i've been off work for over 2 months again

wont let me go back as i'm due this heart op, and the covid stuff

it's a facking nightmare tbh

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by NPEEE (U22521)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 5 minutes ago
I do oppose lockdowns

I also appreciate that once a virus has been allowed to run rampant we have to lock down to protect the civil liberties of those who want to live
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So you think freedom is dictated by NHS bes capacity? Good to know.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If staying indoors (which I don't think anyone wanted, or likes) helps save lives, reduce transmission, happy to do so wholeheartedly.

That said, in my 20's or 30's I don't think I would have been as accommodating. Hard to believe it's been a year since I've been in the office.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by ttliv87 (U11882)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by NPEEE (U22521)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 5 minutes ago
I do oppose lockdowns

I also appreciate that once a virus has been allowed to run rampant we have to lock down to protect the civil liberties of those who want to live
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So you think freedom is dictated by NHS bes capacity? Good to know.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
With this it's two civil liberties being sacrificed on either side of the debate. Numbers are becoming clearer and clearer. 400-500,000 deaths (if the NHS could maintain a similar level of care with millions of people in hospital at the peak), 1.5 million people with long term (over 12 weeks ) symptoms of long COVID, I think half the population would have been traumatised by such an event.
I've made my thoughts clear on zero Covid long term but zero Covid while waiting for vaccines was absolutely the right way to go about it. Of course the country of origin not lying about transmissibility of the virus may have made that a lot more plausible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s nowhere near as simple as that though.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by ttliv87 (U11882)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by ttliv87 (U11882)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by NPEEE (U22521)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 5 minutes ago
I do oppose lockdowns

I also appreciate that once a virus has been allowed to run rampant we have to lock down to protect the civil liberties of those who want to live
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So you think freedom is dictated by NHS bes capacity? Good to know.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
With this it's two civil liberties being sacrificed on either side of the debate. Numbers are becoming clearer and clearer. 400-500,000 deaths (if the NHS could maintain a similar level of care with millions of people in hospital at the peak), 1.5 million people with long term (over 12 weeks ) symptoms of long COVID, I think half the population would have been traumatised by such an event.
I've made my thoughts clear on zero Covid long term but zero Covid while waiting for vaccines was absolutely the right way to go about it. Of course the country of origin not lying about transmissibility of the virus may have made that a lot more plausible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s nowhere near as simple as that though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand how damaging lockdowns are. For me that's why it's even more important to get the first one right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That would have been impossible mate. Everywhere bar a very few exceptions got second and third waves. This thing is an airborne virus.

Locking down should have targeted to the elderly and the vulnerable imo. The negative effects of shutting down the economies are yet to be fully realised.

Plus there are too many contradictory examples wrt lockdowns.
California vs Florida
Peru vs Chile
Colombia vs Mexico
North Jutland vs North Jutland

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by NPEEE (U22521)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Percy Pig aficionado (U3126)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by NPEEE (U22521)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 5 minutes ago
I do oppose lockdowns

I also appreciate that once a virus has been allowed to run rampant we have to lock down to protect the civil liberties of those who want to live
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So you think freedom is dictated by NHS bes capacity? Good to know.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If staying indoors (which I don't think anyone wanted, or likes) helps save lives, reduce transmission, happy to do so wholeheartedly.

That said, in my 20's or 30's I don't think I would have been as accommodating. Hard to believe it's been a year since I've been in the office.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

There are all sorts of measures that reduce deaths that we do not partake in as we accept liberty is important. Pets also jot delude ourselves lockdowns do not have consequences.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think anyone is in denial they (lockdowns) don't and won't have massive economic consequences but in light of how quickly R was rising after xmas, and the help out to eat out schemes etc I don't think the government left themselves with many options.

I recall over here at one point there were long queues of ambulances outside hospitals and ICU beds reaching capacity as well as staffing issues etc. There were significant strains on the health service that had to be mitigated somehow.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by ttliv87 (U11882)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by ttliv87 (U11882)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by ttliv87 (U11882)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by NPEEE (U22521)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 5 minutes ago
I do oppose lockdowns

I also appreciate that once a virus has been allowed to run rampant we have to lock down to protect the civil liberties of those who want to live
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So you think freedom is dictated by NHS bes capacity? Good to know.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
With this it's two civil liberties being sacrificed on either side of the debate. Numbers are becoming clearer and clearer. 400-500,000 deaths (if the NHS could maintain a similar level of care with millions of people in hospital at the peak), 1.5 million people with long term (over 12 weeks ) symptoms of long COVID, I think half the population would have been traumatised by such an event.
I've made my thoughts clear on zero Covid long term but zero Covid while waiting for vaccines was absolutely the right way to go about it. Of course the country of origin not lying about transmissibility of the virus may have made that a lot more plausible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s nowhere near as simple as that though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand how damaging lockdowns are. For me that's why it's even more important to get the first one right.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That would have been impossible mate. Everywhere bar a very few exceptions got second and third waves. This thing is an airborne virus.

