2020 14:15
Re: Coronavirus
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36054012)
I think Liverpool requested some additional closures including gyms, casinos and betting shops.
Liverpool say they had no say in the gym closures according to their mayor.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 23:29.
Page 3 of 86 12 3 45671353 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.