Coronavirus (OLD)

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees
Here in lies the rub... it's not what YOU want. It's whats best for the health of the country as a whole. By this I mean the best for the vulnerable, the economy, the NHS staff and all other key workers.

I'm not keen on seeing monitoring the likes of Taiwan, Singapore & China have in place being implemented. However, if that's whats justifiably needed to help save as many people as possible until if or when a suitable vaccination is created or implemented. then it's just something that we're going to have to live with.

Originally Posted by jfman

For a country that prides itself on the Blitz spirit (not that most of the people who refer to it so often actually lived through the war) there’s an awful lot of people who are quite reluctant to just suck it up for 3-6 months.

First, mrmistoffelees has presented an almost perfect oxymoron. I needn't elaborate.

Secons, jfman in answering mrmistoffelees' post didn't address that point (nor the oxymoron!). And - exactly what is "an awful lot of people who are quite reluctant ..."? What facts does that statement represent, jfman being so keen on facts? Sorry mate.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

First, mrmistoffelees has presented an almost perfect oxymoron. I needn't elaborate.

Secons, jfman in answering mrmistoffelees' post didn't address that point (nor the oxymoron!). And - exactly what is "an awful lot of people who are quite reluctant ..."? What facts does that statement represent, jfman being so keen on facts? Sorry mate.

Please, elaborate.... the post was written at speed as I'm doing several things at once.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Please, elaborate.... the post was written at speed as I'm doing several things at once.

Just me showing off. "The country as a whole" cannot be the same as the selective list you gave in the second part of the sentence.
True you qulified it by saying "by this I mean ...".

Hope you don't mind too much; I've got little better to do.

[jfman]

If people are kicking off because of the lockdown, just think where would be if the lockdown had started earlier? Sound familiar?

Sorry Seph. I get that you want to talk about anything but the Government response to Coronavirus, however “facts, facts, facts” simply will not do it when others get to freely opine on what they think is going through the minds of the population at large.

It’s nice to see Sir Patrick Vallance acknowledge German success in in dealing with coronavirus.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-science-chief

Enough of this bloody bickering again.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by jfman

Sorry Seph. I get that you want to talk about anything but the Government response to Coronavirus, however “facts, facts, facts” simply will not do it when others get to freely opine on what they think is going through the minds of the population at large.

It’s nice to see Sir Patrick Vallance acknowledge German success in in dealing with coronavirus.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-science-chief

It is clear to see that the UK has not made the correct decisions at the right time when compared to other countries.

What is also clear here is this handling of the crisis clearly puts an end to the myth of British exceptionalism, the theology that powered the Brexit crusade.

It’s easy to be a Monday morning quarterback - hindsight is always 20/20...

Learning from our mistakes is the important thing, not pillorying people for them.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Hugh

It’s easy to be a Monday morning quarterback - hindsight is always 20/20...

Learning from our mistakes is the important thing, not pillorying people for them.

I agree absolutely. I was once told that it is very rare that people do a job badly on purpose and that has stuck with ever since. Failures may be due to insufficient or incorrect information, misguided beliefs, insufficient authority to act and incorrect systems/tools. Malicious intent is very rare.

Now, once things have blown over, there should be a period of reflection, understanding what worked, what didn't and what could be improved if this happens again.

Now, if the lessons learned are not taken on board and acted on, that is a different story - we need to consider strongly if the people in charge are in the right jobs....

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Hugh

It’s easy to be a Monday morning quarterback - hindsight is always 20/20...

Learning from our mistakes is the important thing, not pillorying people for them.

Not sure what this truism implies? Do not challenge why clearly wrong decisions were made?

If you are unable to determine why the wrong decision was made, who made it and what their reasoning was, you clearly run the risk of similarly bad decisions continuing to be made.

You can pillory people if you wish, I am more interesting in who made the decisions, when they made them and why they made them. In understanding this, you can learn from the process in time to save lives in the near future.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Mr K

The economy or lives ? The economy is going to come second.

It's not one or the other, and remember that if we ruin the economy by having a hugely extended period of lockdown, more people will lose their jobs as businesses fold and many will be plunged into poverty, which itself causes deaths. It is a matter of judgement as to how and when the current restrictions are eased, and you must remember that we are not going to stop the virus spreading to about 80% of the population. All we are doing is slowing it down so the NHS can cope.

This is not a time for party politics. We all have to pull together on this until the crisis is over. Obviously, any failings need to be put right straight away, but the time to scrape over the things that went wrong are for later. In the meantime, the vast majority of people are pleased with the way the government has dealt with this.

[Julian]

Originally Posted by denphone

A couple links here as to regards to how long alcohol will last.

https://store.approvedfood.co.uk/blo...nd-food-dates/

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition...alcohol-expire

I think you'll find your google search has only identified the stiuff you buy retail Den, not what traders are buying for sale through pubs etc. in casks etc.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Julian

I think you'll find your google search has only identified the stiuff you buy retail Den, not what traders are buying for sale through pubs etc. in casks etc.

Its quite hard to answer that question though as there are quite a few processes before it ends up in pubs , etc , etc so one could only hazard a guess to its shelf life once it gets there.

Not being a expert on it but some drinks would definitely have a much shorter use by date then others going by my own experiences working in a pub many years ago.

Originally Posted by ianch99

Not sure what this truism implies? Do not challenge why clearly wrong decisions were made?

If you are unable to determine why the wrong decision was made, who made it and what their reasoning was, you clearly run the risk of similarly bad decisions continuing to be made.

You can pillory people if you wish, I am more interesting in who made the decisions, when they made them and why they made them. In understanding this, you can learn from the process in time to save lives in the near future.

No, it doesn’t mean that.

It’s aimed at people who insist on attributing blame/fault before enough information is available, and those who ask why, in hindsight, why something wasn’t done that is only obvious after the fact.

I was always taught that ‘drains up" reviews must be de-personalised and not pre-judged, and ask "what went wrong", not "who did that wrong thing" - learn from mistakes, and if people did make wrong decisions, understand the reasoning behind those decisions, because as jonbxx said above, it’s rare that people actively do things wrong, it’s often unforeseen or changing circumstances.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Not sure what this truism implies? Do not challenge why clearly wrong decisions were made?

If you are unable to determine why the wrong decision was made, who made it and what their reasoning was, you clearly run the risk of similarly bad decisions continuing to be made.

You can pillory people if you wish, I am more interesting in who made the decisions, when they made them and why they made them. In understanding this, you can learn from the process in time to save lives in the near future.

I’m equally interested in what factors came into consideration, from who and when.

In the last two pages Old Boy has cited the Chancellor being keen to get the economy going next month. I’m sure he is, however if we are using the best scientific advice in a medical emergency then the economy shouldn’t factor into the decision making very strongly, if at all.

Unless of course we accept that as a reasonable balancing act in which case I think the Government should just front up that it finds X deaths as an acceptable figure if we can shorten the inevitable recession by Y months.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

I’m equally interested in what factors came into consideration, from who and when.

In the last two pages Old Boy has cited the Chancellor being keen to get the economy going next month. I’m sure he is, however if we are using the best scientific advice in a medical emergency then the economy shouldn’t factor into the decision making very strongly, if at all.

Unless of course we accept that as a reasonable balancing act in which case I think the Government should just front up that it finds X deaths as an acceptable figure if we can shorten the inevitable recession by Y months.

We will not avoid deaths by the measures being taken. We can only delay them.

If you think the economy isn't important in determining when the restrictions are relaxed, I don't think the majority would agree with you.