Locking down should have targeted to the elderly and the vulnerable imo. The negative effects of shutting down the economies are yet to be fully realised.

Plus there are too many contradictory examples wrt lockdowns.
California vs Florida
Peru vs Chile
Colombia vs Mexico
North Jutland vs North Jutland
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree by the time we had decided to lock down it was already too late. This is where my dig at China comes in. If they had told us about human to human transmission timely instead of when the virus had already seeded the world it would have been easier to do. If we had locked down and closed borders in February for example I think it's very plausible we could have kept cases at zero throughout with regional short lockdowns affecting far less people when a few cases pop up. I don't want to be too judgemental though, because those are huge ifs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think that would have been possible either mate tbh. This virus is extremely transmissible and luckily not that deadly. If this thing was as deadly as sars was but as transmissible as it is, we’d be in a Twelve Monkeys type scenario for sure

comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Percy Pig aficionado (U3126)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by NPEEE (U22521)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Percy Pig aficionado (U3126)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by NPEEE (U22521)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 5 minutes ago
I do oppose lockdowns

I also appreciate that once a virus has been allowed to run rampant we have to lock down to protect the civil liberties of those who want to live
----------------------------------------------------------------------

So you think freedom is dictated by NHS bes capacity? Good to know.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If staying indoors (which I don't think anyone wanted, or likes) helps save lives, reduce transmission, happy to do so wholeheartedly.

That said, in my 20's or 30's I don't think I would have been as accommodating. Hard to believe it's been a year since I've been in the office.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

There are all sorts of measures that reduce deaths that we do not partake in as we accept liberty is important. Pets also jot delude ourselves lockdowns do not have consequences.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think anyone is in denial they (lockdowns) don't and won't have massive economic consequences but in light of how quickly R was rising after xmas, and the help out to eat out schemes etc I don't think the government left themselves with many options.

I recall over here at one point there were long queues of ambulances outside hospitals and ICU beds reaching capacity as well as staffing issues etc. There were significant strains on the health service that had to be mitigated somehow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t think restaurants made as much of a different as you would think. Remember reading that it was no more of a spreader than other areas of life.

comment by Just Shoot (U10408)
posted 6 hours, 53 minutes ago
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 48 seconds ago
comment by Just Shoot (U10408)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Automatic For The People (U21889)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted 20 seconds ago
If they're black - gangster/terrorist

If they're Asian - terrorist

If they're white - lost soul with mental health issues
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Every time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you class Jihadi John as a lost soul? Hmm, I don't. He's a terrorist.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jihadi John wasn't a domestic terrorist
----------------------------------------------------------------------
According to your category, he is a lost soul.🤷‍♂️
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Is he white?

'Kin hell
Old, Full Blooded Aboriginal Woman
...has a full on goatee beard
1.25 mins

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwSXFvDDjYE

What’s imperative for us to do is to look at the glaring contradictions that I have listed above, the fact that we have the third worst influenza performance in Europe and that we had much lower cases throughout the summer months from end of lockdown 1 until mid/late September. You have to combine all of those factors to weigh up whether a national lockdown is justified.

The problem was that we were only really hearing one side of the argument. Until the Barrington Declaration which was is October, even then it was generally ignored. Yet we followed SAGE models time and time again which are somewhat debatable to say the least. The SAGE model was used for Sweden which certainly didn’t lockdown and it projected 96,000 deaths. Last time I checked they were at 13,000 odd.

We had an in depth plan of action for this scenario which we had planned and agreed upon for years yet we just discarded it almost overnight because China locked down, then Italy did so we just followed suit due to the SAGE model, completely disregarded the program that we had in place.


The NHS was struggling, yes. More should have been done to isolate covid within hospitals, the nightingales should have actually been used. But with masks & social distancing, the majority of the country should have stayed open imo or at the very least, more discussion about it.

I understand why the politicians did it, to ‘save lives’ and look benevolent. This didn’t even work because everyone criticised them for shutting down too late anyway and some idiots attribute all covid deaths to the government anyway.

