Thread: Coronavirus
View Single Post
Old 20-07-2021, 10:20   #6567
mrmistoffelees
067
 
mrmistoffelees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Middlesbrough
Age: 48
Services: Many
Posts: 4,605
mrmistoffelees is cast in bronzemrmistoffelees is cast in bronzemrmistoffelees is cast in bronzemrmistoffelees is cast in bronze
mrmistoffelees is cast in bronzemrmistoffelees is cast in bronzemrmistoffelees is cast in bronzemrmistoffelees is cast in bronzemrmistoffelees is cast in bronzemrmistoffelees is cast in bronzemrmistoffelees is cast in bronzemrmistoffelees is cast in bronzemrmistoffelees is cast in bronzemrmistoffelees is cast in bronzemrmistoffelees is cast in bronzemrmistoffelees is cast in bronzemrmistoffelees is cast in bronzemrmistoffelees is cast in bronzemrmistoffelees is cast in bronzemrmistoffelees is cast in bronzemrmistoffelees is cast in bronzemrmistoffelees is cast in bronze
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth View Post
I think you're right - except that he DID want to do Freedom Day but knew he was moving along Shit Street nix paddle.
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 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by tweetiepooh View Post
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.)

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.
__________________
Nerves of steel, heart of gold, knob of butter......
mrmistoffelees is offline