No. We are not doing this.
You constantly ask other people questions and try and go on the attack, but never ever answer any questions back. That is not a debate, it is a pathetic attempt at interrogation. Why do you think most people in the middle do not come on threads like this anymore?
I have already told you that three people quoted my post and largely tried to pull the card that the counter argument was insinuating the vulnerable were expendable. You are a big boy with a lot of time on your hands, you can go back through this thread and find it if you want.
If the virus spread further so that you were statistically more likely to die from it than cancer would you then support restrictions?
You do realise part of the management of the situation is to stop it getting worse, hospitals overwhelmed etc it’s not just based on what the odds of Nick from Cov has of dying at any specific period of time?
Yeah but like you've probably said before, it's also livelihoods and a poor support package will just mean poorer adherence to the rules.I totally agree with you.
This is a pandemic, not a fucking soap opera.
I think we can all agree it isn’t working but I also don’t think looking at who it affects holds an answers to current questions. The only thing to do is to cut transmission rates.
Looking at why Sweden is faring relatively well with its loser restrictions is probably down to population and genetic factors that are of little assistance in the short term rather than anything we can easily replicate.
Yes but you can't catch cancer tomorrow and be dead within a month, fucking hell Nick have a think about it eh?Isn't there hundreds of deaths a day from cancer that isn't all over the news and drummed into people?
Statistically, I think I am more likely to die from cancer than COVID too.
Good, devolution couldn't happen sooner if you ask meReally don’t get this. Feels like the government are losing control with regions cutting their own deals.
so you're lying, thats fine
Will be interesting watching the government react and play politics with the situation as they seem unable to decide if they want devolution or centralism depending on the circumstances.Good, devolution couldn't happen sooner if you ask me
Will be interesting watching the government react and play politics with the situation as they seem unable to decide if they want devolution or centralism depending on the circumstances.
We previously shielded everyone and that didn't work.
I don't really like comparing with other countries, but the data on Sweden suggests they are not having a second wave like the rest of the world. That should be investigated fully.
There has to be some common sense and ideas put forward on how to deal with this. I'm not a scientist and I'm not an economist, but I do not see how anyone can argue that the current method is working.
Also the ground that was shielded is not the same group being talked about as having underlying conditions, its a tiny fraction of that much bigger group.Did we? Last time I checked sending positive cases into a largely closed environment of the most vulnerable people isn't shielding
MR Johnson : "In two weeks, there will be more patients in ICU than at the peak of the first wave,"
we need a 4 week national lock-down and we need it now or by Monday the latest. fucking with the inevitable the doughnut
Well... I can understand the argument that if we run out of cash to fund the NHS, we're all shafted.Yes, but we must protect the economy.
How much of a sociopath do you have to be to toe this line?
Well... I can understand the argument that if we run out of cash to fund the NHS, we're all shafted.
However we could, of course, consider raising taxes on those lucky enough to be earning, to help pay for rehabilitation both medically and economically of those who won't be after this finishes...
Not arguing with you.Or we could of just raised business rates in the good times and used it in the bad.
Surey that's even worst then.
Did we? Last time I checked sending positive cases into a largely closed environment of the most vulnerable people isn't shielding
Deadly is a word.... think that’s slightly more important for me.It was said that our economy wouldn’t fully recover for at least 65 years just after we peaked first time around.
As mad as it might sound we need to take it head on. First wave was catastrophic, not sure there’s a word can be used for a second one.
They still didn't do their job though.No it isn’t the disease had just become common knowledge and they had limited data
Anyone here actually had the virus? I gotta self isolate as someone I know tested positive and I had been with them recently and she works in the hospital.
They still didn't do their job though.
Why are you shagging nurses during a pandemic? Brave.
Friends as far as I'm aware after like 15 years friendshipWhy are you shagging nurses during a pandemic? Brave.
How's it bullshit? They were called in to check on information of the virus spreading, there is now ay it's this infectious and they couldn't find any evidence of it.That’s just BS
How's it bullshit? They were called in to check on information of the virus spreading, there is now ay it's this infectious and they couldn't find any evidence of it.
Well... I can understand the argument that if we run out of cash to fund the NHS, we're all shafted.
However we could, of course, consider raising taxes on those lucky enough to be earning, to help pay for rehabilitation both medically and economically of those who won't be after this finishes...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?