Coronavirus Thread (Off Topic, Politics) (7 Viewers)

Ring Of Steel

Well-Known Member
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.

so you're lying, thats fine (y)
 

Nick

Administrator
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?

It depends on the restrictions suggested and whether they make any sense.

It's not just me, what are the survival rates of it?
 

Earlsdon_Skyblue1

Well-Known Member
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.

Don't disagree with most of that.

I think overall it is frustrating that we are a year down the line almost and there doesn't seem to be any real information on where this is going that is accurate. Everything is conflicting, even news on a vaccination.
 

Nick

Administrator
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.

The whole thing is about politics. Anybody who can make a decision is playing politics.

The media are playing politics.

Nonces.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
From what I can see the only politics here is:

Johnson doing a Brexit Corbyn and trying to please both his newfound base (generally pro lockdown) and his party (generally anti lockdown) and as with all people stood in the middle of the road is getting run over.

Sunak sticking rigidly to his dogma despite interest rates being at an all time low and borrowing making sense.

If we weren’t scared of short/local lockdowns for those two reasons we’d just do the strategy as devised. It’s trying to square that circle that’s causing all the issues. Burnham wouldn’t be being crowned King of the North right now if Tier 3 came with furlough support.
 

wingy

Well-Known Member
Got to say I was quite surprised that Sturgeon was prepared to run with the tiered system .
Looking like an outlier now with the devolved power's .
 

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
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.

Did we? Last time I checked sending positive cases into a largely closed environment of the most vulnerable people isn't shielding
 

Bugsy

Well-Known Member
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
 

Philosoraptor

Well-Known Member
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

Yes, but we must protect the economy.

How much of a sociopath do you have to be to toe this line?

Its all about the money.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
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...
 

Philosoraptor

Well-Known Member
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...

Or we could of just raised business rates in the good times and used it in the bad.
 
D

Deleted member 5849

Guest
Or we could of just raised business rates in the good times and used it in the bad.
Not arguing with you.

I'm all for more taxes on everything (including myself!) to pay for a better standard of living for us all, and a better society.

But... that's why I'm not in government ;)
 

Tommo1993

Well-Known Member
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.
 

Earlsdon_Skyblue1

Well-Known Member
Did we? Last time I checked sending positive cases into a largely closed environment of the most vulnerable people isn't shielding

Well, I would consider being allowed out once a day for exercise across the whole nation as pretty much shielding.

Sending patients into care homes from hospital is a completely different thing.
 

Ian1779

Well-Known Member
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.
Deadly is a word.... think that’s slightly more important for me.
 

Kieranp96

Well-Known Member
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 🙄.
 

djr8369

Well-Known Member
Allegations from Lancashire MPs that they were pressured into T3 with threats of transport lockdowns and withdrawn financial support.
 

shmmeee

Well-Known Member
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...

A country that has a fiat currency can’t run out of money.

As long as growth and inflation beat interest rates it’s always worth borrowing to invest.

It’s absolutely insane and economically illiterate to destroy the economy worrying about today’s deficit when you will need to spend exponentially more to get back what you’ve lost.

Jesus can you imagine these morons in charge during WW2? “Sorry we’re out of money for spitfires, got to keep the deficit under control” ... ten years later your deficit doesn’t matter cos you trade in Deutschmarks.

If we push millions out of work, destroy viable businesses, push people into mental health crises, it’ll cost us so much to get back.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top