We don’t even have accurate death numbers. All we have is ‘died with’ as opposed to ‘died from’

I know that we all know lockdowns will have negative effects but I’m not sure everyone does, not properly. Not on a global scale either. And I think that too many people think that lockdowns really stop this thing, there is still no irrefutable evidence that they do, it’s just supposition upon supposition.


TLDR:

- too many contradictory results
- third worst in Europe for flu (another virus)
- SAGE model highly questionable
- National pandemic plan abandoned for lockdown
- NHS protection should have been better
- inaccurate death numbers

comment by Just Shoot (U10408)
posted 37 minutes ago
comment by son of quebec (U8127)
posted 4 hours, 3 minutes ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 1 hour, 35 minutes ago
comment by CrouchEndGooner (U13531)
posted less than a minute ago
So you say it just to wind people up?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Classic attention seeker.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There comes a time when a wum is repeated often enough people might understandably think that is what
the poster believes. I don't know if JS is racist. I do know he posts a lot of racist garbage tho.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I keep missing you on here, so a bit late, but hey, that's your mo.

What racist garbage do I post?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your Breonna Taylor "facts". Wee bit of an agenda on that. But I'm not going through your posts for the last year. You're just wumming and there's no such thing as racism. Right?

comment by thebluebellsarablue (U9292)
posted 1 hour, 15 minutes ago
comment by ttliv87 (U11882)
posted 1 hour, 49 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 10 seconds ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by ttliv87 (U11882)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Automatic For The People (U21889)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? Percy Pig aficionado (U3126)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 8 minutes ago
Oh look

EU threaten vaccines exports to U.K. and other countries yet again as the blame game continues.

What a fwcking shower. Ban it for over 65’s; criticise and question it; threaten to ban exports; hoard supplies and then postpone the roll out programme; threaten to ban exports yet again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hardly surprising the EU is putting member states interests ahead of third countries.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly. Quite absurd that the quitters STILL don’t get it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure you will understand why we should have no respect for EU rules they still want us to abide by then. Good ok Boris for easing trading rules with Northern Ireland, just putting our people first, I'm sure you will understand.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He negotiated the deal, you're applauding him for reneging on the deal he did. It's like Raab resigning as Brexit sec because he didnt like his deal, absolute insanity that these charlatans get a free pass from bootlickers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

There was a goodwill gesture behind this agreement and acknowledgment of a “light touch”.

They went quicker than you could say “Brexit means Brexit” so as far as I’m concerned and in light of the lack of any compromise instead sitting behind “themes the rules” then fwck them; rip the damned thing up.

I get the need for rules and guidelines, I really do; but they should be applied to make sense and smooth things; certainly not used as a barrier with some smug cwnts scoffing at the weaker partner. Strangely enough it seems the mantra on here at times almost as if some revel in it. We are talking about British people and the country here after all.

So it would appear the rules don’t work for either party in various guises.

So let’s stop the pretence and let’s get on with things as we wanted. There’s a lot more we can do to compete with the EU and they don’t want us right on their doorstep deliberately ripping things apart to suit ourselves despite what stance they purport to take.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well said. There are definitely quite a few people who are willing the EU to crush the UK and by extension the people living in the UK. Disgusting and outright traitorous back in the day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To the Tower.

Andrew awaits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Christ, what it with Brexiters and their f*cking victim complex?


You voted for this $hitshow all of it, so suck it up and stop whinging.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

So we’ll done the EU

Vaccine supplies to the U.K. to be significantly reduced from the end of this month.

Disruption until May at least.

What a wonderful partner to be associated with.

comment by Constantinople (U11781)
posted 2 hours, 59 minutes ago
comment by ttliv87 (U11882)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by Constantinople (U11781)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by ttliv87 (U11882)
posted 3 minutes ago
Thinking long term I hope they do ban exports and seize factories. We will be fine as we are self sufficient is vaccines. It may delay our completion by a few weeks, but the main hurdle in massively reducing deaths will be completed this week anyway (all over 50s getting their first jab). Long term this will send the message that the EU is not open to free and fair business and companies will not want to go there are be based there. I don't think the EU realise just how little a ban would affect us. The good thing is Ursula is such an amateur tactician I can actually see this realistically happen, so go on Ursula, we have been a very bad independent country, punish us
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Imagine thinking this country can go up ahead a union of 27 countries with a combined GDP of $18 trillion. We are a third country, everything that is happening to this country is down to us as we wrote the rules for being a third country.

The UK isn’t gonna shaaag you mate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know what you remainers are trying to imply with "third country", but the USA, Russia, China, India, Brazil etc are "third countries" too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
And don’t share a border with a European Union member.
----------------------------------------------------------------------